Whirled Views with Dan Burrell

I always said that today’s CGM/Contemporary Church has as much potential to become a caricature as did the polyester-suit/pompadoured pastors and the first/second/last-stanza hymn singing of the past did.  Well, here it is.  Funny video HERE with some interesting irony unintentionally included.

A little bit ago, I posted a blog article about some things I wanted to ask my “emergent” Church planting friends.  I’ll probably incorporate some of the things I’d like to have said in responds to some who offered comments in a future article.  In a nutshell, I found a lot of interesting things presented, reinforced and expanded upon in the dialogue that followed.  I also remain frustrated with an “identity” that seems to glory in being unidentifiable — which is part of what I find very disturbing about the “emergent” culture.  But, I digress….

Today, a few questions for the folks that are committed to doing church the way that it has always been done.  I am really going to do my best to avoid caricatures and cliches.  I’m going to leave the King James Only Types and the most extreme adherents to evangelical fundamentalism alone and try to aim for the more mainstream traditionalists.

For the sake of full disclosure, I probably identify more with “traditionalists” than I do with “emergents” (no…make that DEFINITELY) while at the same time, I am often disgusted with myself for too frequently approaching my faith as an exercise rather than a journey.  I believe some earnest questions are in order.

1. Is it just me, or do you think some traditionalist church leaders would just as soon see their church close as change because they would view change as “compromise?”

2. If it meant you could see your son or grandaughter continue in the church of their childhood as an adult, would you be willing to let tolerate some things like more contemporary music, more casual dress or a less formal order of service in your services?

3. If the whippersnapper youngsters would be willing to admit that they have over-dosed on “grace” to the point of license, would you be willing to admit that the traditionalist generation often over-doses on the law to embrace an unbiblical form of legalism?

4. Is the church down the street who subscribes to a traditional evangelical/fundamental doctrinal orthodoxy, yet has up-beat music, expressive worship including clapping and raising of hands, untraditional dress (read: casual) and other characteristics that give you headaches and panic attacks really destroying Christianity (if not civilization)?  Are they enemies of sound doctrine?

5. Why is it that traditional churches are generally monochromatic racially?  Why is it that they skew older –often dramatically?  Is there a correlation?

6. Would you be willing to agree that some traditionalist church leaders have elevated traditions and preferences to the point (if not above the point) of doctrinal matters?

7. If it meant that your church would continue for another generation with a fresh wave of younger members and leadership, would you be willing to consider adjusting things like: Service schedules?  Using women as ushers and greeters?  Allowing guitars and drums to accompany the music?  Permitting younger people — teens even — to participate in things like singing in the choir or taking the offering or even teaching or working in the nursery?  Utilize meetings in homes rather than only on-campus functions for instruction?

8. Is it accurate to say that many traditional churches are more intent on things that can be counted and easily measured (baptisms, “decisions”, membership, new members) than things that are more nuanced and more difficult to calibrate (discipleship, equipping, training, connecting, developing spiritual disciplines?)

9. Is it possible that many traditional churches have largely neglected the 1/3rd of the great commission that deals with discipleship wherein a new convert is personally and systematically instructed in the doctrines of Scripture and the responsibilities of the Christian walk?  Why is that so?

10. Have many traditional churches become overly critical of others who are less traditional?  Paranoid about change of any kind?  Self-satisfied?  Separated to the point of isolation?  Envious of God’s blessings on other ministries which we might routinely dismiss as evidence of compromise in order to “draw a crowd”?

11. Has the traditional church lost sight of changes in communication and transportation which has left us with a system of missionary outreach that is outdated and inefficient?

12. Has the traditional church created an artificial, arbitrary and even pharisaical attitude toward holiness that emphasizes conforming to a “list” of acceptable and unacceptable conduct matters while ignoring the command to be transformed by adopting a Christ-like mentality.  (EXAMPLE: Consider our commitment to preaching a tee-totaler’s position on alcohol — which I personally hold, btw — to our absence of preaching on matters like gluttony in light of Scripture saying much more about over-eating than not drinking at all.)

OK….I’m going to stop now.  I have more.  But I also had more for the Emergents.  You may feel free to add your own questions, comment on these questions or send me hate mail which accuses me of destroying fundamentalism.  I look forward to seeing your comments.  If you haven’t read the Emergent dialogue, I would challenge you to do so be clicking HERE.

I opened a can of worms with some in my criticism of Ed Young’s recent “7 Days of Sex Challenge” in THIS previous post.  I’m not going to rehash the particulars of this specific incident again, but in the process of trying to make a point I wrote the following which drew a strong reaction from some of my younger/hipper readers:

I personally find this kind of trendy, flavor-of-the-month, pop-psychology type of “religion” distasteful and immensely irritating.  To me, this fits in with other “trends” in emergent-driven churches like wearing too much gel in one’s hair, wearing shirt tails out, giving away shot glasses with the church name on them out in bars, shocking signs (Flamingo Road Church recently had a huge banner on their building asking people to “Flip Someone the Bird” this Thanksgiving.  It was part of a Thanksgiving food drive.  Please excuse me while I roll my eyes.), Starbucks franchises in the lobbies, one-word church names and worship franchising.  

I want to clarify a few things.  I don’t have a problem with flavored coffees, kewl glasses, untucked shirts, gelled hair, big screens, sitting on a stool to preach, etc…   I really just don’t care one way or the other and I find much the debate to be supercilious and pointless.

However, (and this is where I’m going to start trying to make my points),  what I find off-putting is this concept that doing any or all of the above will make you more spiritual, relevant, cutting edge, unique or any combination of those things.  They all come from the ol’ “Nothing New Under the Sun” department in that we fundamentalists/evangelical types tend to stampede to the latest trend some mega-church dude is trying like a herd of lemmings without much thought.  But I’ve seen this all before — in the 60’s and 70’s.

In those days it was double-breasted (and later 3-piece) suits, pompadour hair styles, bus ministries, Christian schools, Sunday school attendance campaigns, the Moral Majority, ensembles with matching outfits and Gaither music.

In the 80’s and 90’s it was dramas, stage decorations, polo shirts, projection systems, comb-overs, the Christian Coalition, mega-church conferences, orchestras, praise and worship, and anything Hybels.

Today, we’re into Starbucks, camp shirts and shirts with untucked tails and opened long sleeves, black sets with kewl lighting, blogging, the Junky Car Club, hard=edged bands, conversations and social work.

What we don’t seem to notice, with each generation, is that we keep becoming caricatures of ourselves.  Today’s generation openly mocks and derides the “fundamentalism” of the 70’s and 80’s with it’s polyester suits and legalism, but I lived it and our churches were bulging.  For all it’s flaws and failures (and they were myriad), it was trendy at the time.

Today’s emergent generation seems to be so impressed with themselves, the way they “relate”, their penchant for being innovative and shocking, their kewl young looks and their compassionate social activism that they are missing the fact that in their rush to be as relevent (if not more) than the next guy, they are ALSO losing touch and coming off more than a little ridiculous.

And c’mon — a preacher — any preacher — Ed Young or anyone else, lounging on a bed while delivering a sermon that is beamed across the country to satellite locations in which he is encouraging married people to “do it” for seven consecutive days is somewhere between revolting and hilarious.  And what’s even more curious is the fact that Ed wasn’t the first — and for sure now — he’s not going to be the last.  All the hipster young pastors and some that are not-so-hipster-or-young will now feel compelled to match his bet and maybe even raise the stakes a few points to make it interesting.

I guarantee you that in a few years, some obnoxious young blogger type is going to teleport an article onto someone’s eyeglass screen microchip which mocks and derides the days when some loony preacher dared give a sex challenge from a bed in a church.  That will be SO old school and corny.

But in the midst of all these trends and rushes-to-trends, what must remain constant? — the sound systematic exposition of the Word of God.  Over and over, Paul noted that he did not resort to “gimmickry” or trickery in his Gospel message.  He just faithfully preached the Gospel message without a lot of adornment.

Yes, I know a favorite tactic is to bring out the example of Christ eating with the publicans and prostitutes and how he was criticized by pharisees.  But keep in mind, there is a difference between someone being an unconverted pharisee and being pharisaical.  Also keep in mind that there is a difference between methodology and simply having daily contact with the unconverted.  In fact, Jesus at times refused to perform miracles rather than turn his message into a dog-n-pony show.  His supernatural methods were to reveal and confirm His message and His authority, not to draw the masses.  One should also note that at the moment of his agony, the masses who swamped many of his appearances were reduced in number to a handful of faithful disciples.

So I offer a few simple words of caution to my younger friends and sons in the ministry.  Preach the Word.  Whether you do a book exposition or a sound topical exigesis — don’t substitute style for substance.  Don’t chase the elusive butterfly of relevance and edginess.  That’s a pursuit that has no conclusion.  Like “converts” who pray a prayer for a bowl of rice in a third world country, people who flock to a venue to see a show will often drift away once their bellies are full.  Spend more energy in prayer and study than in pomp and production.  Nothing’s more important than the working of the Holy Spirit and that can’t be artificially induced.  Don’t worry about whether or not you are perceived to be relevant, kewl or creative.  Be concerned with whether or not you are accurate, direct and honest with the Word.  Don’t substitute volume for virtue, relevance for reality or dynamism for doctrine.  It doesn’t mean you have to go old-school.  It doesn’t mean you have to become a neo-legalist.  It doesn’t mean you can’t do your best to connect with your audience — you can and you should make those connections.

If you don’t want to put on a tie — who cares.  If you gel your hair — be thankful you have enough hair to gel.  If you want to remove the pulpit — go right ahead.  If you schedule your services at different times than tradition — go for it.  Just don’t put the emphasis where it doesn’t belong.

In 100 years, the only things on this earth that will still matter are the souls of men and the Word of God.

Well, the waters have pretty much settled from my first “Listomania” entry wherein I discussed why many fundamental churches were growing increasingly irrelevant.  So, with some degree of trepidation, I will now offer a list of “ideas” for your consideration on what we might do to “revive” fundamental churches.  (By fundamental, I mean churches — self-identified as fundamentalist or evangelical or both, who agree on the fundamental doctrines of Scripture and Christian orthodoxy.)  As always, I encourage you to add your thoughts in the comments section.

Things We Can Do to Revive Fundamental Churches

1. Preach the WORD.

Away with preaching on hot topics and trends and get back to sound, straight-forward preaching that exegetes the Word and boldly and practically applies it.  Whether it’s stand-alone exposition or book studies or verse-by-verse series or character studies or some other form or approach of Scripture-focused preaching doesn’t matter, but focusing on the Bible will never fail.  Those who have said that “expository preaching will kill a church” are idiots and time has or will prove the fallacy of such a ludicrous statement.

2. Break out of Denominationalism

Many fundamental churches claim to be “Independent”, but they aren’t.  If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck — it’s a duck.  If it acts like a denomination, fellowships like a denomination, gives like a denomination — it’s a denomination.  Many evangelicals and fundamentalists who claim they are “independent” are members of fellowships — like the BBF, GARBC, FBF, Shepherds Fellowship, Southwide, IBF, WBF, IFCA, etc…, etc…  These “fellowships” have “headquarters”, publish curriculum, have missions boards, hold conferences, issue declarations, have officers, take offerings, own/recommend/start/affiliate/endorse colleges and hold elections — so someone PLEASE tell me how they are different than a denomination.  (And don’t say “control” cuz’ some “fellowships” are more controlling than denominations and some denominations have no control whatsoever over their churches.)  Denominationalism and Fellowship Loyalties (particularly exclusive participation) create camps, conflicts, control, comparison and competition — none of which are healthy for the Body of Christ.

3. Answer the Liberals

There is a difference between answering a liberal and attacking a liberal.  (This would probably be a good time to ask someone to “define” what a “liberal” is in these circles anymore.)  Many of us choose to savage the messenger rather than to rebut a wrong message.  Usually, in the end — both remain intact.  Good scholarly rebuttals to the error that regular flows from genuinely liberal colleges, seminaries, publishing houses, etc… (and those who are drifting that way) will make us part of the dialogue and conversation and will give us the opportunity to espouse Truth from a historical, Biblical perspective.

4. Lose the Attitude

An evangelical brother recently asked me what kind of Baptist church I attend and I reflexively said, “Independent”.  As soon as I said it, I saw the familiar flicker that can only be described as surprise tinged with perhaps a little fear or at least concern.  So I quickly added, “….but not the MEAN kind.”  He laughed long and loud.  I think that’s sad, but I knew it was necessary.  Many fundamentalists were born fighting — we had to fight.  There was something for which the fight was worthy — the Supremacy of Scripture and the Sufficiency of Christ.  Too often the fights we see today are not against theological liberalism, modernism, ecumenicism, humanism or whatever anti-Christ “ism” being promoted.  The fight is over secondary and tertiary matters that are often unique to Western churches in general (American churches specifically), practices, secondary associations, etc…  Too often, we have become mean, angry, bitter, hostile, intemperate, volatile and unkind as we “claimed” to be defending the faith.  But whether we are disagreeing on majors OR minors, certainly the commands to “speak the Truth in love” and “as much as lieth within you live peacably with all men” shouldn’t be ignored.  How much more influence might we have if we could Biblically and intellectually defend our positions with a smile on our face and optimism in our voices.  Or could it be, as cynics have suggested, that our fiery passion and angry rhetoric is sometimes a substitute for a scholarly response?

5. Reach the Needy with Good Works

I am NOT a proponent of the Social Gospel.  NOT at all.  I understand the dangers of “rice Christians”.  I acknowledge the failures of the welfare mentality.  But, in this commentator’s opinion, many of us have grown calloused about things happening around the globe that are gut-wrenchingly tragic.  The genocide in Darfur (much of it against professing Christians), the AIDS orphans of Africa and Asia, the vile sex trade industry, the slavery of Northern Africa at the hands of the Muslims, the imprisoned believers in China, Cuba, North Korea and elsewhere (and their families), the village pastors in India and Central America and the list goes on and on.  While we bicker over inconsequential preferences and traditions, genuine needs that would save lives and reach souls go unmet.  We make excuses and create smokescreens for why we don’t get involved, but honestly, should liberal denominations who no longer embrace the True Gospel be doing a better job of giving and sharing than those who still lay claim to Truth?  Will those who are starving or are naked or are in bondage to chemicals or are homeless be in a position to hear or understand the Gospel?  Might we address their physical needs as we address their spiritual needs as well?

6. Invade the Devil’s Turf

For too long, our belief in separatism has given birth to isolationism.  We are not “of” this world, but we are “in” this world.  We’ve created the Christian ghetto for our own comfort where we enjoy Christian radio, Christian books, Christian music, Christian TV, Christian retirement centers, Christian Entertainment Venues, Christian social circles, Christian recreation, Christian media, Christian education on our massive self-contained campuses.  We really don’t have to venture out of our “safe zone”.  So how do we fulfill the Great Commission if we never interact with unbelievers.  Are even our mature believers so vulnerable that they cannot influence for good and Truth unbelievers without succumbing to the temptation they might introduce? Are our answers so frail that we cannot argue for Truth against those who may never have heard it? Do we not believe that the antidote to poverty, crime, addictions, abuse, violence, pornography, materialism and a host of other sins the GOSPEL?  Then why do we avoid the poor sections of towns, the AIDS clinics, the treatment centers, the areas where “sinners” congregate?  Should we be surprised when non-believers act like non-believers?  Can we not show them a better way?  If so, then we should invade their areas and SHOW them the difference Christ makes.

7. Teach our Children Well

The vast majority of practicing believers today were raised by practicing believers.  Sadly, many of them have a weaker commitment to their faith than their parents because we failed to teach them well.  Teaching isn’t just lecturing, it’s living.  It’s not just explaining it, it’s modeling it.  It’s not just teaching, it’s mentoring.  Discipleship begins in the home.

8. Reach our Children Well

Research says that 80% of kids in evangelical churches do not return to the churches in which they were reared after they leave home.  Many great churches are great for only 1 or 2 generations as the founding generation(s) age and ossify, they forget to make way for those who will fill their seats next.  We’ve turn generational preferences into tests of fellowships and too often communicate to our coming generations that they are not welcome if they want to do things a bit differently than we did them.  We keep our kids isolated from the adults with separate programs, separate leadership, separate services and even separate buildings.  They feel no real connection to the heritage of the church family because they’ve been consigned to “eating in the basement” for years.  Older generations too frequently refuse to reach out to, or interact with or listen to the younger folks creating walls that are simply unnecessary.  We spiritualize traditions and preferences at the expense of teaching principles and expanding outreach.

9. Emphasize Conversions rather than Decisions

For too many years there was such an emphasis on numerical growth, numbers of baptisms, etc… that a mentality and strategy of evangelism developed that was misguided and even heretical.  “Pray the magic prayer” and get eternal life (but can be counted on a tote board) became a form of evangelism that created legions of false “salvations”.  Repentance, acknowledgment of sin, a knowledge of grace, the responsibility of Lordship were left out of evangelism and discipleship and tares filled baskets intended for wheat.  Genuine salvation is a conversion, not a decision.  We’re changed because of the Holy Spirit, not because we “will” it.  We come to Christ because He draws us, not because we had someone present a handy-dandy plan replete with a charming personality and a disarming method of explanation.  Salvation costs us everything while it cannot be purchased with anything we could possess.  Decisionism leads to a false sense of security and salvation and should be rejected.

10. Re-emphasize Discipleship

For too long churches have neglected the third step of the Great Commission — Teaching.  Discipleship sifts those who make decisions from those who simply “prayed a prayer” for quick relief.  To neglect discipleship is the spiritual equivalent of child-abuse.  It is like giving birth to a child and then leaving it on the sidewalk with hopes that someone else might come alone and take care of it.  Our failure to disciple new believers has created a generation of Christianity that knows little of the “what’s” of orthodox Christianity and even fewer of the “whys”.

So those are my thoughts.  Tell me where you think I’m wrong and fill in what I’ve missed.  Looking forward to reading your thoughts.

As I had hoped, my first “Listomania!” submission has drawn quite a bit of discussion and comment. I’ve received several private emails, a good number of comments on this blog and even was told that there is a bulletin board that has it as a “discussion topic.” In all honesty, I’m glad about this as the provocation of discussion and debate allows everyone to learn. I think that is healthy for us individually and for the “movement” (if there is indeed one at all.)

It is also fairly typical for some to attack the “messenger” (or at least pause and say, “who is this guy and what makes him qualified to ask these questions or raise these problems) and for others to challenge whether the “WORLD WIDE Web” is the appropriate venue for such a discussion. I would concede that neither the messenger or the venue is a perfect agent for this kind of discussion, but it’s what we have for now. My tendency to ask direct questions of “us” and my proclivity for being occasionally “impolitic” in some of my observations is something that has ended up garnering a substantial amount of scorn over the years — usually from those bent on justifying the status quo or continuing to live in the past. And it is true that the Web has its drawbacks in terms of a forum, but let’s face it in that there are really no other forums available that aren’t closed, biased or inconvenient. The Web is unique in that literally everyone gets a seat at the table.

I received an email yesterday that contained several specific questions and I actually spent longer than I had intended on answering them, but they made me think through some of what I had written more thoroughly. Thus, I thought I’d share some of the questions a pastor in the southern part of the USA asked me and what I offered as a response:

He noted, “Your list pertains to Fundamental churches. From reading over it, I am sure you are talking about Fundamental Baptist churches, correct.”

Here is my reply:

I’m going to have to give you an ambiguous answer on this one. Had I been exclusively been commenting on Fundamental Baptist churches, I would have clearly said so. However, it is no secret that I have only been a member of or ministered at independent, Baptist churches, thus it could be inferred that those experiences have created an innate bias in my perspective. However, I have many friends involved in the broader world of fundamentalism and evangelicalism and its sundry derivations who are not independent Baptists — or even Baptists at all. Interestingly, I grew up near an old order Amish community and, while I believe what they practice and teach is works-based and graceless illegitimate protestantism, I see similarities in their mentality to some within fundamentalism. Quite frankly, I just finished reading a book written by an unbelieving individual who left the Mormon cult and I found some stunning similarities in Mormonism and some sects within fundamentalism. The danger in any commentary that can only be reasonably written using a few hundred words is that it can appear to be done with a ‘broad’ brush. That was not my intent. I was making generalized observations of fundamentalism, but I cannot deny that my perspective is colored by my history within the independent Baptist wing of fundamentalism. Not trying to be evasive here, just honest.

Next, he noted, “On point #3, you say the churches have emphasized standards at the expense of doctrine. What doctrine are you talking about….?”

Regarding churches that have emphasized standards at the expense of doctrine, I do want to clarify and expand my thoughts a bit. I was not suggesting any one particular doctrine as you seemed to be asking. I’m suggesting that, were as much time devoted in many fundamentalist churches to the systematic teaching of doctrine and to strategic discipleship as is spent on sermons, teaching and even tirades regarding “standards”, “associations” and other such sub-issues, our churches would be healthier. From my perspective, we have over-emphasized telling our memberships what to do and not enough time in teaching them how to think. You’ll have to understand that I’m far more of an educator than I am a theologian, but in applying education to theology, I believe we have to approach it with some sense of where we are going and how we are going to get there. A fully-equipped Saint should know first the “what’s” of his faith — Biblical literacy. He should also know the implications of those facts — that reveals itself in application (part of the putting off the old man and putting on the new man or sanctification). Finally, he should be able to defend what is Truth — Apologetics. These objectives won’t be fulfilled by accident or a willy-nilly approach to teaching. I like what Spurgeon said, “Theology is the queen of all the Sciences.” Thus, in my view, doctrine is the skeleton of a sound theology, not standards.

In my experience (and I realize the danger of anecdotal justifications), for every one sermon I have heard in my years of fundamentalism on the Sufficiency of Christ, the Authority of Scripture (inerrancy, immutability, infallibility, inspiration), I have heard scores of sermons on issues like “standards”, associations, styles matters, and other such topics. Sadly, while I might agree with some or much of what they say, the way that they reach their conclusions is intellectually and theologically flawed. One example would be the dozens of sermons I have heard based on David’s question, “Is there not a cause?” when a study of the Hebrew and the context of that verse simply does not justify it’s use for the vast majority of those sermons. That’s why I believe expositional (and largely systematic, though I’m not super dogmatic about that) is a superior way of preaching to topical preaching.

Finally, he asked me to explain what I meant when I said churches see “cultural adjustments as theological compromise.”

I have answered dozens, perhaps hundreds of questions from good folks over the years on matters like, “when is it acceptable for women to wear slacks if ever”, “is a church truly fundamental if they do not have Sunday night services”, “does the presence of percussion instruments in a church service make it unacceptable”, “is it appropriate to use any Bible version other than the KJV” (something that is quite interesting in the context where I currently serve where there are 70 different ethnic groups in a typical Sunday attendance), “is academic accreditation for a college tantamount to theological compromise”, etc…. I believe personally that it if we believe the right things theologically, we will do the right things culturally and practically. You see, I grew up in a church where if a woman (saved or unsaved) came to church wearing slacks, she was politely, but firmly told that we didn’t dress that way at our church. She would be “permitted” to attend this once, but in the future, she would have to wear a knee-length skirt. Interestingly, we never had a problem with what they wore the second time. They never came back. I do not believe that our churches are so weak that we cannot accept people where they are and to lovingly teach them to where they need to be. I am grieved to this day at what our rigid cultural standards communicated to people who really needed Truth, grace and the Gospel.

Anyway…. I thought I’d post these additional comments for the discussion mill for any who are interested. Thanks for participation and keep it up!

The June 13 edition of the Wall Street Journal had an interesting article featured in their “Weekend Journal” section entitled, “Inspired by Starbucks”. The story, by Alexandra Alter, focused on Broward County-based, Flamingo Road Church, which is located not far from where I now live and has a weekly attendance of around 8,000. I’ve known of Flamingo Road — which is loosely affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention — since my previous ministry in Palm Beach County and I can remember when it was a fledgling congregation of fewer than a couple of hundred. Under the leadership of Dan Southerland — someone I consider a friend and now a resident of the Charlotte, NC area — the church exploded and would largely be classified as “Purpose-Driven”. Dan wrote a book called “Transitioning” which is a fascinating study of Nehemiah applied to helping a church change its mindset on ministry.

The article, well worth reading, examines their current pastor’s (Troy Gramling) efforts to use technology ranging from DVD’s to satellite hookups to replicate what is going on at the main campus around the world. Other churches are trying this as well including Fellowship Church (Ed Young, Jr./Dallas) and North Point Community (Andy Stanley/Atlanta).

Other mega-ministries have their own methods of replicating their techniques in churches elsewhere including Saddleback Community (Rick Warren), Willowcreek Community (Bill Hybels), Grace Community (John MacArthur) and one of the original pioneers — First Baptist of Hammond (Jack Hyles/Jack Schaap). For forty years, these various churches have used conferences, associations, product lines and other tools for spreading their influence (and perhaps the Gospel as well) to other churches and communities. Indeed, this has become a major economic fuel in the industry known as the “Church Growth Movement.”

The more I think about the concept of “franchising” — albeit a loose and perhaps ill-defined term — in terms of church replication and ministry outreach, I arrive at more and more points of concern. Today, I share a few of those.

1. A replica is never as good as the original, but a replica of a replica is even worse.

I own several beautiful Remington Sculptures. They are large, beautiful and inspirational (for me at least). But they are not the real McCoy’s. I have not made enough money in all my years of employment to afford even one original one. To no one’s surprise, they are not as valuable as the original, not as accurate as the original and not as authentic as the original (insert “duh” here.)

When it comes to churches, I’ve rarely seen someone how has “copied” the strategy or methodology of some other church and have it end up “better.” I have, however, seen it split churches wide open, waste a lot of money, become yet another “flavor-of-the-month” attempt to create forward motion and other unintended consequences.

Indeed, shouldn’t each church be replicating itself after the “Master Church Design” found in Acts as the Church at Jerusalem was established realizing that cultural contexts, settings, socio-economic factors and myriad other variables will impact the dynamics, but using Biblical principles as the infrastructure will provide what is necessary for a healthy church? Instead of using a copy of the original as the model, would it not be better to use the original in whatever context we are placed by God?

2. Franchising would seem to skew what we view as “successful”

So what level of “success” makes a ministry worthy of emulation? Size? Pace of growth? Budget? Profile of the Senior Pastor? Franchisees?

I’m not against large churches and have been the Senior Pastor at a large church and a megachurch. However, growing up in the hills of Missouri, I can tell you that if numbers equals success then I’ve seen some pretty stunningly successful “failures”. We’ve heard all the arguments that “size doesn’t matter” — but, let’s face it….basically everything in the Church Growth Movement tells us that it does. (It doesn’t.)

Shouldn’t success be defined by absolutes? Adherence to Truth? Faithfulness to orthodoxy? Attention to doctrine? Fulfillment of the Great Commandment and the Great Commission?

3. There is an inherent danger in replicating error

Whether it is flawed from the start or moves toward error after a period of time, many (perhaps most) megaministries have some pretty major “holes” in their ministry ranging from theology to methodology. Willowcreek has recently admitted to missing the boat with their Seeker-Driven philosophy of the last quarter century and is completely “reworking” their strategy. By many standards, the Crystal Cathedral/Robert Schuller icon is a success, but from my theological perspective it has never been worthy of two seconds of my attention because I believe it teaches a flawed Gospel. Rick Warren has come under blistering criticism from some quarters and there are many who believe the old Independent Baptist “Hyles” model to be one step removed (or perhaps not even one step) from cultism.

Yet, there are thousands, yea, tens-of-thousands of churches, pastors and assorted sycophants who have visited one of these evangelical Meccas and become convinced that if they just did it they way that they do it “there”, then they too would have an amazing ministry filled with success and all of its trappings.

I’ve often wondered, after the very public “oops” of recent days offered by Willowcreek how this is playing in the churches of the Willowcreek Association? Do people get a refund on the millions of dollars they spent on conferences, books and video series telling them to do it the Willowcreek Way?

4. It is possible to substitute a canned “program” for “hearing from God”

Waiting on the Lord, studying His Word, discipling leadership, praying for God’s vision and timing are all time-consuming tasks. Today’s postmodern generation enjoys McSolutions for problems that leads to superficial and unhealthy habits, spiritual nutrition and outcomes. We glibly throw out “meat” because milk is easier to digest. We offer “cake” because they want it and neglect the substance that they really need.

Sure, one can exist on fastfood and microwave dinners, but will they flourish? How much wiser is it to invest time in the process from the garden to the table and know that it is authentic and healthy and straight-from-the-Maker.

Because every community is unique as is every pastor, elder, deacon, church, generation and family, should not more attention be given to seeking God’s unique plan for each local assembly rather than pushing for rubber-stamped, cookie-cutter templates that have the form of church — but too often at the cost of substance.

Much more could be written and I’d encourage you to add your own thoughts. I’m not trying to be a curmudgeon that sees a new-age conspiracy on every Christian bookstore shelf. But after 40 plus years of watching and even participating in various waves of the CGM, I’m seeing some serious flaws. Over the course of the history of the church, forty years isn’t a lot of time. But perhaps it is time that many of us in ministry ask the CGM some serious questions about whether or not what they are producing is good — or even necessary — in terms of the long-term health of the church.

We’re still unpacking boxes after our big move over the week-end, but I thought I’d jump back into blogging for a couple of minutes to touch on a couple of thoughts regarding doctrine.  In our Christianity “Lite” generation, many of the Emergents have willfully chosen to de-emphasize doctrine — some even going so far as to declare doctrine “transient” and to be examined in light of current cultures and worldviews.  This denigration of doctrine comes in the backwash of the 1990’s mantra of avoiding denominationalism.  While I don’t believe a church has to have Baptist on its sign to be doctrinally sound, denominational distinctives built on sound doctrine aren’t something to be glibly dismissed.

Today, the Pew Report on Religion in Public Life issued findings that included the disheartening statistic that stated that 57% of “Evangelicals” believe that there is more than one way to get to heaven.  The seeker-driven mentality of the modern church growth movement has created a generation of alleged “believers” who don’t know what they claim to believe and why they believe it.  Apparently John 14:6 isn’t “friendly” enough to be taught to those who must deny all except Christ for Salvation.

Dr. Charles Wood also offered some additional thoughts a couple of days ago that I found important in his “From the Woodchuck’s Den”.  I’ll leave his ruminations with you in closing….

————–

    Generally, I read (or more accurately, scan) Christianity Today at Barnes and Noble.  This week I actually bought the June, 2008 issue because of a number of items I saw while scanning.  When I got it home and went through it carefully, it had even more interesting information than I had realized.

    Previously, I mentioned the controversy surrounding the termination of a professor at Wheaton College.  That situation involved a procedural issue without any discernable (at least to me) doctrinal overtones.  I also mentioned the so-called “situation at Cedarville” which started out centered around a doctrinal/philosophical matter.  At the end of the day, however, it was also a procedural matter that brought about the termination of two faculty members.  That story made its way into the June issue of CT!

    These two stories were absolutely eclipsed by other items in the magazine.  A female faculty member at Southwestern Seminary was dismissed by Paige Patterson because he saw the role she was playing (or had arrogated to herself?) as in violation of Biblical teaching regarding the proper role of women in ministry.  That is somewhat a question of practice, but it is based on doctrinal concerns.  [The woman moved on to Taylor University but filed an unlawful dismissal suit against Southwestern Seminary.  The suit was dismissed - as almost all such suits are, at least currently - on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction in matters that involve the doctrine or internal workings of churches or even of church-related organizations.]  So maybe Paige Patterson ought to join the rest of us dinosaurs as we sit in that cave and read ancient manuscripts.

    But just a minute!  Venerable Westminster Seminary in the Philadelphia area (founded by J. Gresham Machen as a partial answer to the departure from the faith of the old Princeton Theological Seminary) has, by a split decision of its Trustees, dismissed two professors over positions they have taken on the doctrine of inspiration.  This one is a full-fledged difference over doctrine.  The Trustees voted 18-9 for dismissal so I guess we may have to make our cave a little bigger.

    And then the bomb was dropped.  The “Head Lines” page includes an article titled “Willow Creek’s Huge Shift.”  This is only my opinion, but I think the matters reported caught CT a bit by surprise (or may have occurred just before publication deadlines). and I expect a much fuller treatment of the subject in a future issue.  The article appeared to me to be a bit “thrown together,” and had a distinctly negative slant toward Willow Creek, but it was literally a bombshell.

    For some time it has been public knowledge that Bill Hybels has not been happy with the state of discipleship at the church.  It appears now that he has decided to do something about it.  The article begins, “After modeling a seeker-sensitive approach to church growth for three decades, Willow Creek Community Church plans to gear its weekend services toward mature believers seeking to grow in the faith.”  The next paragraph may mean that I will get to have fellowship in the cave with Bill.  It says, “The change comes on the heels of an ongoing four-year research effort first made public last summer in Reveal: Where Are You?, a book co-authored by executive pastor Greg Hawkins.  Hawkins said during an annual student ministries conference in April that Willow Creek would also replace its midweek services with classes on theology and the Bible.”  Further on in the article we read, “Greg Pritchard, author of Willow Creek Seeker Services, told CT the church sporadically has recognized it was not teaching a robust enough theology and needed to turn the ship around.”

    There is more to the article than I have quoted, but much of it seems to me to belittle the change at Willow and to indicate that it very likely will not work.  For those of us, however, who have long been unimpressed by many of the aspects of the “seeker-sensitive” paradigm, this all comes as a striking admission that at least some of our concerns were legitimate.  I greatly admire Bill Hybels for recognizing and admitting an area of weakness or failure and for taking steps to correct it.  Actually, the “seeker-sensitive” approach of Willow appears to have produced little more depth than the very different. but no less “seeker-sensitive” approach of Jack Hyles and First Baptist of Hammond.

    E. F. Hutton is no more, but when they were and spoke, everyone listened.  I’m not sure everyone listens to Bill Hybels, but when he speaks and Willow Creek changes, hundreds - if not thousands - of pastors and churches are going to listen (and, in the majority of instances), respond to at least some degree.

    In our postmodern world that some of the various manifestations of the emergent churches would reach by down-playing or even elimination any attention to doctrine, it is refreshing to find that one of the largest and most influential ministries in evangelicalism is about to issue by example a call for increasing the importance of and stress on doctrine (just another name for “theology).  I rather think that the Apostle Paul would be pleased.  After all, he said, “Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine, continue in them….”

    Hang in there, Bill.  You’re going to take some hits and lose some people, but you may be the means of turning the church back once-again to stressing theology for what is was once known as, “The Queen of the sciences.”  May God grant us a steady-stream of well-trained men who can “rightly divide the Word of truth” by study of the systematic approach to the content of the Word and also by consulting the history of doctrine, and may they come to stand in the influential pulpits and places of leadership in a day when post-modernism appears not only to dominate in the public square but also to have seriously infiltrated the church.  God bless you Paige Patterson, Al Mohler, John MacArthur, John Piper, Warren VanHetloo, and now - apparently - Bill Hybels (and others).  May your tribe increase until the Word of God rather than the (mis?)perceived needs of people dictates our agenda and our approach!

Periodically, as a pastor in Florida and in North Carolina, I would schedule a service which I’d call “Reconciliation Sunday”.  In Florida, I was blessed to pastor a church that had a vibrant congregation of over three-dozen nationalities.  I found deep-rooted cultural traditions and at times latent racism in North Carolina which made my goal of having a multi-ethnic congregation much more difficult, but we made some progress.  In my heart, I loved the Sunday when we purposefully reached out across racial, ethnic and cultural barriers and chose to worship the Lord in unity.

One of the things I’m looking forward to in our move back to South Florida is the diversity of the culture in ministries there.  What seems “unusual” in the Bible Belt and other parts of the country is common place in many churches in large metropolitan areas like Miami — seeing people from all over the world in church together.  It has been said that the most segregated places in America are churches on Sunday mornings.

This isn’t just a “white church” problem though it is a white church problem.  As evidenced by the awful rhetoric of Barak Obama’s pastor, “Rev. Wright” — some African-American congregations aren’t exactly places where caucasians or hispanics are going to feel warm and fuzzy.  Whatever the racial composition of a church, we should hope and pray that the issues of bigotry and racism would be absent, but we know that this simply isn’t the case.  However, the fact that it isn’t the case, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be working on it.

Not every church exists in a diverse area where folks from other cultures or even other races mix in the local community.  I attended a church once in the rural Northwest and there probably wasn’t a person of color in the entire city — so it simply wasn’t an issue there.  But few cities of significant size don’t have the opportunity to cross the bridges of monocolor ministry and reach out to those who hail from other parts of the world or who share a divergent ancestry.

Without a doubt, there are cultural differences in worship and churches.  My Jamaican friends have long teased me about my insistence on starting services on time.  They operate on what they call “island time” which means, “we’ll start when we get here, whenever that is.”  My African-American and Latino friends mock me for being “rhythmically-challenged”.  In their words, I “clap like a white boy.”  I tried to learn Spanish from a friend from South America who would call my mangled efforts, “Spanglish”.  But the love we had for Christ and for each other overcame all of our differences and drew us together on common ground.  What started off being a little uncomfortable at times, became one of the things I enjoyed most about church — worshipping with folks that didn’t look just like me.

One of the exciting fruits of an international congregation is the impact that it can have on a church’s vision for missions.  Many folks who attended the churches I pastored and were from other parts of the world would return to their countries of origin and even the ethnic communities of the US for visits.  When they went, they often faithfully took the message of Jesus Christ with them.  We were delighted to see many people introduced to a saving knowledge of Christ as church members became personal missionaries.

Developing a multi-cultural church takes time and effort.  Sometimes it works best when it starts from the ground up as my friend, Jason Janz is emphasizing as he plants Providence Bible Church in Denver, Colorado.  His new church plant is committed to a spirit of multi-ethnicity and they’ve even rented space from a historic African-American congregation to help make the point.  Having a multi-cultural church isn’t simply a matter of being “friendly” to folks who visit and happen to be of a different skin hue or have an accent.  It’s going out and making relationships with folks in the community.  It’s inviting them over to dinner.  It’s not about shaking hands, but embracing people.  It’s not feeling some sense of foolish pride for being “open-minded” and “tolerant, it’s getting to the point where you don’t even notice any more.

Blended churches indeed have challenges, but the blessings far outweigh the burdens.  Perhaps it is time for more believers to lift the blinders from their eyes and way of thinking and to reach out to the diverse cultural and ethnic community that is right at our doorsteps.  It’s not just the job of missionaries and evangelists.  In a period of history where our world grows smaller every day, the mission field has now come right to us.

I am pleased to tell my readers that my good friend (and part-time employer), Dr. Dino Pedrone of Miami, FL has been named the new President of Davis College (formerly known as Practical Bible College) in Johnson City, NY.  (See the Press Release HERE.)  Dr. Pedrone suceeds George Miller, III who recently announced his resignation.  Dr. Pedrone is also an alumnus of the school.

Dr. Pedrone is the Senior Pastor of the New Testament Church in Miami, FL which has satellite congregations in Broward County and north-central Miami-Dade county in addition to their main campus located in Miami Lakes.  He is also the President of Dade Christian Schools, The Master’s Academy, His House Academy, the Florida Association of Christian Colleges and Schools and the International Association of Christian Schools.  He will remain in Miami and has announced that a satellite campus for Davis College to serve South Florida will be opened in the fall at their Miami Lakes campus and will offer evening classes toward a fully-accredited degree. 

For more information on Davis College visit their website HERE.

To all my friends and students who are still dabbling in the flavor-of-the-month-church-growth-movement club called “Emergent”, please watch this video from Solomon’s Porch Church and defend what they are saying.

The video is located HERE.