The arrival : Frohe Weihnachten!

In celebration of the birth of Jesus who came into the world to demonstrate the extreme love of God for women, men, girls and boys, I would like to share, albeit a rough translation from the original, a song from a French composer celebrating the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

I worship you God,

Even if you God,

Were irritated with me,

Your wrath was calmed,

Thanks to the Prince of Peace;

You saved me!

The Counselor is marvelous,

The Almighty is my Savior, 

My confidence is in Jesus Christ,

I put my faith in my King,

The Eternal Father in his zeal,

Gives peace eternal;

You console me!

On behalf of the entire Encompass Partners Europe Team, I wish you a very...

Feliz Natal

Frohe Weihnachten

Veselé Vánoce

¡Feliz Navidad

Joyeux Noël

Nollaig Shona

Merry Christmas !!!

Theologically positive?

So, are you theologically positive? Sure that you're sure? Rather are you theologically positivist? 

As summarized last time, August Comte established “positivism”: 

1 There is no place in the public sphere for subjective opinions. Comte preached that human knowledge “could be totally objective and, therefore, true in the absolute sense.” 

2 Human knowledge is without bias, said Comte. That is why, for the Positivist, “knowledge must be accurate in every detail for the whole to be true” and why there cannot be competing theories. All disciplines, all people of all times, in all places must arrive at the same understanding of reality. Human understanding is synonymous with absolute Truth. This is why, positivism is belligerent, “characterized by attacks and counterattacks as each party claims to the have the truth.”

Fortunately that bellicose mindset is only true within the scientific community, right? Evangelical theologians would never, anywhere, by anyone be considered as “belligerent,” right?! 

Ask the man, woman, child or dog in the street what they think of the fact that there are over 36,000 protestant denominations in the world? And of those denominations, the evangelical ones will claim that their denomination’s interpretation of Scripture is the “right” one, i.e. true, or even Truth. 

(By the way, this is what the Roman Church did during the Inquisitions.)

Paul Hiebert states, “A positivist stance on theology postulates a direct (sometimes referred to as one-to-one) correspondence between the Bible and theology—between the messages found in the texts and the interpretation of them in the mind of the theologian, who is seen as an objective observer. It assumes that the careful scholar of the text can understand the meaning intended by the writer accurately and without bias.” 

Hiebert goes on, “Because the Bible is affirmed as true, as it is by conservative theologians [PK: of which I am one], and because theology is seen as an accurate and unbiased reading of the Bible, theology itself becomes absolute truth. Positivist theology claims both biblical authority and theological certitude.” *

A mentor of mine, Tom Julien, once wrote, “we must not attribute certainty to theological inference.”

There are obvious strengths and weaknesses to a positivist theological approach. You can figure out the strengths for yourself or read Hiebert’s book :-) Some of the weaknesses are:

1) It dilutes the absolute authority of Scripture. “Theology based on positivism… does not differentiate sufficiently between divine revelation recorded in Scripture and theology as a human endeavor that seeks to understand that revelation. It often claims final authority for theology, which belongs to Scripture alone” asserts Hiebert.

2) It undermines the priesthood of believers. Hiebert points out that “because theology requires a precise, technical knowledge of the Scriptures and philosophy, it should be done by specialists. The laity are encouraged to study the Bible for themselves, but the orthodoxy of their beliefs is determined by the experts."

3) It leads to unnecessary fratricide (is there ever “necessary” fratricide?). Theological positivism believes that “there can be only one right theology. If there are disagreements, one of the theologies must be false. Because each of us assumes that we are reading the biblical text honestly and without bias, we judge others as mistaken. Disagreements often lead to direct confrontations, accusations of heresy, and schisms in the church. There is little room to work together to understand Scriptures and to live with differences in the body of Christ.”

But if I am not positive that my theology is perfectly true, does this reduce absolute Truth to relative truth? Absolutely not! 

A way forward (critical realism) would humbly say, 
“Scripture is perfect but our understanding of Scripture is imperfect.” 

We see in a glass dimly, but we do see. 
Scripture is absolutely True; in our imperfection we seek to learn from each other and grow in our understanding of that Truth.

Enter the hermeneutical community.

* "Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World," 19-22. 

Are you Positive?

In my previous two entries I employed the postmodern “hermeneutic of suspicion,” applying it to the space program and medical community. Next time I’ll apply it to the evangelical theological community… just for fun.

Do you remember the title of this Hitchcock film?

Both of the aforementioned communities have a starting point, they assume that their presuppositions and foundations are “right,” by which they justify their pursuits and expenditures. 

As a matter of fact, during the last half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, the scientific community was dubbed as the final arbiter of Truth. How did that happen?

It all began not with, "I doubt, therefore I might be," but with cogito ergo sum — "I think therefore I am"

Modernist ideology declared REASON as authoritative because REVELATION as interpreted by the Roman Church had become lethal (see entries 13, 23 Jan & 10 May '06). Modernism's promise was: Science working through Institutions will create Utopia on earth for the autonomous Individual. 

If it was all for the autonomous individual why are the men bowed, subservient to the goddess of Progress?

August Comte (1798-1857) affirmed that the “scientific or positivist spirit will, by an invincible law of progress of the human spirit, replace theological beliefs or metaphysical explanations.” 1 

There was therefore no longer place in the public sphere for subjective opinions. Positivists believed that human knowledge “could be totally objective and, therefore, true in the absolute sense” 2 ; it was without bias. 

Positivism presupposed that “humans always act rationally.” 3 

Or as Descartes put it, “it suffices to judge well, in order to do well.” 4

August Comte, the French father of sociology, sought to move toward a “religion of Humanity.”

Modernist Man had vehemently and violently rejected the Roman Church’s interpretation of reality and placed His faith in His own Reason to discover Truth. Human Reason co-opted the Catholic Church’s claim to infallibility. 

Humans will act logically, preached the new Man. 

Progress is inherently good, taught the new priests — university professors. 

The real world is material, announced the new apostles — the scientists.

Thus, there was great optimism at end of the 19th century. The  20th century was to be a century of peace, the crown of all centuries where technology, transportation, medicine, progressive understanding of history would end human strife. 

“There will be war no more!” was the mantra. Humans would no longer exploit other humans. The 20th would be the century of elevated human reason. Reason, not revelation, would finally rule. And it did. 

Friedrich Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, declared, “God is dead.” Nietzsche’s superMan was a new kind of creator. Zarathustra himself warned, “but all creators are harsh.” 6

This is the Superman that was expected at the beginning of the 20th century 

This is the superman, in line with Nietzsche, that actually showed up

The reign of Human Reason caused the greatest collective bloodbath in the history of mankind. The Modernist superMen — Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tito — led by Human Reason (these men clearly rejected religion and God) wielded ideology, technology, transportation, medicine, and a progressive understanding of history to create highly efficient means of killing other men before they could die from the diseases that modern medicine could not heal.

Donald Shriver points out that from the 16^th to the 19^th centuries, 34 million people were killed in wars. Yet in just one century — the 20^th “Century of Peace” — 107,800 million people were killed in warfare. 7 

Alexandre Solzhenitsyn summarized: “The most optimistic century ended as the most cannibalistic.”

Modernist Secular Man's evil geometrically surpassed that of religious men

CONCLUSION 

Believers need to acknowledge crimes done in the name of Christ. People really were tortured and killed in the name of Christ. Jesus predicted that this would be done by men who “neither knew the Father nor me” (John 16:2-3). 

But the Secular & Scientific Institutions that promulgated Humanism & Modernism are also guilty of the same crimes (on a greater scale) as the Church that they were allegedly rescuing people from: unjustly claiming to be the spokesmen for Truth, perpetuating itself at other’s expense, guilty of atrocities such as experiments done on human beings, torture, rape and mass murder. 

QUESTIONS

If the Roman Church and guilty believers should acknowledge their crimes, should not Modernist Man do the same? 

If Man always acts logically and people today reject the Church because of the Crusades and the Inquisitions, should they not also reject Science, technology, Secularism and Humanism  which are culpable in the extreme? 

In light of these things, how is Modernist Secular Man more trustworthy than pre-Modern Religious man?

Enter Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault… the postmodernists.

1 translated from «La pratique de la Philosophie de A à Z», 355.

2 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 98.

3 Earl Babbie, The Practice of Social Research, 49. 

4 René Descartes, Discours de la méthode, 50.

5 Paul Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts, 3, 11.

6 Friedrich Nietzsche, Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra, 116-117.

7 Donald W. Shriver, Jr. An Ethic for Enemies: Forgiveness in Politics, 65.

Medical hubris

In my last entry I shared that my postmodern moment with the space program evinces the possibility that some sectors of today's Scientific Community are guilty of consuming massive amounts of money in pursuit their own self-perpetuating goals. 

A second postmodern moment—personal disillusionment with Scientific Institutions—came this past summer when I was subjected to some megalomaniacal claims of the Medical Community. 

My wife participated in a two-day mitochondrial conference where hundreds of researchers, doctors, practitioners and patients stricken with mitochondrial conditions gathered in Washington D.C. I accompanied her to the evening banquet where the keynote speaker presented the research that was being done. Research that unquestionably has been helpful to a number of people. 

Allow me to preface my upcoming critical observations:

• I highly value research. 
• I do not expect miracles from the medical community. 
• I have friends who are medical doctors who truly care about people and do their best to help them. 
• The medical community has helped millions (billions?) of people and I am thankful for medical practitioners and advancements. 

Did you see him in the Olympics?

It was the boastful claims of the Medical Institution at this particular gathering, flagrantly uttered into the ears of suffering people (and primary caregivers), that raised my ire. 

Some researchers and doctors in the room obviously viewed themselves as an elite group of people, above those in other disciplines. (E.g. I hold a doctorate in missiology which is interdisciplinary—sociology, theology and history—considered to be "tainted" by its metaphysical component. The "social" disciplines are deemed “soft,” not “hard” sciences, thus considered to be less rigorous and reliable.) 

Note that "religion" is not even considered

The evening began with an opening speech by the president of a patient’s association. She confessed to having traveled the world over, seeking help from everything from the Scientific/Medical Community to shamans and filipino healers, to the denigrating amusement of some of the doctors in the room who were, by the way, unable to help her. 

This movingly sad testimony was followed by the president of the mitochondrial research group. His triumphal discourse implied confidence that given enough time and money, the Medical Community would one day cure mankind’s ills. He shared about breakthroughs that have helped a small number of people at the cost of $10s of millions.

I was reminded of the woman “who had had a hemorrhage for twelve years. She had spent everything she had on doctors and still could find no cure” (Luke 8:43). Despairing patients, parents of afflicted children and primary caregivers have no other this-world-recourse but to put their faith in scientific "miracles." 

I believe that God heals people today. Yet mine is not a rejection of medicine nor a denigration of medical doctors. I pray concomitantly for healing, for my doctor, and that medication will be effective. I would simply like to see humility in a Medical Community that seeks the good of the patient. It would be refreshing to hear specialists admit that, while they can alleviate some suffering, they cannot and will not be able to cure all of humankind’s maladies. 

The Servant who healed the afflicted woman 

The September 13, 2012 editions of Le Monde (a French NY Times) cited a report by the former dean of the Paris College of Medicine that a cholesterol medication taken by about 4million French people, at the cost to the health system of 2billion euros per year, is “completely useless.”* Concerning other medications, the report concludes that “5% are potentially very dangerous.” 

The Wall Street Journal cited a report by an 18-member panel of doctors, business people and public officials about the U.S. health-care system. While acknowledging the good that the medical community has done, the study group claims that  $750billion per year is wasted in “unneeded care, byzantine paperwork, fraud and other waste.”**

Curtailing some of this waste might help the U.S. economy regardless of whom one votes for in the upcoming election. But evidently this sector is either unable or unwilling to render itself efficient. Or possibly it believes itself deserving of $750billion worth of perks per year in light of the good that does for people. 

In the pre-modern era the Roman Church was accused of financial abuse, exploiting people by various means in order to pad its own pockets and top off its coffers. Clergy lived in opulence while the commoners footed the bill. Guilty as charged. 

“Yes but,” one might retort, “while the Scientific and Medical Institutions may be perpetuating their own existence and consuming vast amounts of money in doing so, they nonetheless do some good.” 

“Granted,” I concede, “but ‘religion’ and the ‘Church’ are often portrayed as categorically nefarious. This is patently untrue. History demonstrates, for example, that the monastic movement saved Western civilization from barbarism. Much earthly good has also come from Christianity." ***

The metaphysical is rightfully viewed as a matter of faith. But it is disparaged, not necessarily by individual scientists and doctors but by the Scientific Institution, relegated to the private sphere, sequestered with other “mythologies.” Yet, is unquestioning confidence in the Scientific Institution’s benevolence and ability to eventually heal all of man’s hurts warranted? Is not their trust in their own abilities, in the face of historic facts, a matter of "faith"? 

The RMS Titanic

“After all,” one might argue, “while it is unfortunate that some in the Medical Community may be profiting financially from its superior status, at least the Scientific Institution hasn’t tortured and killed people like the Church did during the Crusades and the Inquisitions.” 

"Oh really?!"

Next up: Positivism and the rise and fall of the 20th century superMan.

* Le Monde.fr, “Selon MM. Debré et Even, un médicament sur deux ne sert à rien,” 13.09.2012

** Wall Street Journal, “Report Cites $750 Billion in Annual Health-Care Waste,” September 6, 2012

*** See for example, How The Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill.

Postmodern moments

I seem to be have increasingly frequent "post-modern" moments. Two of this summer's involved the medical & space communities. In these instances I experienced disillusionment with these institutions whose professed purposes are to better the lot of mankind.

My postmodern moment with the space program came in a discussion with a friend who works for NASA, whom I will call “Moe.” I was a bit surprised by this engineer's complete "faith" that one day science would solve man's ills.

I thought that Westerners’ confidence in Man and His use of technology to create utopia on earth for the good of the autonomous individual was shot full of holes during WWI (when man used technology to develop the machine gun enabling men to mow other men down with greater efficacy), and incinerated in WWII (when technology was used to better “dispose” of people = Auschwitz).

A WWI technological advancement, the Maxim MG08/15

Before I go farther I need to qualify my remarks. I want to remain respectful of scientists and medical researchers for a number of reasons: 

• when discussing polemical topics we should do so with respect - 2 Timothy 2:23-24, 
• I have close friends and family in both of these sectors 
• a vast number of medical doctors and research scientists have impeccable motives and are doing commendable work
• I greatly appreciate the advances that science has brought to mankind 
• I highly value research and development; when I see it cut back I get rather apprehensive about the future.

Ok, so Moe’s faith that science would one day solve humankind's woes was a surprise. He went on to share his exasperation about the lack of rigor practiced by a team leader in conducting experiments. Moe acknowledged that findings could in no way be conclusive when arrived at by such slipshod means. 

So I was dumbstruck when Moe referred to a proposed space project costing 10s of millions of dollars saying, "At such a low cost, why wouldn't we try it?" 

I do not believe that scientists would take offense at my observation that a vast amount of research presupposes macro-evolution as fact. Yet a good bit of experimentation nonetheless seems to attempt to amass conclusive proof for macro-evolution. Apparently the evidence is not as conclusive as some scientific spokespersons would like us all to believe. (See Michael Denton, Evolution a theory in crisis.) 

One of the goals of the current Mars project, for example, is to discover whether traces of life can be found there to help explain how life began here. 

Yesterday (Sept. 9, 2012) I read in the LA Times: 

"New Mars theory casts doubt on planet's habitability: a study of clays suggests they might have been formed in hot (1500 degrees celsius) magma rich in water — too hot to support microbial life." 

Ok, so the only “scientific” way to prove the still unsubstantiated-to-anyone’s-full-satisfaction theory of macro-evolution is to keep looking. But at what cost?

Summary

My postmodern moment, disillusionment with the scientific institution, consisted of: 

1. the unquestioned confidence of some members of the scientific community in their ability to usher in utopia, 
2. lack of rigor in the application of their own scientific method, 
3. a spendthrift attitude in spite of the former, and 
4. in some experiments, blind faith concerning debatable presuppositions and purpose. 

My conclusion 

Some sectors of the scientific community are as guilty as the pre-scientific religious community that gave them birth. 

The Church was often (rightly) accused of impoverishing the masses to fill its own coffers, augment its prestige, and pursue its own inward-looking purposes without contributing to the betterment of the general populous. All of this while priests and theologians invested their time on arcane questions caricatured by, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

Next 

Positivism and the medical community, after that the theological community…

Common grounds

Common Grounds is a fashionable name for coffee shops these days. What's behind that?

First, COFFEE. For some inexplicable reason people like to give me books about coffee. Examples: A chacun son café (for each one his café), La dolce vita: coffee, The Devil's Cup: coffee, the driving force in history, and the list goes on. In light of the plethora of books on the subject, I am obviously not the only one who imbibes this nectar of life.

Coffee: the aroma, the warmth and reassuring solidity of the cup (note: styrofoam is evil) in one's hand, and… the flavor! Sumptuous.

Second, COMMON ground. Ideologies polarized people. For example:

Politically: In Russia, not simply bourgeois vs. proletariate, but trotsky-ism vs. stalin-ism.
Economically: In the West, Karl Marx-ism vs. Adam Smith-ism.
Religiously: Since Hus, Luther and Calvin, Catholic-ism vs. Protestant-ism.
Philosophically: Since the French revolution, the-ism vs. human-ism.
Musically: In the '60s, classical music vs. the British rock invasion.

This group reappeared at the half-time show of the 2010 Superbowl. The edge of youthful rebellion seemed a bit tarnished and dull coming from a 66-year old man.

I think the Common Grounds spirit asks, can't we all get along long enough to drink a coffee together to discuss our differences?

The château of St. Albain (see previous entry) was a place that brought down the "us" vs. "them" walls, so that believers could interact with unbelievers in a safe, convivial ambiance.

But that was the '60s and '70s in the French countryside.

At the beginning of the 21st century I wondered, "What would a château-in-the-city look like?" Obviously, one cannot just plop a castle down in the midst of the urban sprawl.

And these places are not exactly affordable even if one were for sale

The church that my wife and I had helped to start was doing well and reaching out to families with young children. But what venue existed to help singles, couples without kids, families with grown children, share Christ with people who would not attend church (most of the people we knew)?

One day, my wife was reading La Vie (yes, a Protestant reading a Catholic magazine!) where she stumbled across an article about a group of ex-hippies who had started a fair trade café in Lyon, France. She thought, "We could do something like that."

Four years later… the Mustard-ville Fair Trade Café was born!

The café looks a lot better in its post-renovation stage

Fair Trade militates against exploitation, attempting to ensure that the coffee producers in the two-thirds world receive a fair wage for their labors. In that way, a coffee-bean-harvesting-father can feed, clothe, house and educate his children.

Fair Trade is concerned about justice. So are Christians. So is Jesus. As a matter of fact Jesus died so that we might be pardoned our injustices.

The Mustard-ville Fair Trade Café provides common ground where people who like coffee, who are concerned about justice in the world, can do good for someone in another part of the world simply by purchasing a cup of Joe. And it allows believers, who are desperately concerned about justice, both personal and corporate, to meet and interact with others upon this common ground.

For example, my wife was part of a literature club. They would read a book, then get together to discuss it. After one of the sessions a man from the group saw a poster for the next InterVaristy Christian Fellowship meeting at the café.

He asked my wife, "Can anyone attend that?"

She replied, "No, it is really just for students."

"Oh that's too bad, because I would be interested in that and have a couple of friends who would be as well."

InterVarsity students at the Fair Trade Café

Subsequently we were able to start up a reading group in the Gospel of Luke. The first night we had 15 people and only 3 were believers! My wife and I simply facilitated the discussion. We read about a half chapter and then asked three questions:

What does the text say?
What do you think about that?
How do you feel about that?

Great discussions ensued. People were reading the Bible for themselves. My wife and I had plenty of opportunity to interact with them. Good News seed was sown.

All thanks to common ground… and coffee.

Neutrally yours

I met a group of business people for breakfast to exchange ideas about "making disciples" in Western cultures.

As we talked I shared my teammates' experiences in evangelism in France since the 1950s. Since Tom did not speak much French, but wanted to get the gospel out, he decided to employ a hi-tech, cutting edge approach.

THE IMPERSONAL ATTEMPTS

TRUE STORY 1: Way back when, Tom knocked on doors and asked, «Est-ce que vous voudriez écouter ce message, s'il vous plaît ?» ("Would you mind listening to this, please?" ) If they responded positively, he hit the play button on his spanking new cassette player and began the recorded gospel message.

I guess today this would be a bit like doing door-t-door with an iPad with a YouTube clip from the Jesus film 8-)

Ok, so this impersonal approach is a strawman. Or is it? Two more examples.

TRUE STORY 2: The evangelical protestant church that I helped to plant, organized a “Year-of-the-Bible” multimedia conference. Five thousand invitations were distributed to homes surrounding the church’s facility. No one came as a result of the distribution. 

One woman came because she had seen the half-page article in the local newspaper. Eight people (out of about 40 total) came because they had been invited by a friend from the church.

TRUE STORY 3: Anne-Marie, a Campus Crusade worker distributed invitations during the World Cup. She reported: “10,000 tracts were distributed in the streets to invite people to the event ‘Succeed.’ Only two people came, and they did not come because of the distributed publicity but because two of their friends had invited them.” (reference: David Brown, Une église pour aujourd’hui, 67.)

THE RELATIONAL IMPERATIVE

Tom was and is insightful. In spite of the pressure to "get the message out" and into people's auditory canals, he sought ways to get the Good News into people's hearts. So he went to L'Abri and spoke with Francis Schaefer, came back to France and purchased a castle!

During the hay day of the hippy movement, young people traveled all across the French countryside, stopping at places like the Château at St. Albain. Here there was no "us" and "them," like there was when a "longhair" walked into a church building.

The Château was (and is) a neutral meeting place where unbelievers and believers could talk about superficial and deep issues, about life and the afterlife. 

A camera clinic at one of the Château's "artistic days"

The working principal of the Château of St. Albain was, "the effectiveness of the evangelism is in direct proportion to its relational context." People came to Christ and churches were started from that innovative ministry. 

Relational = cutting edge. 

Cooking class at the Château

In the 21st century, having contributed to a successful church plant, my wife and I began to wonder, how might we adapt the Château's relational principle to an urban context? What would a "château-in-the-city" look like? 

More to come…

Passive participation?

As part of the research for my doctoral thesis I conducted qualitative interviews with 17 church planters who have started churches in France by focusing on youth. In this way, I was able to distill principles from their praxis, methods, & approaches. 

One of the leitmotifs that emerged from those interviews was › youth do not want to watch, they want to PARTICIPATE in church. 

The French evangelical alliance’s final principle — number 6 — for churches attempting to be fully biblical and full witnesses in this perpetually fluctuating world, is “participation and transformation.”

By way of reminder, the navigational principles (found in David Brown's book: «Servir à nos Français»:

Principle #1: doctrine of warm welcome

1/ “We believe we need to bring together the biblical convictions of a professing church with warm welcome toward those who come in contact with that church.”

Principle #2: incarnation and reflection

“The church is as much the church when she is dispersed in society as when she is assembled.”

Principle #3: truth and coherence

"A major part of the work of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is… to give form to the 'reality' [the Truth of God's eternal story] by providing a concrete expression of its existence, and that through the life of its members."

Principle #4: simplicity and creativity

"We seek to encourage a form of piety and spirituality that allows Christians to develop their relationship with God,” a simple spirituality that "will engender creativity among its participants. Mindless repetition, memorized phrases, and platitudes do not constitute an authentic relationship, either with God or with others." 

Principle #5: encounter and calling

“Without rejecting the importance of events and the use of electronic communication, we believe that the church must remain a place of true encounter, a source of happiness and growth. This is because loneliness and the difficulty of personal encounter are today, all too present.”

Principle #6: participation and transformation

Essentially this principle refers to the doctrine of the “priesthood of believers.” I often refer to this doctrine and my wife reminds me that “people don’t know what you are talking about.”

What I mean by the “priesthood of believers” is: 

a community of lay people (men and women) who have received the Holy Spirit by faith in Christ, who serve both the church and humanity; in this way, they serve God Himself.

Martin Luther put it this way: “The pastorate is not a priesthood, but only one of the functions of the Church of which all of the members are priests.… When it comes down to it, clergy and lay people only differ in function, not in rank, because they are all, in their spiritual status, true priests, bishops and popes.”° No wonder Luther had troubles with the Roman Church!

But the great doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers, says Alfred Kuen, never really found practical application within the evangelical church. Swiss theologian Emil Brunner commented,  “The protestant churches essentially remained pastor’s Churches.” 

Why? The evangelical alliance workgroup observes areas in which transformation must take place, where and why leaders do not entrust ministry to members. 

1) Pastors may fear theological unfaithfulness to immutable doctrines (a legitimate concern). 

But there may also a fear of unfaithfulness to denominational convictions and values that are not absolute. Missionaries and pastors, therefore, may be hesitant to delegate responsibilities to people not interested in perpetuating historical traditions.

2) The adherence to inappropriate foreign (anglo-saxons are specifically mentioned) methods that are not adapted to the local context. These methods may not make sense to locals or may simply feel strange to them. The nationals therefore may not adhere to or buy into such approaches.°° Missionaries and pastors may suspect this reaction and therefore not entrust lay people with responsibility. 

3) Finally, the training of new pastors and leaders must include, not only a strong theological formation, but equipping in savoir faire, hands-on training. (French education is notoriously theoretical.) 

David Brown writes, “Our [French] churches are filled with members who do not give fully their potential, and with pastors who are exhausted from the task.” 

I recently spoke to a French church’s youth group. The young people were anxious and nervous throughout the weekend as they awaited news from their pastor. Would he stay or would he resign? (He did in fact submit his resignation.) A church counsel member had attacked him (not physically) and the pastor went into depression. Even though that person left the church the pastor had been so marred by the incident that he withdrew himself from the ministry. 

Years and years ago, I was pastoring the church in Dijon that I helped to plant. I vividly remember two different church attenders tell me, on two separate occasions, that whenever a new pastor came they would either not follow him or would try to “cut the grass out from under his feet,” i.e. knock his legs out from under him. They explained to me that this is how one deals with leaders. 

(Today I view this as a form of hazing to test the mettle of an emerging French leader.) 

A few years back the Geneva Bible Institute changed their program. Why? They had discovered that 3-out-of-5 men entering the ministry had left during the first 5 years. The Institute has moved to a three-cycle program that involves theological training as well as two internships in different churches, with different mentors. This exposure to real church life and leadership under the guidance of experienced pastors has seen good fruit. (This is how the Dijon church received its first French pastor; Franck was my intern from the Geneva Bible Institute.)

For multiple reasons, the ministry can nor should depend on or revolve around one man. 

The biblical model is a “church composed of active members, not only in the sense of active doing, but also with the ambition to live holy lives in a world that encourages everything except that.” “There is need for a spirit of teamwork, with mutual listening and encouragement” (Brown, 255). 

Jesus wants, not just the participation of the pastor, but of all believers, both old and young.

° Quoted in A. Kuen, Je bâtirai mon église, 272.

°° These concerns are valid and are answered by application of the Four missiological “self-principles”: self-governance, self-financing, self-reproduction and self-theologizing.