I was helping a friend prepare for his licensure exam. I was dismayed when he showed me a sample copy of the test; there was as much about interpretive systems and theological jargon as about Bible content! I lamented, “How will this provide an accurate indication of whether my friend ‘correctly handles the word of truth?’”
Another friend, an evangelist-church planter, has eschewed licensure and ordination saying, “I don’t need that to do what God has called me to do.” A postmodern reaction to a highly developed system that may have at one time served a valid purpose, but no longer responds to current needs.
But might there be some middle ground between these hyper-theological* and “Just say no!” approaches to biblical preparation for ministry? The former could be filtering out all but would-be theologians, potentially excluding apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds, and the latter leads to pragmatism, potentially leading away from biblically rooted ministry.
Leaders or followers?
In chapter 8 of Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, Paul Hiebert presents the “self-theologizing” principle for use in cross-cultural, church planting situations. His insights are pertinent in this transitional period as leaders guide local churches out of confident modernity through suspicious postmodernity.
Dr. Hiebert writes, “It is essential that we train leaders who can wrestle with the theological issues that emerge within their cultural context (2 Tim. 2:2).”
There are few things to which we Grace Brethren should shout a louder, “Amen!” We want to develop men and women of the Word. We must realize, however, that “it is much harder to train leaders, for we must teach them to think for themselves, to disagree with us, and to stand for their own convictions. We must learn to accept debates and honest disagreements on tough theological issues without cutting off a [postmodern] brother or sister” (216).
And we must realize that without this type of prayerful, direct interaction with the Scriptures, we do not train leaders but followers “who merely believe what we say and imitate us” (215). But those who simply replicate applications of Scripture that were relevant during the 20th century’s liberal wars of religion will find themselves increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century’s proliferation of spiritualities.
And by demanding that emerging leaders believe identically like we modernists do, many of the strong may leave in frustration because they have not had the freedom and opportunity to participate in a dynamic, theologizing process (235).
Theological orientation?
As a church planter, I had wondered what would happen when I was no longer present to influence the theological orientation of the Dijon church. As my wife and I transitioned the church over to French leadership we recognized the accuracy of Hiebert’s words, “there is no way to guarantee the preservation of our theological convictions. We can write them in creeds and constitutions and can police churches and schools. But those who succeed us will come to their own convictions. Each generation in the church must come to its own living faith. Secondhand beliefs will not do” (216).
One Sunday morning, I sat listening to Franck, the Dijon church pastor, teaching from Scripture about healing. I was amazed because I could have preached the exact same content (only Franck presented it much better)! Even though we had never specifically discussed the subject our convictions were almost identical. How could this be if I never taught him? After all, I was his trainer and mentor!
My guess is that this common conviction was a result of relationship (some theology is more caught than taught) and because we approach Scripture utilizing a biblical theological approach and a common hermeneutic (grammatical-historical-contextual-prayerful).
Spiritual immaturity?
So should emerging postmodern leaders of Grace Brethren churches assume the responsibility and have the “right to understand and apply the gospel in their own settings? Is there not a danger that they will go theologically astray? The answer to both of these questions is yes. To grow, spiritually young churches must search the Scriptures themselves, and if—for fear that they well leave the truth—we do not allow them to do so, we condemn them to spiritual infancy and early death. On the other hand, to allow people to study the Scriptures for themselves always entails some risk” (208).
But as Hiebert says, “The Scriptures… speak of the priesthood of all believers. We need to teach all Christians to study and interpret the Bible for themselves and to apply its message to their lives. To deny them this is to keep them spiritually immature.”
I believe that Hiebert's "self-theologizing" approach to biblical truth is throughly in harmony with our Grace Brethren heritage and is a key to biblical mission. Young leaders are needed, guided by the Spirit of God, accompanied by gifted people, committed to the absolute truth of the Living Word, studying and applying it in fresh ways in their localities if we want to see local churches, not simply survive, but thrive and hive** into the postmodern future.
* theology: not in the sense of “knowledge of God” but rather of “a religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief.”
** "Hiving" is a term French church planters use for church multiplication. Just as bees form new cells onto a hive, churches “hive” out with new groups.
14 comments:
Hello!
My name is Zach Doppelt, and I am a "fellow blogger." I read from time to time your posts, and I find them interesting.
May I submit that the clarity of the word of God, and Holy Spirit led interpretation of Scripture can indeed bring us all to similar conclusions.
I make this comment only because I have wrestled with it, trying to rectify how we understand scripture, and I have found that differing opinions are neither here nor there, and should not cause us to abandon what the scripture says of itself, and of how we understand it.
I think the application then becomes the reality that we teach truth and trust that it is not up to us to guarantee that nothing is lost. We are not in control, God is. And, he will insure that we have wise shepherds and believers to carry on His message. We really have nothing to fear!
How does that affect licensure and ordination? I am still working on that, but I do believe they give a tremendous opportunity to have someone speak into one's life and ministry, and I would encourage your postmodern friend to continue for that benefit, even if he does not "need to."
Thank you for graciously allowing me to comment. Any thoughts?
paul,
you are right, much of the weakness in the current church is due to men being taught the right answer to give, instead of believing the right answer.
this means we must allow and encourage discussion, debate and questions. like you said, it means we must have a confidence that those we have the privilege of discipling will incorporate much that we haven't even had opportunity to address. we must trust God that His Word will preserve the truth in our hearts.
and, it also means we have to be confident for our own little fellowship. if we discuss a text with a brother and he disagrees about baptism (as just an example). let's suppose a man comes along who advocates paedobaptism. we should seek to expose him to the Scriptures that speak of the confessional nature of baptism. we can seek to show how his theological system may be trumping the clear teaching of Scripture. we can certainly attempt to sharpening him, showing him how we believe him to be wrong. at the end of the day, if he is not pursuaded, we can even support his endeavors as a church planter and celebrate all God is doing through his life.
however, we cannot call him grace brethren. it seems to me that we are so scared that our small fellowship may cease to exist, that we lack the courage to say, "we don't understand the Scriptures the same as you. this is not to say you are not a believer or that Christ will not use your church...but it does mean you don't fit in our Fellowship."
Universal church? yes.
Grace Brethren Fellowship? no.
it seems we either fear if we do this too much, our fellowship won't survive (which to me is a denial of God's sovereign working...if He wants the FGBC to survive, it will) or it is a neglect of the basis of true relationship (truth). because we hate to turn someone away or down, we sacrifice what we do believe to be true to preserve the relationship.
but if a relationship is not based on truth, what is the quality of the relationship?
forgive me if my comment is not applicable to your post. certainly, the difficult task for us will be determining which issues allows us to confidently say a person is a consistent fit for our fellowship's guidelines. (for ironically, baptism is maybe an easy one...when potentially more critical issues--such as 6 day creation, nature of the atonement, a Christocentric hermeneutic--go left unaddressed, and may be harder to tackle).
we certainly have plenty of work ahead of us.
Hi Paul,
Great subject for discussion once again! I appreciate what Hiebert has to say, but I am also interested in what Scripture itself has to say on the subject, either directly or by examples.
It seems that the Apostle Paul was very directly involved in keeping correct doctrine in the churches that he planted, even if it was from afar. The Pauline epistles are a great example of this. As much as he could not have ultimate control over the direction a church would go theologically, he seems to have done everything within his power to guide them as long as he was alive. It looks like Hiebert would call this "policing"?
We now have Paul's epistles, which he wrote to his church "plants" and "emerging leaders" to guide us. We have Paul's example as well. It seems that through his example, he shows the "apostolic church planter" the importance of keeping the church plant on the path of correct doctrine. Therefore, if a church planter sees a church plant with whom he is directly involved, moving toward incorrect doctrine, is it not his responsibility to teach, rebuke, correct and train in this area, using God's Word (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?
When we look at how Paul directed Timothy this seems very clear. If we view Paul as training Timothy as the "emerging leader" of the church, we can see what the role of an apostolic church planter may be. We can see this by looking at Paul's direction to him in 1st and 2nd Timothy.
Obviously there is a point at which an apostolic church planter will have little or no influence in the church which he helped to plant. But as long as he is alive shouldn't there be a connection that should be maintained in order to see how that church is doing?There is only so much that church planter can do to help keep them on track. But shouldn't they do as much as possible to keep them from false doctrine? If the church planter has a positive relationship with the people of that church plant, he should maintain the right to speak into situations such as this.
Do you see a difference between "self-theologising" as Hiebert discribes it, and culturally contextualizing an application of Scripure?
It seems that Hiebert's derogatory comment that "secondhand beliefs will not do" assumes that previous beliefs have less validity. While it is true that people need to take ownership of their beliefs in each new generation, this does not mean that the beliefs need to be retheologised, but rather better understood through teaching and by example. Stories may be one of the best ways to do this in this postmodern generation. We need to be telling our "stories" of what God has done for us, in us and through us. This will help this generation better understand the God of whom our theology is about in the first place.
Each generation needs to look differently at how it contextually applies Scripture. But each generation must hold to the truth of Scripture while doing this. This may be a difficult balance yet it is a critical one. I don't think this means each generation needs to come up with it's own theology. We do not need to reinvent the wheel when theologising and I don't think it's a good idea to force emerging leaders to reinvent the wheel either.
This was very long winded, so I appologize. But could you clarify for me what is meant by "self-theologizing". Maybe I do not fully understand the term.
Thanks for opening the dialogue on this subject. Tough topic, but definately worth persuing.
Scott B.
Welcome to the discussion Zach and welcome back Danny and Scott,
I’ll try to be synthetic in responding to all three comments, but will address issues raised in all three.
Zach, I agree that licensure and ordination (we do not have the latter here in Europe) can be a time of input into the person’s life and ministry, as well as an examination of Scriptural beliefs and convictions, even tribal (denominational) convictions.
Zinzendorf, arguably the greatest church planter of the 18th century, saw denominations as “part of ‘God’s economy’ to body forth the rich diversity of his gifts to men. He regarded each denomination as a ‘school of wisdom’ with its own particular contribution to make to the whole body of Christ.” So he taught that denominations were of God because He used them to preserve aspects of His grace that would be lost in an evangelically “vanilla” expression of church.
Zinzendorf goes on to say essentially what Danny expresses, “We shall impoverish our service of the wider fellowship if we let our membership of our own Communion become hesitant or indefinite. Rather we have to make strong the bonds of our own unity… maintaining all that we have received but recognizing also God’s gifts to His people through traditions other than our own.”
I fully agree with you Danny. And I hope I am not communicating that I don’t like the Grace Brethren because I love this fellowship of believers. One of the reasons I am able to interact and partner with others of common heart and vision is thanks to a strong identity in who we are as Grace Brethren and because we have so much good to share with others that we can be a blessing to them by rubbing shoulders. And in so doing, we too will be enriched by their gifts and insights.
Danny, I share the distinctions and attitudes you express: rejoicing that others adhere to the Word (Zach thanks for your strong insistence on Scripture and teaching Truth, because this is what some emergents are questioning), rejoicing in what God is doing through them, while recognizing that we might be from different evangelical branches or tribes.
Kent Good (now GBIM Cambodia) and I were part of the team that planted the Dijon church. He has worked closely with BILD, and put together a tool for testing one’s understanding and use of Scripture in various real life circumstances. A few of our Grace Brethren churches use it; it is the best I have seen — faithful to Scripture and harmonious with our Grace Brethren heritage.
Scott, while I agree with most of your thinking, my very point is that there is a difference between Scripture and our interpretation of Scripture. The comparison between Paul’s exhortations to Timothy and a church planter to emerging leaders is a bit artificial because God used Paul to actually write Scripture. (Again, Scripture is divine revelation. Theology is human explanation.) Paul is saying to Timothy and others, do not deviate from sound doctrine which is Scripture. This is EXACTLY what I am saying and what both Zach and Danny have underscored. And you are right, Paul did everything in his power to ensure that they remained faithful to God’s Word which is what we must do as well.
You ask, “Do you see a difference between "self-theologising" as Hiebert describes it, and culturally contextualizing an application of Scripture?” No, they are essentially synonymous. The church planter accompanies them, but it is the local people themselves who contextualize the Word for their situation. I strongly recommend reading not only chapter 8 “The Fourth Self” which is indispensable reading for any cross-cultural church planter, but the whole book. Hiebert, who just recently passed away, was a prof at Trinity Deerfield, strongly committed to Scripture and from an Anabaptist background.
Example and teaching are involved and study of theology is necessary in order to avoid reinventing the wheel, but these do not replace exegesis (at whatever level the person is able to do it) — direct interaction with the Word of God. I agree with Hiebert that “secondhand beliefs will not do.” Beliefs and convictions must become “mine,” i.e. firsthand. This in no way devalues beliefs of the past. It simply emphasizes the need for, not acquiescence, but personal adherence to a belief based upon one’s own faith in and understanding of the Word. While I agree that “people need to take ownership of their beliefs in each new generation,” some retheologization will be necessary for a number of reasons (and I will get into this in my next entry) learning from those who preceded us and from our contemporaries (this will be a future entry on the hermeneutical spiral).
Thanks for the thought provoking interaction! paul
Paul,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful insight on this subject. Your response was helpful to me. I think we are basically in agreement on this subject. I think that I was not quite as clear as I wanted to be in my last entry, but suffice it to say that I agree with you and what the others have posted about this topic. I think I now better understand what you and Hiebert are proposing. Thanks for your clarification.
I am very much looking forward to your next blog. It sounds like another important subject. You are doing a great job of tackling some really tough issues. Thanks for your boldness for Christ and His church!
Serving Him with you,
Scott Becker
Excellent discussion, guys. This is starting to sound like the FGBC at its finest.
The discussion also begs the next question, "What, then, is discipleship?"
Scott and Keith,
Yes, Scott I am quite sure that we agree on the important aspects. It simply takes some dialog to get to the bottom of what we really mean in a way that the other can understand! And in the process we sharpen each other’s thinking. Good "fencing" with you!
Keith, in answer to your question, simply put, I view a disciple as someone who obeys Christ out of a heart of love (Matt. 28, Jn. 15). Being a follower of Christ is neither just being orthodox in doctrine, nor just a biblically uninformed practitioner. I agree with Dr. Manahan's emphasis on orthopraxis.
And I agree with you, it is refreshing to be able to discuss important matters in a respectful, andragogically helpful manner.
Happy Thanksgiving weekend to all! paul
Thanks Paul . . .
By my question, I was referring to the discipleship process, not the definition of a disciple. I trust everyone would be totally in agreement with your definition. But how do we as disciplers make disciples in light of all of the previous discussion, and in light of verses like 2 Timothy 2:2. Must we not speak of doctrine and its implications? Or can we only read the Bible to people? Is all teaching and preaching to consist of just Bible readings? And then unguided discussions? No authoritative teaching (by this I mean a Holy Spirit authenticated teacher teaching the Word with power and authority)? Of course our goal is for each disciple to develop firsthand convictions - I'm right with you and Hiebert on this. But must this rule out teachers and theologians? So, the question I was leading into is, how, in light of all of the previous discussion, do we make disciples without imposing something on them?
Hi Keith,
You have asked the hard question! “How… do we make disciples without imposing something on them?” My responses:
No, inter-communal theologizing (my current best shot at an appellation to replace “self-theologization”) does not preclude “teachers.” They are people-who-are-gifts given to the Church by Christ himself (Eph. 4:11). That said…
I take issue with the statements “just Bible readings” and “authoritative teaching.” This may sound like polemical nitpicking, but elevating the teaching ministry, tacitly giving it authoritative status is analogous to Papal pronouncements and Charismatic prophecies spoken in the first Person. These utterances concomitantly raise Man’s interpretation or application of the God’s Word to virtual canonicity and unwittingly lower the status of the authoritative Word of God. In a postmodern era where Truth itself is questioned due to the atrocities that flowed from the exclusive and authoritative statements of the –isms (Communism, Nazism, Christianism, Mohammedism…), we must distinguish between man’s fallible explanation and the absolute Truth of Divine Revelation (the subject of an upcoming blog entry). I know you agree with this, but I need to reiterate in order to establish the context in which we make disciples.
I won’t take time to go into how sending gifted teachers to begin churches has actually slowed the church planting process. That would make a great café discussion topic for when we get together next. I am simply trying to reemphasize confidence in the raw Word of God that is “living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword.” I have an extremely high view of Scripture and assert that It must remain on the holy mountain top, and comparatively speaking, man's interpretation must remain far below in the valley.
The Word of God will speak to people (Is.55:11; He.4:12), as will the Holy Spirit, without interpreters. The Spirit and the Word are fundamental to the disciple making process and our disciple making methods must put believers in direct contact with and in dependency upon Them. Again, over coffee, I’d like to share with you how I determined that I had been making good Bible students through my pulpit ministry, but had not been making disciples.
I have learned much from Neil Cole in the area of disciple making. He has done excellent work, emphasizing the importance of intake of the Word and obedience to It (see "Cultivating a Life for God").
Now enter the gifted people for the building up of God’s people. Teachers obviously have a role to play, however… they are only one of the five people-who-are-gifts. We must reintroduce apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds into the edification process. Since the reformation the teaching gift has dominated the Church. At the time the belief was that the apostolic and evangelistic gifts were no longer in operation because the whole world (Europe) was already Christian! All they needed was the teaching of the Bible, of which they had been deprived. Since that time all ministry has been validated by the teaching ministry. Apostles (cross-cultural church planters), evangelists and shepherds (counselors) are commissioned provided they pass a doctrinal test. Okay, I schematize and we are now doing much better in equipping gifted people for ministry.
In my experience and observation, I really do not see character developed and obedience cultivated — which are at the heart of discipleship — through the teaching ministry. I realize that many, even among my own teammates, will strongly disagree with that statement. But I suspect that the prophets who went out with the apostles to plant churches (Acts) had an especially important role in the disciple making process, those who cry out “justice” (both corporate and individual) and who have the ability to speak the Word into people’s lives so as to see character shaped; those who teach obedience… to Christ’s teaching.
Well, all of that said, I do value the teaching ministry. I would simply like to see it brought back into balance. Human teaching must be viewed as being far below (infinitely?) the status of the Truth of the Word of God. And it must be interwoven into the disciple making process along with the ministries of apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds.
I do not claim to have all the answers, but I do question a lot. I am most certainly reacting against certain trends; and there is a difference between the established church and church planting contexts.
So good to interact with you on these important issues! paul
Thanks Paul - again!
I'll be looking forward to that coffee! I hope maybe some of your other recent responders weigh in on what you have said here. It really is the big question.
Of course, I agree with the Ephesians 4:11 philosophy of ministry that includes all five people-who-are-gifts. And I agree that the "reformational model" has not been the right biblical balance. And I agree that teachers do not often make the best church-planters. I observe, however, that many who fly under the banner of teachers may actually be prophets, or evangelists, or shepherds (apostles tend to stand out). So, should not these other four remain equally "in the valley" far below the mountaintop? I further observe the devaluation of teaching which has taken place through the American church-growth movement/emergent (not emerging) movement. It seems to me, then, that we need a lot more good Bible teachers (and a lot more of the other four also, especially apostles and evangelists). So, as one who functions largely in the teaching role, I find myself gasping for air these days.
Keith
Yes, only God and His Word are on the mountain top of absolute Truth. ALL people (five-fold gifts included) are "in the valley"! In one of my circles, "apostles" tend to aspire to authoritative status, but this cannot be. They are but small "a" apostles, not Apostles - the Twelve.
And I fully agree with you, in the past everyone was lumped together under the teacher rubric. Thankfully we are becoming more nuanced both in our understanding, training and deployment. The evangelist on your staff is an excellent example!
And even though I seek a more biblical balance, I certainly do not want to devalue the teaching ministry and teachers that God Himself has established. It is really rediscovering the value of the other people-who-are-gifts. Teachers remain vital to the building up of the body!
Hi Paul,
I would like to share with you two true stories from Ireland. The first concerns the visit of a group of American missionaries who wanted to start a Bible School in Killarney. They went to meet the Irish national director of Campus Crusade for Christ at the time to get his advice how to go about it. He asked them a question: “What criteria will you use to select your students?” Their answer was: “We have a statement of faith that all students will have to agree to before coming to the school.” As they discussed more it came out that the statement of faith was practically a theological treatise with defining statements relating to Ecclesiology, Hamartology, Pneumatology, Eschatology, etc. Obviously the curriculum was structured to be in line with the statement of faith and the Irishman’s comment at the end was (said with the humorous irony that the Irish are gifted in): “So, after spending two years in the Bible school the students will have learnt nothing?!”
The second story concerns two churches in Dublin that wanted to merge. One was a Baptist plant and the other the fruit of World Harvest (Presbyterian). The merger “negotiations” went well except for two questions. The Baptists wouldn’t baptise babies and the elders in their church weren’t allowed to drink alcohol. These could have been major subjects of discord but because they knew that the merger would be a good thing for both groups (increasing their visibility and credibility in the community they are reaching out to) they reached an Irish compromise. They now only baptise adults and they may go to the pub to celebrate afterwards. This wouldn’t have happened if they hadn’t been willing to compromise on what could be called secondary issues and in an increasingly post-modernist culture we have to be open to this. Good “culturally-sensitive” Bible teachers may help us in the process of discerning what is essential and what is secondary. I may have mentioned before that my Irish revolutionary hero is Thomas Davis and his motto was; “Educate that you may be free”. I’m all for Biblical and theological education because, if it is rightly taught, it can free us to be less defensive, less sectarian, and more at ease with not having all the answers and having to trust God that He will ultimately cause His truth to prevail.
I’ll get back to you another day on the discipleship issue, which I agree is fundamental.
Peadar
Hello Peadar,
Always good to hear from you and oh, how I appreciate your Irish-French perspective! Your stories illustrate so well the constraints created by and consequences of exporting contextualized theological constructs.
I will simply affirm your observations with a few quotes:
“If missiology should ever disappear from the American seminary, it would make a great loss and would result in the strong growth of provincialism and parochialism among both faculty an students.” Johannes Verkuyl
“We see it as foundationally indispensable for both a healthy theology and holistic missiology to continually strive for a theologically grounded missiology and for a missiolgically focused theology.” Peter Kuzmic
“American Christianity [is] immensely conscious of statements of belief, often set out as catalogues of unconditioned fact.” “The application of methodological common sense to theology has been the American tendency to use the new extended creeds (statements of faith) as tests for fellowship and a basis of separation. Perhaps the principle of separation is the converse of the principle of free association that lay behind so much of nineteenth-century American Christianity and provided so much of its dynamic.” Andrew Walls
“Missions keeps theology honest.” Timothy Tennent
Salut mon frère ! paul
Bonjour Paul !
n'étant pas en possession de ton email, je me permet d'écrire sur ton blog pour te souhaiter un ** JoYeUx AnNiVeRsAiRe **! Oserai-je te souhaiter un demi-siècle ? comme dirait papa, "un demi siecle, début de la sagesse"... De même ces mots s'appliquent à ton age: "From now on, I'm not doing anything I don't want to do! The world owes me happiness, fulfillment and success.... I'm just here to cash in." (Calvin;)
Clémence
Post a Comment