NextLeaders

One has to wonder where we as evangelicals are going with the link between theological education, denominationalism and ordination. Eddie Gibbs (Fuller Theological Seminary) writes, “There is a serious decline in the number of students taking the Master of Divinity degree, . . . The reality is that the majority of pastors serving churches in the United States do not have a Master of Divinity degree” (Church Next, IVP, pp.92-93). The MDiv has traditionally been the core of most seminaries and the foundation for ordination in most denominations. But, things are changing.

Historically, evangelical denominations worked hard to become educationally respectable—going from the Bible institute to the graduate seminary. But now at least one denomination offers a full ministerial credential through two years of on-line classes, the majority of the mega-churches train their own staff, and the emerging church has more interest in relationships, journeys and authentic worship than in theological expertise and credentials.

Our problem is that we are now face-to-face with the effects of postmodernity. Postmodernity requires more theological expertise from us than ever before, but we are running in the opposite direction. The problem is compounded by both boomers and Gen-Xers who have a tendency to mistrust authority represented by the seminary or denomination. Seminary may not be the first choice of one seeking to enter the ministry, and denominations are an old idea and seen as irrelevant.

Seminaries are attempting to meet the challenge as they are bringing the seminary to the student at sites off campus and making the studies more relevant, including certificate programs and other master degrees than the MDiv. Yet the tide of church culture is changing rapidly, desiring relevant leadership not theological professionals. Many churches are growing because of gifted entrepreneurial leaders not seminary trained professionals. Nobody ever said, “Too bad for Bill Hybels, he never got the MDiv.” In fact, Donald Miller believes seminaries may actually be discouraging to people with entrepreneurial leadership skills (Reinventing American Protestantism, University of California Press, p.188).

Continuing this line of thought, it seems that anyone with a gift for speaking, a praise band, and a projector can be a pastor (or “leader”—“pastor” isn’t used in these circles). Last December, Christianity Today ran a full page ad for Next Leadership Association—“Postmodern, Connection, Contemporary, Timeless, Change Agents, Leaders. . . . Next leaders are emerging leaders who are starting communities of faith that are artful, soulful, captivating” (CT, December, 2004, p. 74). Its doctrinal statement is the Apostle’s Creed, its mission is to connect and equip emerging leaders. Check out nextleader.org.

Can organizations like Next Leadership Association or even Willow Creek Association become more important to the future of the church than denominations? Should they? Have they already become more important? Are denominations irrelevant?

Several points can be made and please excuse me for sounding “modern”. Like every church movement, the direction of the evangelical postmodern church or, “faith community” has pluses and minuses. On the positive side, and the reason why I pray the trend continues, the “postmodern” church has led the way in making Christ more relevant to the emerging culture. Sadly, many have left and are leaving established churches and denominations because the Christ they preach has nothing to say to our times. This is a necessary correction and the established church must take note and change or continue to be irrelevant.

But, the trend outlined above has its dangers. First, the lack of theological rigor in a postmodern church will create a theological fog which in turn can lead to either liberalism or heresy at the local level. Perhaps the future of the church is a lead pastor with entrepreneurial skills and an associate pastor with theological expertise (a biblical consultant to the leader?). And second, denominations will be missed because of their support of local ministries and the church’s biblical need to be accountable to a higher authority.

What are your thoughts? What is the future of theological education, ordination and denominationalism?

Click on the comment section and let us know.

Postmod Definition

I recently heard an amusing definition of postmodernism and thought you might appreciate it—“Being really happy about what might be the truth.”

Emerging Church: A Review

Many want to know what the “emergent church” is all about. One way to find out is to read all the works by such people as Brian McLaren, Steve Chalke, Dan Kimball and others. Perhaps a simpler way (in addition to reading some of their works) is to read D. A. Carson’s, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, subtitled “Understanding a Movement and Its Implications” (Zondervan, 2005).

Carson tells us that behind this movement, or better “conversation” (McLaren’s word), “lies the conviction that changes in the culture signal that a new church is ‘emerging.’ Christian leaders must therefore adapt to the emerging church. Those who fail to do so are blind to the cultural accretions that hide the gospel behind forms of thought and modes of expression that no longer communicate with the new generation, the emerging generation” (p. 12).

In the opening pages, Carson states he views the emerging church as a protest movement—protesting in particular, traditional evangelicalism, what it understands by modernism, and the seeker sensitive church—mega church (p. 36). Much of the above protest emanates from the emerging church’s conviction that the present evangelical church is not equipped to evangelize postmoderns. “The attempt to break out of what is perceived to be the holy huddle of traditional evangelicalism is driven, at least in part, by evangelism, in particular the evangelism of a new generation of people who are shaped by postmodern assumptions” (p.52). Carson is exceptionally laudatory of the emerging church in this regard.

Much of Carson’s book also concerns itself with modernism, postmodernism and the epistemological differences. If the reader is not accustomed to such terms (in addition to philosophical pluralism, relativism, etc.) this book may be a slow read. But, these terms should not keep one from reading this book as Carson graciously defines these terms as he goes along (p.27 for example). Some of Carson’s main concerns and criticisms of the emerging church lie in these areas of thought. Risking oversimplification, Carson faults the movement for a reductionistic view of modernism and little concern for truth claims in a postmodern approach. “It vehemently denounces modernism, but offers nothing very penetrating when it comes to postmodernism. In particular, it has wrestled unconvincingly with the related matters of truth, certainty, historical witness, and even with the nature of the gospel itself” (p. 125). All of this Carson supports by many examples.

Although praising the emerging church at many points, Carson has some biting criticism. Chapter 5, for instance, lists several failures of the movement. They are failures to 1. Come to terms with the importance of non-omniscient truth claims; 2. Face the tough questions, especially if they are truth related; 3. Use Scripture as the norming-norm over against an eclectic appeal to tradition; 4. Handle “becoming” and “belonging” tensions in a biblically faithful way; and 5. Handle facts, both exegetical and historical in a responsible way.
When it comes to truth issues, Carson says, “On what basis do emerging church leaders commend the gospel and invite others to join them if at most levels they are more than a little reluctant to say that Christianity is true” (p. 132)? On the truth of Christianity, Carson comments on McLaren, “Sadly, I find just about every step of McLaren’s argumentation on this point either factually questionable or frankly manipulative (p. 135).

Finally, the latter sections of Carson’s book challenge both McLaren and Chalke. In particular, he sees McLaren as the most articulate spokesman for the emerging church, but finds his doctrine to be weak (“wrong and silly”) on the atonement, hell and ethics (pp. 166-177). Concerning McLaren and Chalke on the cross, Carson says, “Given this mindset, repentance has to be redefined as well. It no longer has to do with renouncing evil. The call to repentance is the call to fulfill our natural potential, to improve ourselves by acting like God. . . . If words mean anything, both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel” (p. 186). In sum, Carson refers to McLaren with adjectives such as insightful, right, wrong and silly.

The book concludes with some very helpful and relevant biblical studies and comments by Carson.

For another and (probably) better review of this book, see the October 2005 issue of Christianity Today. The reviewer is Eddie Gibbs who has his own book on the emerging church coming out soon.

Your comments?

Radical Change And The New Apostolic Reformation

"Are you ready for radical change?" C. Peter Wagner began his talk on the new apostolic reformation. "This is the most radical change on how we do church since the Protestant reformation," Wagner continues.
C. Peter Wagner, despite his ordination as a Congregationalist, has become an observer and chronicler of the recent moves of the Holy Spirit in both the charismatic renewal and now the "new apostolic reformation"(Wagner's own term). Wagner, having been a professor of church growth for almost 30 years, had his interest piqued when he discovered that this movement was the fastest growing movement on six continents. He believes this is due to their exercising the power principles and missiology found in the book of Acts. David Barrett, a statistician, has also noted this fantastic growth stating, "Of the five megablocks of Christianity 'neoapostolic' is the only megablock growing faster than Islam."
In a recent alumni meeting of the Dove Christian Fellowship Church Planting School, Wagner outlined four major changes taking place in the church today. They are as follows:
1) The church is moving from denominational government to apostolic government. We must remember donominationalism is only a little over 200 years old. Denominationalism was born in America the same time democracy was being born. (Before that we had state churches, and before that we had the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.) Denominations have a philosophy that says never trust an individual, always trust a group. The church is moving from strict controls to more flexibility and networking. We're moving from democracy to trusting an individual.
2) The church is moving from internal reform to apostolic renewal. Since 1960, almost every denomination has had a "charismatic renewal." The charismatic renewal peaked in 1977 in Kansas City. Today the second generation renewal leaders are finding themselves stonewalled by denominations that welcomed their predecessors. The result is that many are pulling out of those denominations and forming apostolic networks (new wineskins for what God is doing).
3) The church is moving from church vision (let's build our denomination or megachurch) to kingdom vision. The new apostolic churches are much less exclusive than say the Baptist Church. There is none of that "you don't baptize the way I do, so I can't associate with you" kind of attitude. The apostolic churches bless everybody that preaches the name of Jesus and will work across denominational lines with anybody to reach their communities for Christ.
4) The apostolic church is moving from expansion of the church to the transformation of society. It begins by winning souls, planting churches, taking care of the poor and needy, and ends by transforming society one soul at a time. The apostolic church is less pessimistic than the traditional church. They believe things can change. They live with their eye on the future. Wagner notes, "The Kingdom of God can't overthrow the Kingdom of the World until its government is in place."
The new apostolic reformation reminds me of the birth of the Evangelical Association. At that time, our structure was more of a network. We were bound together much like the apostolic church, not by doctrine or tradition, but by shared experiences and a passion to reach our (at that time German) communities for Christ. To find out more about the new apostolic reformation you must read Churchquake by C. Peter Wagner. It is a clarion call to individual churches and denominations to wake up. Though he is pessimistic about the future of denominations, he does speak of individual churches within denominations and a whole denomination in Australia that have moved and are moving into the apostolic. One final caveat the new apostolic reformation is not exclusively charismatic, though in the United States, it maybe 80 percent charismatic.