Church morphing: secondhand convictions

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.

Church morphing: truth or interpretation?

I was sitting in Marcus’ living room. He had grown up in a German Grace Brethren Church (my denomination). This young man is a building contractor, the lead elder in a lay-led church; his vision includes seeing simple churches scattered across the region of Germany surrounding his church!

Marcus had just shared with me about the work that God was doing in his life, obviously a fresh filling of the Spirit! And he turned to me with this question: “Does one need to be dispensationalist in order to be Grace Brethren?”

In 2008, the Grace Brethren will be celebrating our 300-year birthday! For the past few decades the predominant interpretive system among our pastors has been dispensationalism, but over the last three centuries the Grace Brethren have simply focused on biblical truth, relationship and mission. So in light of history, I shared, “No. We adhere to biblical truth, not an interpretive system.”

Alexander Mack founded the Brethren movement in 1708, not all that far from Marcus' home in Germany. Mack was a pietist, strongly committed to Scripture.

You will have recognized that an epistemological* question arises, n’est-ce pas ?! If truth exists, can I understand it? And between truth and understanding lies one’s interpretative system (everyone has one).

Thanks to his empirical methodology, Sigmund Freud recorded some rather interesting observations about dreams. He said, “Dreaming is evidently mental life during sleep.” “We see that dreams are not disturbers of sleep, as they are abusively called, but guardians of sleep which get rid of disturbances of sleep” (Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 107, 158).

Salvador Dali "Sleep" 1937

Fascinating stuff. But Freud pushes farther wanting to interpret the dream and so developed an interpretive grid based upon sex. Predicated upon “evolutionary truth” (197), Freud logically deduced that work became “an equivalent and substitute for sexual activity.”

He opines, “If the hypothesis I have here sketched out is correct, it would give us a possibility of understanding dream-symbolism… and why in general, weapons and tools always stand for what is male, while materials and things that are worked upon stand for what is female” (206).

A professionally trained female auto mechanic in Kenya (www.un.org)

Okay, now how many of us would agree with Freud’s starting point and the resulting interpretive system? We would all agree that dreams are real, but even psychiatrists differ on what dreams mean based upon varying interpretive systems. Similarly, truth exists, but our understanding of that truth will differ based upon the interpretive system used.

Brent Sandy, in his insightful book, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic, quotes John Stott saying, “The hallmark of authentic Evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny, and, if necessary, reform.” Brent goes on to say, “Sadly,… many people have inadvertently domesticated God.” Our interpretive systems can also domesticate His Word.


Brent points out that the raw truth of the Bible must have primacy over and evaluate even our interpretive systems. In a reference to C. S. Lewis’ Aslan, Dr. Sandy asserts (207), “The intent of the prophets is to let the lion roar”!

"Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good." Mr. Beaver to Lucy

SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CHURCH MORPHING?

As local churches move from modernity to postmodernity, young leaders must be encouraged to interact with the unadulterated Word of God. “Sola scriptura” (Scrpiture only) and “ad fontes” (back to the source documents) are the need of the moment.

To be continued…

* epistemology basically deals with the question, how do I know what I know.

Church morphing: is truth the ONLY issue?

A friend sent me a CD of John MacArthur speaking on “What’s so dangerous about the emerging church?” He begins by saying, “The bottom line, I think, in the movement is that it is a denial of the clarity of Scripture; it is a denial that we can know what the Bible really says.” At least in this interview, MacArthur made “truth” the only issue in the inherited / emergent church “conversation.”

(Next up: the often overlooked difference between Scripture and our understanding of Scripture.)

But talking about his leadership style, one emerging churches advocate said, “We are kingdom minded. If someone wants to start something, I approve it, providing the person is a part of the community and it doesn’t go against Scripture. We encourage people to be creative.” (Emerging Churches, Bolger & Gibbs, 293). Hm-m-m, sounds like a rather high view of Scripture!


Tim Boal introduces helpful nuance into the debate by distinguishing between the "emergent" and "emerging" positions on Scripture. He observes that among emergent group spokespersons (McLaren & co.), "There has been an increasing tendency to replace a belief in absolute truth with an understanding of truth as perceived or experienced in community… It appears the emergent group has followed this path from its once solid starting point.”

In this conversation, we must remember that adoption of philosophical postmodernism inexorably leads to the loss of absolutes.

In contradistinction to the emergent movement, Tim says, “The emerging church differs from the emergent church within evangelical circles in that it primarily focuses on the forms and experiences of the local church community and how these contribute to or diminish true community. Many young evangelical leaders support and promote the idea of absolute truth.” (“Getting Real About the Emerging Church”, Tim Boal - June 2007)

I found this helpful and have adopted Tim's terminology. I concur with those emerging churches people who say that relationship is vital AND truth is absolute.


I believe (this is after all a question of faith) that all truth emanates from the infinite-personal Creator God. Jesus, God the Son, declared: “I am… the Truth” (John 14:6). And He who is the truth declared, “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). I believe therefore that:

* Revealed truth is objective — God has revealed truth both historically in Christ and propositionally in His Word.

* Revealed truth is knowable — as rational beings created in God’s image, we have the ability to know God’s revealed truth.

D.A. Carson’s “Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church” is much more nuanced than MacArthur’s treatment of the subject. Carson adroitly deals with the “truth” issue. One could even get the impression from his book that it is the ONLY issue in this “conversation” between modernist and postmodernist expressions of church. But in an off-the-cuff remark, he notes one of the great motivators that fostered the emerging churches movement: a strong sense of mission.

Carson states, “It is something inherent in the movement itself. The attempt to break out of what is perceived to be the holy huddle of traditional evangelicalism is driven, at least in part, by a concern for evangelism, in particular the evangelism of a new generation of people who are shaped by postmodern assumptions.” (Carson, 52) I would say that it is accurate to say that in general the emerging churches movement has “the goal of reaching the completely unchurched” (Carson, 39).


One emerging churches leader says his church is “refocusing to become a community that is intentionally missional.” Bolger and Gibbs go so far as to say, “Emerging churches… their structure is missional in nature”!

Another emerging churches proponent says, "'This may seem pretty basic and obvious, but so many people just don't get it. We are definitely all missionaries and evangelists. There are some who are more gifted for this stuff or have more of a focus on it, and they are the people who encourage and lead us in this area, but we’re all involved.' For emerging churches, to be a follower of Jesus is to live as a missionary” (Emerging Churches, Bolger & Gibbs, 271, 107, 58).

Yet another emerging churches leader talks about this movement as a new reformation of the church, “Imagine that! A reformation built around mission and relationship…” (Carson quoting Chris Seay, 24).

Tom Julien has long preached that the 300 year focus of the Grace Brethren fellowship, to which I belong, has revolved around biblical truth, relationship and mission. I believe these time-tested, anabaptistic emphases provide reliable guiding principles for leaders to follow as they lead local churches into the postmodern, pre-whatever future.

What if local churches, rather than focusing on one or two of the above issues, espoused a tripartite focus, the emphases of the inherited AND emerging churches — the truth of Scripture, community and mission wedded in dynamic tension. Imagine that!

Church morphing: a worldly church?

Let's start with a quick quiz to determine to what extent the twentieth century Evangelical church espoused philosophical modernism.
How many of these modernist adages did the 20th century Evangelical church assimilate into its ethos or praxis? If and when they were applied, what forms did they take?
“I think therefore I am”
“Dare to know”
“Knowledge is power”
“Seeing is believing”
“We can do this if we will”

How many of these modernist maxims did the 20th century Evangelical church adopt into its ethos or praxis? If and when they were applied, what forms did they take?
The intellect can deduce truth with absolute certainty
Man will act logically
Progress is inherently good
The real world is material
By and large the Evangelical church of the twentieth century (with the exception of some postmillennialists) did not adopt the modernist belief that reason, by means of ideology-embodying institutions, would create utopia on earth on behalf of the autonomous individual. But I contend that she did absorb more philosophical modernism than is generally admitted.

The three “I ”s of modernism were:
Intellect (manifested through the reign of reason),
Ideology-embodied in Institutions, and
the deification of autonomous Individual.
All three of these tenets of modernism can be seen in the 20th century Evangelical church. The focus on the INTELLECT could be seen in the centrality, even dominance, of the teaching ministry in contradistinction to teaching being dynamically intertwined with apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and shepherding ministries, for the equipping of the people of God, as Ephesians 4:11-12 teaches.

I do not believe anyone would contest the assertion that 20th century Evangelical churches made an enormous investment of time in Bible study. This was good in and of itself. Often, however, this cultivation of a biblically informed intellect was disproportionate with, and to the detriment of investment in other equally biblical essentials such as prayer, evangelism, disciple making….

The 20th century Evangelical church’s morphing into ideology-embodying INTITUTIONS was reflected in the stanch denominationalism of members (“I am a Baptist, a card carrying Conservative Baptist!”). Exclusivist denominationalism of clergy reflected in the thinking, not that every ten thousand people need a believing church witness as missiologists claim, but that people needed a particular brand of collective witness to the saving grace of Christ. Thus every town needed a Grace Brethren, Assembly of God, Southern Baptist... church. (Some towns could get really crowded if every one of the more than 22,000 Protestant denominations were represented!).

The 20th century Evangelical church’s focus on the autonomous INDIVIDUAL is seen in the Lone Ranger, “Just Me and God,” approach to discipleship and the Superman approach to the ministry.

The Lone Ranger disciple read every “you” reference in the New Testament as singular, whereas many (most?) of these passages are plural, addressing the church collectively. Of course, most churches now recognize the absolute necessity of heeding the "one another" exhortations in Scripture.

The individualistic Superman pastor was modernist as well, expected to be the evangelist - theologian - teacher - preacher - counselor - shepherd - administrator - strategist - bulletin-producing janitor! Yet today we recognize that Scripture teaches a multiplicity of gifted people serving together in a coordinated manner.


So there are indications that many 20th century Evangelical churches embodied central tenets of philosophical modernism. Some even became reason-led, ideology-embodying institutions and catering to the autonomous individual.

In my discussions with pastors, a modernist approach is sometimes defended because in philosophical modernism absolute “truth” exists. They fear that a rejection of modernism means a rejection of knowable Truth. But truth existed, and people believed in God and the Bible before modernism, as some will do after modernism has passed.


No, the 20th century Evangelical church did not preach philosophical modernism's conclusion of utopia on earth, but it did adopt some of its values.

So to what extent did churches become guilty of worldliness by the assimilation of modernism's focus on the Intellect over the spirit, Institution over organism, and the Individual over the collective?

Seeing the rotten fruit of modernism (previous entry) and knowing of modernism's inimical relationship to faith (see May 10, 2006 entry), was the assimilation of modernist values without deleterious effects to the local church?

Were the modernist tenets systematically helpful for living and spreading the Good News of Christ?

Is it not possible that biblical essentials were filtered out of local churches ethos and praxis due to modernism's subversive influence?

My firm conviction is that this was indeed the case.