SCRIPTURE THOUGHTS
WITNESS TO THE WORD
MUSELTOF COUNTERCULT AND APOLOGETICS
1987: I was sitting in a missions course entitled PERSPECTIVES ON
THE WORLD CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT. It was, and I imagine still is, a
true learning experience with much good material.
It was during this class that I learned of C. Peter Wagner and
others who were pushing "principles for church growth." As I sat
and listened at that time, I liked some of what I heard - but
other parts concerned me. I didn't think much of it at the time,
but I remember thinking of several problems that could arise
around such ideas.
They have.
2002: As I sit here typing this, the "Church Growth Movement" is
in full swing. Today, the principles spawned by Donald McGavran
and popularized by C. Peter Wagner are praised by an odd
assortment of strange bedfellows: Paul Cho, Robert Schuller, Bill
Hybels, Rick Warren, and others.
Such principles, to varying degrees, are fast becoming the norm
for evangelical churches of every denomination. Some "church
growthers" are men of God who want to see people touched for the
Kingdom, while others are wolves in sheep's clothing who distort
the Gospel.
And that is part of the problem.
What are we communicating about the Gospel when we endorse
"principles" that virtually *anyone* can use effectively? When
Paul Cho claims that the same spiritual "force" "tapped into" by
Buddhists should be accessed by Christians -- should we still
look to him to learn about "church growth"? When Robert Schuller
reduces sin to "negative thinking," speaks of Muslims as
spiritual brothers, tells a Unity School of Christianity (a cult)
audience that they understand his message "better than
evangelicals," preaches a "gospel" that sounds like rehashed
Napolean Hill teachings -- should we flock to the Crystal
Cathedral in order to learn some "church growth principles"? If
the answer is yes, then perhaps we should also be looking to the
Mormons; after all, they are one of the fastest growing
"Christian" churches in America!
While the Bible urges us to contend for the faith (Jude 3),
certain segments of the Church Growth Movement subvert Christian
obedience to that command. The Apostles warned about false
teachers who would "draw many" -- but much of what goes on today
drools over the "many" and ignores the false teaching! One has to
wonder if the Apostles ever learned "church growth principles"
from heretical teachers.
Somehow I doubt it very seriously.
There are other problems as well. Even those "church growthers"
whom I have some respect for inevitably seem to water things
down.
For instance, materials from one large church actually make the
point that "the Bible never asks us to share our faith." While it
is true that the three words "share your faith" do not appear in
scripture, the same can be said for any number of things that the
Bible nevertheless TEACHES us to do. God asks us to preach the
Gospel, and "believing the Gospel" is synonymous with "obedience
to THE FAITH" (cf. Rom. 1:5). We are told to "stand fast in THE
FAITH" (1 Cor. 16:13). Paul certainly shared the Faith (Gal.
1:23). The Faith is none other than "the faith of the gospel"
(Phil'p. 1:27). Continuing "in the faith" is equal to not being
"moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Col. 1:23).
OF COURSE we must "share our faith" -- the Faith is Jesus Christ
and all that He has taught us. In Acts, we consistently witness
the early Christians "sharing their faith." To point out that the
three words "share your faith" do not appear in our Bibles is
nonsensical and can serve no valid purpose since the Bible quite
clearly identifies "the Faith" with the Gospel itself. Such
claims appear to be attempts, whether purposeful or accidental,
to strip content from the Gospel.
Another large church teaches that "good apologetics" has nothing
to do with providing answers. This is a bit ridiculous since the
word "apologia," which is where "apologetics" comes from, carries
with it that very meaning! Yet "apologetics," according to this
particular group, actually means psychoanalyzing the questioner
to find the "real" reason "behind" their question. Too bad Paul
didn't realize this on Mars Hill (cf. Acts 17) -- he surely would
have had more converts that day! What was he thinking? Instead of
engaging those philosophers with real answers, he should have
discerned that they simply suffered from "loneliness" and a "lack
of peace."
A rather popular perspective today is to present Jesus as the
Super-Fixer for life's problems. Are you lonely? "Try Jesus."
Depressed? "Try Jesus." Poor? "Try Jesus." Sometimes the problem
of human sinfulness is never even mentioned. Jesus becomes a sort
of Heavenly Psychiatrist who offers a "free trial" -- just try
Jesus and, if you're not disappointed, you can sign on
permanently.
This is *not* the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, such a
"gospel" works in any context. For instance, singer Tina Turner
was a battered wife, depressed and miserable. Did she "try
Jesus"? No. Instead, she "tried Buddha." Today she sells Buddhism
on the same ticket that some of the church-growthers are urging
us to sell Jesus on!
Such false distinctions and erroneous reasoning are designed to
make the Task more palatable for believers and the Message more
palatable to unbelievers. This is done, probably
unintentionately, by using a form of double-speak like the
examples cited above.
There are many other problems that are mixed in with the good in
the Church Growth Movement. But by far the most serious issue
concerns the idea of "church growth" itself.
Chuck Colson recently commented that churches are expected "to
deliver a certain thing ... which is church growth, church
success, and -- to put that in worldly terms -- to get more
people in the door. They don't ask if it's a good church, whether
they are discipling and equipping people, how many ministries
they have in the community, or whether or not they're
evangelizing. The first question is, 'How big is it?'"
There is a definite preoccupation with numerical success in
today's evangelicalism. Looking at Acts 2 and the count of
"3,000" does not settle the issue. Here's why. The Holy Spirit
gave an inspired account of all who became believers after
Peter's sermon. In contrast, what we do is count people based on
some outward act -- walking an aisle, praying "the prayer,"
membership, and so forth. We cannot know if such individuals are
truly saved or not. Worse yet, I really think that sometimes we
don't care -- as long as we've snagged them in our net.
There is also an overdependance on methodology. Don't get me
wrong -- there is nothing wrong with researching demographics and
trying new things. But do we really understand the growth of the
local church when we believe that simply "finding the right
method" will do the trick? We bring in Christian rappers,
jugglers, clowns, acrobats ... and "whatever works" we hang on
to. It's called pragmatism, and it is a horrible philosophy.
Pragmatism knows no bounds, and will go as far as need be until
something "works." It's a dangerous playground, pragmatism. By
the time something does "work," the pragmatist is so elated that
all discernment is thrown out the window.
Recently, Os Guinness has observed that "trendiness" in the name
of "relevance" has subverted the Gospel. Yet even Christian
statistician George Barna has discovered that trendiness isn't
having the effect that some would have us believe it is. To echo
the late Francis Schaeffer, what is needed is not merely
"relevance," but REVOLUTION.
There is also an underdependance on God. I wish that anyone who
reads this -- whatever your opinion, from whatever denomination
you call home -- would write me and explain to me when Christians
stopped believing that God's Word possesses *power*? This is
taught explicitly in scripture time and time again, yet we act as
if it's not true. And what about the priority of prayer? No, not
simply "prayer," but the PRIORITY of prayer?
Who grows the Church? That is the fundamental question. Dr. Dan
Reiland, himself a church-growther, came to some sobering
realizations. Here are the three things that his own experience
and God taught him:
"+ We have a whole lot less control over what happens in the
local church than we think we do. God is in control.
+ Our best wisdom and natural power pales compared to God's
wisdom and supernatural power.
+ God is calling us to a greater dependency upon Him to build His
church" (from "Pray for Your Church").
Amen.
I pray that churches all over evangelicalism will recover the
power inherent in scripture, a realization that usually manifests
itself in expositional preaching. That words like "theology" and
"doctrine" will cease to scare people and we will once again
think about God as He has revealed we should. That entertaining
jingles with no substance will cease to be regarded as worship,
and be replaced with repentance and tears. That it will no longer
be necessary for us to draw people in because we are all willing
to go *out* and win others. That we will begin to realize that
our new tradition - pragmatism - is no better, and far more
dangerous, than the stuffy traditions we left behind. That we
will add the knowledge of the Holy to our zeal, and power to our
form of godliness.
Yeah, I know ... it's a tall order. But our God is a big God. A
friend of mine has the vision of uniting the best of the Church
Growth Movement with the best of the "Word churches." I pray
daily that God will grant him success and that it will be
contagious.
This comes from an e mail sent out by William
Kilgore. William's site is
SCRIPTURE
THOUGHTS
WITNESS TO
THE WORD
MUSELTOF COUNTERCULT AND APOLOGETICS