Church Leadership

This is a sequel to the last issue’s “In Case You’re Asked” which responded to a question regarding the church’s role and relation to culture. It was built around the review of Reclaiming the Center, Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. D. A. Carson wrote one of the chapters in that book which was the forerunner of the book reviewed here.

Our desire is to challenge and encourage Christians in leadership to know some of the issues in the church world. For example, one pastor of a sizeable church recently asked me, “What is this emerging church topic that I am beginning to hear about?” The reason for using this section of Equip for Ministry to review both books is because we have to carefully watch for the pendulum swing scenario. There are some good and valid things those within the emerging church movement are saying, and we need to hear and respond. However, as far as a paradigm, like postmodernism, there is so much missing that will make it a hollow movement and the younger generation, to whom it is trying to appeal, will question its value.

The analysis in Carson’s book on how ministry to postmodern generations is being reshaped is very important. Many involved in this movement are raising some legitimate issues that church leaders should address. After all, there is nothing particularly sacred about how ministry was been done in the past, except where God’s regulative principles apply. Although we cannot completely ignore the cultural influence and even legitimacy up to a point, we must have a solidly biblical theological base for how we do ministry today.

As readers of Equip for Ministry are aware, I have regularly challenged you to read that would fall into the “emerging” category, but to read carefully with much discernment. The concern is that, while the authors raise some good questions, they may have crossed the boundary and allowed things to be determined more by people than by the Word of God. That shows up in many areas, worship style being one, how the Gospel is presented could be another, and which parts of Scripture are used and which are not used still another.

We must be very intentional in creating a feeling of belonging among God’s covenant people. However, we must not mistakenly believe that we can “belong” before we can ‘become”. It is out of being a Christian, a covenant person, that real belonging has meaning. One clear example of this in our biblically Reformed circles is how we observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. You have to “become” or be a professing Christian before you can “belong” at the Lord’s Table; hence our PCA Book of Church Order, like other Reformed documents, sets forth a “fencing” of the Lord’s Table. That Supper is for believers only.

While I have appreciation for those concerned with reaching today’s generations, I also hope that we reach them in a manner which will result in making kingdom disciples. We continually face the exciting but dangerous swing of the pendulum, but our tendency is to move beyond the balance and throw out the baby with the bath water. We would do well to remember, “The medium is (or can become) the message.”

Carson has done a tremendous service to the church in this book. I appreciated his insights and sensitive spirit. He has unique ability to show appreciation for those identified with the emerging church wave while at the same time looking beyond the present and seeking the long-term results of this approach? Being people of the kingdom, we cannot only live with a focus on the present moment because we know there is a final consummation. What happens today can have significant impact on what happens later. There are more and better things to come, as the writer of Hebrews reminds us.

Carson begins by showing how the emerging church actually began as a protest against three aspects of the church. Of course we are not unfamiliar with protest. We are “protestant” Christians. (I would much prefer to be called affirming Christians than protesting Christians, but we cannot rewrite history.) The three protests identified by Carson are: protest against traditional evangelicalism, protest against modernism and protest against the seeker sensitive church approach. One of the ways that this begins to work itself out in the church is that rather than centering on the Word, attention is given to visuals, symbols, incense, candles, etc. While it is true that the sermon is not the only thing involved in worship, everything must have a basis in the Word, if it is to be acceptable worship.

Carson points out how many traditional words like “gospel” and “Armageddon” must be deconstructed and redefined, which is a clear emphasis of postmodern philosophy. The tendency is making one’s preaching and teaching, as well as the entire worship, anthropocentric vs. theocentric. Leonard Sweet’s name frequently surfaces in connection with this movement. He says while warning against embracing postmodern worldview, the church must focus on four things: experiential, participatory, image-driven and connected (EPIC). Carson develops this critique early on the book.

In attempting to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the emerging emphasis, he maintains that while not everything about it is wrong, he does say, “the emerging church must be evaluated as to its reading of contemporary culture.” Most of it, says Carson, is tightly tied to an understanding growing out of postmodernism. This is an important point because postmodernists tend to have a wrong view of God. If that is off base then we will have a faulty view of culture, as well as who we are. (See Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book One, Chapter One, paragraph one).

A second point that Carson makes is that appeals to Scripture within the emerging church is usually of two kinds: One kind claims that changing times require that we not ask and answer the same questions dealt with during the modernistic period. Often, though not always, the movement tends to mock everything related to modernism with “stinging terms,” as being totally out of date. Yet Carson is quick to point out a second claim that is not guilty of this mockery of modernity.

Carson suggests that as the movement forges ahead, it must be evaluated for its biblical fidelity. It is easy to become so immersed into the culture that the church risks a “hopeless compromise” of its message. That is similar to Os Guinness’s comments that a church can become so focused on being relevant that it becomes irrelevant. This happens when it tries so hard to dwell on the present and move forward from there, while forgetting to start with the basic foundation.

Carson does not challenge the sincerity of the people involved in the emerging church. He goes to great lengths to highlight what he sees as their strengths. But he does not hesitate to demonstrate how their attempt to analysis and understand the present contemporary culture concludes. There is an obvious weakness of being so critical of modernism and what has gone before that understanding of the present is flawed. This leads to challenging absolutes by the replacing them with perspectives. Like postmodernism in general, the movement has the tendency to de-emphasis objective truth and exalt subjectivity, one’s perspectives about issues.

Carson also takes the time to evaluate what he calls two significant books identified with the movement. One is The Lost Message of Jesus, by Steve Chalke and another is Brian McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy. Reading McLaren’s subtitle will give you an idea of the need to be exceedingly careful and biblical in ministry-“Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/Protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian.”

One other criticism that Carson makes which should be given particular attention, along with whether or not they really understand today’s culture, is how the emergents tend to use, abuse and misuse church history. One example among many is the protest against traditional evangelism and its failure to emphasize experience. Carson asks about their knowledge of church history with the revival movements and the great awakenings. Though modernism did tend to produce a rationalistic, logical, scientific paradigm, experience was always part of the Christian life. His treatment of 2 Peter 1 is extremely helpful at this point.

I share Carson’s overall conclusion: While not everything connected with modernism is to be discarded, while postmodernism has some valid criticisms of that movement, while there are things we should learn from postmodernists, and while we should read at least some of the emerging church spokesman (such as McLaren, Dan Kimball, Brad Kallenberg, and Nancy Murphy), we should be careful not to buy into a postmodern paradigm for the church. The danger is that it will take us away from God and his truth set forth in Scripture. While stories are valuable and helpful means of communicating with the postmodern generations, those stories must be tied to the grand story of Christ’s redemption and restoration. Even our own personal stories, which loom high in the emerging church style, have no real significance unless they are seen as part of God’s overall redemptive drama.

While we must walk a tight rope, even a razor’s edge, in understanding the Word and the world, and while the church must know how to preach and teach the Gospel of the Kingdom to today’s world, we must not, intentionally or unintentionally, rewrite the message. One way to accomplish that, along with serious study of the Word and reliance upon the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives to understand the Word, is to have honest and fair dialogue with one another. Carson’s book will give us a basis for such a dialogue.

Pastors should read this book. Church leaders should study this book and know what is happening today. Individual Christians also need to understand what is happening in the world and in the church world and have some encourage to be discerning and careful with God’s Word.

I was asked recently, “What role does culture play in determining the church’s ministry?” That is a good question, especially when there are so many different ideas and responses regarding it. I would like to build my response around a review and recommendation of Reclaiming the Center, Confronting Evangelical Accommodations in Postmodern Times, by Millard Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor.

I want my response not be read as pro or con, but as a challenge to move carefully and cautiously, following Scripture and developing a biblically sound theology to guide us. We need to dialogue with one another and work through some of these murky waters together. We have much to learn and much to teach as leaders in Christ’s church.

Consider a statement made by George Marsden in his book, Evangelicalism and Modern America. He said, “Sometimes the price that we have to pay for popularity is an adjustment of the message to what the audience wants to hear.” At a recent major youth conference, one of the speakers suggested that one’s goal is not to “preach the Word” but rather to engage the audience. I often use a statement by Cornelius Plantinga to emphasize the need to understand our world: “Suppose we get close enough to secular culture to understand it, to witness to it, to try in some ways to reform it. How do we keep from being seduced by it?”

In a historical perspective, the Church has always struggled to communicate to the people in understandable terms. Especially since the days leading up to and into the Protestant Reformation, communicating with the people has been one of the Church’s goals. By the time the Westminster Divines wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith, the emphasis was definitely on making the Word available in the “vulgar” everyday street language of the people (WCF 1:8). The Divines addressed the need for both the educated and uneducated to be able to read, understand, and apply the Scriptures. They understood well that you couldn’t address people in a cultural vacuum. They also were aware of the impossibility of completely divorcing oneself from this enculturation.

You can observe this in 17th and 18th century theology. At that time the, cultural context was basically determined by Enlightenment philosophy or modernism, as we call it today. That was a paradigm that replaced revelation, supernatural religion, faith, and understanding, with reason, logic and natural religion. Much of the “reformed theology” of that time was done in that context. Hence, many of the theologians were under the influence of Scottish Realism, which attributed man with certain foundational knowledge that he knew with his own mind. Revelation did not play a major role in giving him those foundational “truths.” They simply bought into the language and philosophy of the culture and did their theology in that context. Nancy Pearcey in her book, Total Truth (reviewed in the January/February Equip) sugested that one of the main reasons Western Christianity so completely embraced the philosophy of dualism was because the church failed to develop a consistent language to express their theology but rather borrowed language from the world.

Part of the philosophy of Christian Education and Publications’ training and resources ministry is not only to challenge the church but also to provide tools that will help it understand the Word and the world. David Wells has said, “Not only must evangelicals be trained to understand the context of God’s revelation, but they also should expend some comparable effort to understand the culture they propose to address…. An evangelical theology must involve serious study of one’s culture and its history.”

How can we minister to people in a particular context that reflects an understanding of the culture without changing the message? How much does the way we attempt to communicate truth and the Gospel betray the very message we are attempting to communicate? Marsden raised this question: “Will our attempt to communicate the Gospel truth be done deliberately and controlled or will it be done haphazardly and unconscious of what we are doing?”

As we deal this issue, we walk a tightrope. We can genuinely attempt to communicate God’s truth in a way that takes those universal or absolutes, which mainly, but not totally, transcends one’s culture, or we can carelessly communicate in a manner that relativizes those truths.

How we communicate, even how we worship, must reflect a cultural sensitivity. However, ultimately, our message and worship cannot be audience determined. How we frame “the message” in a particular cultural context is another matter. It is one thing to have an understanding of the audience, which is a must if we are to communicate. It is another to merely accommodate our message or worship to their wishes, desires, or wants. James D. Hunter has written about how evangelicals learned to market their message, insinuating that the message became audience driven. When that happens discipleship is reduced to formulas and checklists. Communicating the Gospel becomes driven by organization and technique. Hunter further indicates that one of the most significant changes that has taken place in evangelicalism is the shift from objective to subjective truth. His research among college and seminary students indicates that we will see even greater accommodation to modernity. The church is cautioned to watch and not to be squeezed into the world’s mold (Rom 12:1,2).

Evangelicalism has always attempted to adjust to its culture. Though there have been different nuisances within that movement, there has been basic agreement on the Bible and Gospel. There has also been much variation in how the Bible and Gospel are communicated but without accommodating to the world’s ways.

One thing is certain; we cannot influence the world by being like the world. We cannot be both in the world and like the world and accomplish any lasting purpose. Within Christianity, especially within the North American church, there has been cultural sensitivity and a genuine desire to reach today’s audience. Reclaiming the Center raises the warning that what may appear to be positive may in fact be accommodating to the point of changing the message. Whether they are called post-conservatives, younger evangelicals, post-fundamentalists, or the emerging church matters not. Labels do not always communicate what they are intended to. Some who would be identified by those labels may not be intending to change or alter the message of the Gospel, but in fact may be doing just that. I wish every pastor, teacher, leader would read this book, especially the chapters by Justin Taylor, D. A. Carson, Douglas Groothuis, J. P. Moreland and Garrett De Weese, and Millard Erickson. Carson’s analysis of Grenz’s writings are most helpful and challenging. Groothuis’s chapter on truth is basic and essential. James Parker’s chapter on the Requiem for Postmodernism, and Moreland and DeWeese’s chapter on foundationalism are highlights in the book. The other supporting chapters add their helpful thoughts.

The title of Erickson’s chapter, “Flying in Theological Fog,” reflects a deep concern in today’s postmodern world. Along with the writers, I wonder if we are flying in a fog and are lacking in the instruments needed to land safely. The new conservatives or younger evangelicals may not be trained to fly in this foggy culture and they may spin out, fly into the ground and die. Erickson and Carson express great concern that some of the newer evangelicals may lack, or at least fail to demonstrate, the historic understanding or perspective to see the implication of their theology. It is one thing to learn about culture and its ideologies. It is another to embrace and adapt them a message that will be altered by them. What we believe must be based on God’s revelation. Therefore, we must have a solid doctrinal foundation that requires carefully choosing our means of expression.

The obvious message is that we cannot accommodate our culture by developing postmodern churches, but rather build biblical sound churches to minister to a postmodern world. Or, to put it in terms of the book, our theology is determined by God’s objective truth, not by the community’s reflection of its beliefs. Objective truth determines the norms and boundaries of the community.

If you have not caught it, Reclaiming the Center, is not only a response to evangelical accommodation, but to the book Renewing the Center, by the late Stanley J. Grenz. Whether you would find yourself in complete agreement with the writers or not, it is important to understand what they are saying about this topic. I think there is much at stake here.

Reclaiming the Center reminded me of the need to be discerning, to understand philosophical thought and development, and to be doctrinally sound. Obviously, many involved in this “new evangelicalism” or “emerging church” have a genuine desire to reach today’s people. Without careful consideration, however, the message intended may not be the message received. It may even conflict with God’s message. Erickson’s closing statement expresses my challenge,

“Our aim is not to tie ourselves too closely to any given cultural situation, but to be prepared to contextualize the message in such a way as to make it more easily understood by our contemporaries. The exact course of evangelical doctrinal formulation is unknown, but we have suggested in this chapter (and this book) some instruments that will help plot the course.”