After a rather invigorating discussion with a buddy, I decided an update was fitting. I have been wrestling with the issue of how church is “done”, particularly about the failings and areas that can be improved.
Fundamentally I see two basic structures, the hierarchy, ie Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, and many more, and the Congregationalists, ie Baptists, and others we will leave out for the sake of space. While there has been much weeping and gnashing of teeth over the debates between these two structures, what the issue boils down to is the imperfect imitation of the headship of Christ and His rule over the body. And in the end, both structures try their best to model themselves after that relationship of Christ and the Body, each emphasizing different aspects.
Then it hit me. Polity isn’t the only area this imitation affects. In fact, it is present in everything we do in “doing” church, just like it is in everything we do in living our lives as Christians. The net result is that all of our debates are not and should not be about which method is better than another, but how can we achieve better methods by learning from both.
Elder rule is the attempt at perfect leadership of the congregation, and congregation rule is the attempt at perfect personal responsibility and freedom. Witnessing is the attempt to recreate the impact of one Man upon the 12 individuals He ministered to and led to faith. Preaching is the attempt to formulate the most effective communication of the inconceivable. In the end, in every area, we must fall short, must be imperfect, must miss the mark, because we fall short, are not perfect, and miss the mark.
Jesus will always be a better evangelist than we ever could be. Jesus will always be a better preacher than we ever could be. Jesus will always be a better leader than we ever could be. So lets stop vain debates over which method is better, and just start doing our best to emulate, imitate, personify, magnify and mirror the One who did it all perfectly. Lets stop leaving the example of Christ in the arena of Christian living and bring it into every area of life, including how we “do” church.
Will this produce some differences? You bet. Is that okay? Absolutely. Of course, we must guard against heresy and false teachers, but lets wake up and smell the coffee folks!!! If your theological “debate” can’t make it to the pew, is shouldn’t be happening. If it doesn’t make an impact on the people, then it isn’t worth it. Advocating right doctrine is not bad, but advocating sectarian doctrine to the loss of right doctrine as of primary importance does nothing but hurt everyone.
Highview Baptist Church here in Louisville, KY is a good example of positive steps in this direction. While they may or may not like to admit it, their new approach is semi-Presbyterian though they are Congregational in their polity. They have two campuses for one church. Technically, there should be two separate congregations for two campuses in the strict congregational model. Yet, they have flexed the boundaries a bit, learned something from the Presbyterian model it seems, and in the end, have a stronger ministry because of it. Andy Stanley in Atlanta leads two congregations in much the same way.
While I am not advocating a thesis-antithesis=synthesis approach, for I don’t think the two can adequately be blended into one form (mostly because that’s Heaven!), I think that in our imperfection, maybe we can find a way to continue to learn from one another and our right, biblical, and true understandings of the teachings of Scripture and continually allow this greater understanding of the Word to lead us to continual refinement. What I am saying is lets quit thinking and acting like the 1500’s are the pinnacle of theology and polity. Lets continue to avoid Liberalism, Postmoderism, Modernism, heresy, and every other theological error we can name, yet allow new, fresh thinking into our methods.
Another first step we could take is start learning from our views on anthropology and cultural anthropology about how to reach people here in the US and not just overseas like we have. Sojourn is a church here in Louisville that seems to have done this. Lets learn from this and start having fewer conferences where we try to learn exactly how X Baptist Church in Somewhere Else did it and they try to recreate the exact thing in our completely different situations and start having more conferences where we try to learn the exact principles behind the success of X Baptist Church, like Sojourn, and apply those principles to our situation. This then takes what is reproducible and leaves behind the rest. We had to learn this lesson in the mission field, but we never applied it here at home. If a white Englishman cannot minister to people anywhere other than England without analyzing the culture and adjusting the methods of evangelism (as any successful missionary soon learned they had to do, ie William Carey, and just about every other modern missionary movement leader), then perhaps we ought to realize that just because two people live in the same country, state, and even city, does not mean they have the same culture. We have no problem admitting there are multiple cultures with multiple variations in methodology needed because of this if it is in Africa or South Asia, but we seem to be unable to admit the same variation in North America. Tanzania is a country where the IMB (International Mission Board, the Southern Baptist foreign missions organization) has recognized both multiple people groups and the need for multiple methods of evangelism. You cannot reach the urban hard-core Muslims on the coast of Tanzania the same way you reach a tribe in the interior jungles of Tanzania. And just the same, you cannot reach an urban, hard-core atheist at a major university the same way you reach a family in the upper reaches of the Appalachian Mountains. Yet we don’t usually bother with anthropological investigations into the best way to take our Message, the Gospel once for all delivered to the Saints, to those different groups in the best way possible since they are both in the US.
So, those Willow Creek and Purpose Driven things may work for the ones that they worked for, but lets stop trying to grow a Purpose Driven Willow Creek where the creek bed is dry and there has not been a purpose for years. Lets instead learn the principles that can be gleaned, from Presbyterians, Seeker-sensitives, and maybe even some of the better Postmoderns, and apply them to our situations. In the end we will have relevant, radical, reformational (as in life-changing) churches that are perfect for our target culture. And for heaven’s sake (literally) lets stop competing with one another and figure out how to work together for the glory of His Kingdom. What do you say, is the Gospel worth it? I think so, and I hope you do too.
No comments:
Post a Comment