The pamphlets are being distributed and the busses are rolling through Lake City, FL. and many other cities around our nation announcing May 21, 2011 as the Judgment Day. Some receive the pamphlets out of curiosity. Some receive them out of politeness. My fear is that some will receive them looking for answers and in the end will be deceived and view all Christianity as just another religious scam. If anything good can come from the message of this group, it is that believers must be fully informed and passionate about pursuing the truth of God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The source of the pamphlets being distributed and the organizers of the various caravans that are moving from city to city is Family Radio. Family Radio was founded by Harold Camping in 1988 with the acquisition of a radio station in San Francisco. It began as an open-forum talk radio station that allowed callers to ask Camping questions about various verses in Scripture and he would in turn give an interpretation.
In 1988, Camping separated himself from any denominational affiliation claiming that the church age had ended. He began leading followers to leave their churches. He believes that churches do not employ the Bible as their sole means of authority and that church doctrine and hermeneutic dictate how the Bible is understood in the context of that church. Of course the assumption made by Camping in such a statement is that his doctrine and hermeneutic are correct. He ignores the fact that every interpretation of Scripture (including his) is driven by some methodology. The key to biblical interpretation is consistency. The hermeneutic that the Reformers employed (and that we employ) is based on the historical, theological, and grammatical context of each verse. Camping denies that this is the best way to understand Scripture opting instead to switch between literal and allegorical readings of Scripture. Again consistency is the key and a brief survey of his interpretations show that he is not consistent in his exegesis (technical understanding of a text) or his hermeneutic (interpretation of a text.)
In the pamphlet, The End of the World Is almost Here!, Camping attempts to prove biblically that the Rapture will take place on May 21, 2011. For Camping, the Rapture is the time when Jesus will save His followers from His wrath, a series of plagues that will bring about the ultimate destruction of the universe by October of 2011. He claims to be able to calculate the date based upon two verses in the Bible: 2 Peter 3:8 and Genesis 7:4. In Genesis 7:4 the Bible says:
For after seven more days, I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made. (NKJV)
In 2 Peter 3:8 the Bible says: But beloved do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (NKJV)
Camping’s math tells him that May 21, 2011, is exactly seven thousand years from the date of the flood. Two assumptions based on biblical interpretation drive this calculation. One assumption is that 4990 B.C. is the exact year of the flood. The second assumption ignores the simile (a poetic device used for comparison) of 2 Pt. 3:8 and says that the day of Gen. 7:4 is a literal and an allegorical period of time. “Therefore, with the correct understanding that the seven days referred to in Genesis 7:4 can be understood as 7,000 years, we learn that when God told Noah there were seven days to escape worldwide destruction, He was also telling the world there would be exactly 7,000 years to escape the wrath of God …” There is no possible reading, casual or technical that could possibly tie these two verses together this way. Furthermore, Camping misses the point of the 2 Pt. 3:8 passage.
The point of 2 Pt. 3:8 is to disclose the patience of an infinitely merciful God even when His people are being persecuted. In other words, God is patiently waiting for all who will be saved to be saved even though His people must suffer in the meantime. I do not believe that God contradicts himself. When Jesus told Peter and the rest of the disciples, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only,” he would not later in the power of the Holy Spirit reveal this information to Peter in some code that only a few would be able to understand. The Bible was not written in order to hide the mysteries of God but to reveal them and to do so plainly.
Camping’s call for repentance and reliance on the mercy of God is admirable. He is accurate when he says that only the Bible should be considered the Word of God. He says to, “Turn away from your sins and humbly beg, beseech, and implore God for forgiveness.” Unfortunately, his presentation is void of any true gospel presentation. Instead, he implies that the mercy of God is not bestowed based on faith in Jesus Christ but on the fact that one has embraced the warning of May 21, 2011 as the Day of Judgment. He says, “And thank God that in His great mercy He has given you this warning of destruction that is almost here, and the great hope that you, too, might be one whom God will bring to heaven to be with God…” It is the great mercy of God displayed in the gospel of Jesus that we must embrace. A proper understanding of the gospel is what saves us, not an accurate prediction of the end of the world. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and in that belief we have life in His name (John 20:31).
Camping’s message in his book 1994 was that the end of the world would come in 1994. This 2011 message by Camping and his followers is equally wrong and deceitful. Any attempt to set a date for the return of Christ is futile and only compounds and empowers the fulfillment of 2 Pt. 3:3, “That scoffers will come in the last days…saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’” In other words, Camping promotes a “Christianity” that will be subject to scrutiny on May 22, 2011, and those of us who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and are called to proclaim it until he returns will simply continue to proclaim that gospel in light of heretics such Harold Camping.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Thanks Ida--for the message we didn't hear
I find it amazing the number of emotions one can experience in such a short period of time during a denominational convention. I have experienced the joy of worship, the anxiety of business, the disappointment of apathy, and the amazement at the number of opinions that are out there—one of which will expressed here.
We do not often think in terms of that which did not happen. Tropical Storm Ida changed the convention program for us. Ed Young, Jr. was scheduled to bring a message, but because of the weather, had to cancel. I was disappointed because I love the creativity that Ed Young brings to the pulpit. I subscribe to his newsletter. However, I was curious as to why he would have been invited to speak at our convention in the first place for two reasons.
First, I find it interesting that Ed Young would be scheduled in a time slot labeled “Biblical Message.” I tend to think of expository preaching when I hear these terms--not something Ed Young is known to practice on a regular basis.
Second, I think it is interesting that the Florida Baptist Convention would schedule a keynote speaker who does not believe in the concept of the cooperative program. Several years ago I heard Ed Young make a statement about not being willing to use his resources to cross oceans to share the gospel when people in his own backyard need the gospel. I understand his concern and agree that our churches need to be missional agencies in their cities. Not long after that statement, Fellowship Church crossed the gulf and established a pastor-by-DVD church when it took over the ailing First Baptist Church of South Miami.
I have appreciated the messages that we have heard thus far. The Pastor’s Conference speakers have been extremely encouraging and John Cross’s message left us with a challenge that we must all seriously consider and set up perfectly the ideas that will be considered today. This morning, I want to do the unusual and thank God for the message we didn’t hear.
We do not often think in terms of that which did not happen. Tropical Storm Ida changed the convention program for us. Ed Young, Jr. was scheduled to bring a message, but because of the weather, had to cancel. I was disappointed because I love the creativity that Ed Young brings to the pulpit. I subscribe to his newsletter. However, I was curious as to why he would have been invited to speak at our convention in the first place for two reasons.
First, I find it interesting that Ed Young would be scheduled in a time slot labeled “Biblical Message.” I tend to think of expository preaching when I hear these terms--not something Ed Young is known to practice on a regular basis.
Second, I think it is interesting that the Florida Baptist Convention would schedule a keynote speaker who does not believe in the concept of the cooperative program. Several years ago I heard Ed Young make a statement about not being willing to use his resources to cross oceans to share the gospel when people in his own backyard need the gospel. I understand his concern and agree that our churches need to be missional agencies in their cities. Not long after that statement, Fellowship Church crossed the gulf and established a pastor-by-DVD church when it took over the ailing First Baptist Church of South Miami.
I have appreciated the messages that we have heard thus far. The Pastor’s Conference speakers have been extremely encouraging and John Cross’s message left us with a challenge that we must all seriously consider and set up perfectly the ideas that will be considered today. This morning, I want to do the unusual and thank God for the message we didn’t hear.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
EDGE in the Beulah Baptist Association Newsletter
In August 2008, Parkview Baptist Church launched a worship service for college-age people called EDGE. The purpose of EDGE was to provide a bridge that would help young people transition from church involvement through a youth group to kingdom involvement through the church. Now in its second season, EDGE continues to help young people identify their role in the kingdom and pursue God’s plan and purpose for them.
The concept and inspiration for EDGE came primarily from a book written by Leonard Sweet called The Gospel according to Starbucks. Sweet uses the acronym EPIC to describe worship that is larger than life. EPIC continues to be the driving force behind EDGE worship—a worship that serves a purpose bigger than any of our own individual agendas. EPIC worship stands for experiential, participatory, image-rich, and community. None of these concepts are new to the established church. They simply manifest themselves in different ways according to the culture and personalities of each congregation. We happen to use various forms of multimedia, dialogue, and music to experience and proclaim the gospel. EDGE worshippers experience community while proclaiming the gospel through the observance of communion each week.
While EDGE takes on the characteristics of its own congregation, the purpose is not to be a stand alone church. Instead, EDGE worshippers are challenged to use the experience to make their Sunday worship more meaningful, regardless of the church in which it occurs. While research has shown that 18-25 year olds tend to drop out of church at a faster rate than most age groups, several young people from EDGE are plugged faithfully into Sunday morning worship experiences and engage in activities that many authors say are antiquated and no longer relevant to this generation such as a choir that still wears robes. For instance, six EDGE worshippers sing in the Parkview choir every Sunday.
EDGE meets in the basement of Parkview Baptist Church on Thursday nights. As we try to find ways of helping other people in this generation find their place in the kingdom, the time may change, but for now the doors open at 8:30 for cappuccino and worship begins at 9:00 pm. EDGE has taken on a coffee-house atmosphere. The great thing about working with young people is that if the Lord decides to morph EDGE into a high-energy concert atmosphere, then that will be fine. Parkview’s pastor, Mike Tatem, leads the preaching/teaching portion of EDGE. Josh Smith, Nikolai Lee, Cynthia Roman, and Travis Crosby (all LCCC students) make up the rest of the worship leadership team. You can find us on facebook under Parkview Edge or on google at parkviewedge.blogspot.com. We hope you will stop by on line or in person and join us as we pursue EPIC worship and a larger than life faith.
The concept and inspiration for EDGE came primarily from a book written by Leonard Sweet called The Gospel according to Starbucks. Sweet uses the acronym EPIC to describe worship that is larger than life. EPIC continues to be the driving force behind EDGE worship—a worship that serves a purpose bigger than any of our own individual agendas. EPIC worship stands for experiential, participatory, image-rich, and community. None of these concepts are new to the established church. They simply manifest themselves in different ways according to the culture and personalities of each congregation. We happen to use various forms of multimedia, dialogue, and music to experience and proclaim the gospel. EDGE worshippers experience community while proclaiming the gospel through the observance of communion each week.
While EDGE takes on the characteristics of its own congregation, the purpose is not to be a stand alone church. Instead, EDGE worshippers are challenged to use the experience to make their Sunday worship more meaningful, regardless of the church in which it occurs. While research has shown that 18-25 year olds tend to drop out of church at a faster rate than most age groups, several young people from EDGE are plugged faithfully into Sunday morning worship experiences and engage in activities that many authors say are antiquated and no longer relevant to this generation such as a choir that still wears robes. For instance, six EDGE worshippers sing in the Parkview choir every Sunday.
EDGE meets in the basement of Parkview Baptist Church on Thursday nights. As we try to find ways of helping other people in this generation find their place in the kingdom, the time may change, but for now the doors open at 8:30 for cappuccino and worship begins at 9:00 pm. EDGE has taken on a coffee-house atmosphere. The great thing about working with young people is that if the Lord decides to morph EDGE into a high-energy concert atmosphere, then that will be fine. Parkview’s pastor, Mike Tatem, leads the preaching/teaching portion of EDGE. Josh Smith, Nikolai Lee, Cynthia Roman, and Travis Crosby (all LCCC students) make up the rest of the worship leadership team. You can find us on facebook under Parkview Edge or on google at parkviewedge.blogspot.com. We hope you will stop by on line or in person and join us as we pursue EPIC worship and a larger than life faith.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Health Care Reform and the Public Option
On September 21 at the SBC Executive Committee, Guidestone Financial Resources president O. S. Hawkins announced that he and leaders from a coalition of 32 denomination-backed health insurance programs are concerned about the impact of President Obama’s proposals for health care reform (Baptist Press, http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=31316). With all of the partisan political rhetoric, the President’s incessant public appearances, and lobbyist commercials about health care reform between the news stories about health care reform, how are we to process the abundance of information?
The controversy stems from the inclusion in the proposal of a public option health insurance. So far, many of the opinion articles that I have read that support the president’s proposal have argued that health care costs are out of control and something must be done. I think many if not most people would agree that this is true. The problem is that a public option does not address health care costs; it addresses health insurance costs.
A public option might provide insurance at a lower premium, but in reality, it will be subject to the same market pressures that private insurance companies face. A public option will charge a lower premium and pay the same high prices that other insurance companies have to pay for treatments and prescriptions. Hawkins rightly stated, “You can’t compete with somebody else who doesn’t have to not just make a profit, but doesn’t even have to break even [and] can print money and support it with your tax dollars.” As with any government interference in the free market, a public option has an unfair advantage and inevitably inflates costs as markets try to compensate for their disadvantage.
A public option will have to establish a structure similar to private companies in order to determine what will or will not be covered. Currently, doctors determine how many patients they will see and which insurance companies they will accept. The proposal has no authority to force doctors to see patients that carry public insurance. In other words, the public option offers no real change to the system and only superficial cost saving to people who will use it.
These factors fuel the scare about “socialized medicine.” Because of these competitive disadvantages, the public option could end up being the only option, as private insurance companies choose to move out of the health care industry and focus on more profitable and competitive markets such as life, home, and auto insurance.
The real solutions to health care reform will only be found when legislators begin to focus on the market forces that drive health care costs. Tort (law that defines what constitutes legal injury and establishes liability) reform directly addresses the cost of doing business for doctors—costs that are directly passed on to patients (and subsequently their insurance carriers.) Legislation that provides incentives to good doctors to accept more patients and more private insurances may possibly force bad doctors out of business. The assumption is that bad doctors stay in business out of the leftover patients and insurance coverage that good doctors refuse to accept.
I am not an expert in economics or the medical industry. I admit that my solutions may not be solutions at all. I do believe that if we are going to argue in support of an idea, our arguments should actually support the idea. If we are going to propose a solution to a problem, the solution should address the problem.
The controversy stems from the inclusion in the proposal of a public option health insurance. So far, many of the opinion articles that I have read that support the president’s proposal have argued that health care costs are out of control and something must be done. I think many if not most people would agree that this is true. The problem is that a public option does not address health care costs; it addresses health insurance costs.
A public option might provide insurance at a lower premium, but in reality, it will be subject to the same market pressures that private insurance companies face. A public option will charge a lower premium and pay the same high prices that other insurance companies have to pay for treatments and prescriptions. Hawkins rightly stated, “You can’t compete with somebody else who doesn’t have to not just make a profit, but doesn’t even have to break even [and] can print money and support it with your tax dollars.” As with any government interference in the free market, a public option has an unfair advantage and inevitably inflates costs as markets try to compensate for their disadvantage.
A public option will have to establish a structure similar to private companies in order to determine what will or will not be covered. Currently, doctors determine how many patients they will see and which insurance companies they will accept. The proposal has no authority to force doctors to see patients that carry public insurance. In other words, the public option offers no real change to the system and only superficial cost saving to people who will use it.
These factors fuel the scare about “socialized medicine.” Because of these competitive disadvantages, the public option could end up being the only option, as private insurance companies choose to move out of the health care industry and focus on more profitable and competitive markets such as life, home, and auto insurance.
The real solutions to health care reform will only be found when legislators begin to focus on the market forces that drive health care costs. Tort (law that defines what constitutes legal injury and establishes liability) reform directly addresses the cost of doing business for doctors—costs that are directly passed on to patients (and subsequently their insurance carriers.) Legislation that provides incentives to good doctors to accept more patients and more private insurances may possibly force bad doctors out of business. The assumption is that bad doctors stay in business out of the leftover patients and insurance coverage that good doctors refuse to accept.
I am not an expert in economics or the medical industry. I admit that my solutions may not be solutions at all. I do believe that if we are going to argue in support of an idea, our arguments should actually support the idea. If we are going to propose a solution to a problem, the solution should address the problem.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Psalm 119 and Synonyms for Scripture
I recently received an email that asked for some clarification of the different words that the Bible uses to describe Scripture, such as statutes and precepts. A casual reading of Psalm 119 reveals that there are certain words that dominate the theme of the Psalm and are used to describe the Law. We tend to think of the Law in terms of rules and regulations that must be followed. However, the law (and Christianity for that matter) is much more than that.
Because our language is finite and limited, we find it difficult to describe spiritual concepts that are infinite and beyond the limitations of our language. What we have in Scripture is a revelation of the nature and character of God himself, not lists of rules that restrict our freedom. God gave us His character in this way because it allows us to understand who He is in spite of the limitations of language. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the psalmists were able to declare the glory of God in creative ways that would actually mean something to us centuries later.
As I was preparing to respond to the email with a simplistic answer that focused on the idea that the words were used interchangeably to describe God's revelation through the Law, my morning devotional reading (Lifewalk, June 24, 2009) actually described a different aspect of the focus of each of the eight words used in Psalm 119. I have reproduced the distinctions below:
Because our language is finite and limited, we find it difficult to describe spiritual concepts that are infinite and beyond the limitations of our language. What we have in Scripture is a revelation of the nature and character of God himself, not lists of rules that restrict our freedom. God gave us His character in this way because it allows us to understand who He is in spite of the limitations of language. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the psalmists were able to declare the glory of God in creative ways that would actually mean something to us centuries later.
As I was preparing to respond to the email with a simplistic answer that focused on the idea that the words were used interchangeably to describe God's revelation through the Law, my morning devotional reading (Lifewalk, June 24, 2009) actually described a different aspect of the focus of each of the eight words used in Psalm 119. I have reproduced the distinctions below:
- Law (from the word teach) - God's word reveals His will.
- Testimonies or Decrees - God's word is faithful and true.
- Precept - God's word gives particular instructions.
- Statute - God's Word has binding force and permanence.
- Commands - God's word possesses authority.
- Ordinance - God's word gives discernment.
- Promise - God's word is reliable.
- Word - A term referring to God's truth in all its forms.
No other book exists that gives us this accurate representation of God and His constant willingness to interact with us in a way that brings us into relationship with Him. This list explains why every apsect of the teaching ministry at Parkview (puplit and classroom) must be centered on the Scriptures. This book and only this book has the power to transform lives. Psalm 119 might take a few extra minutes to read, but your time would be well-spent. If you only have a few minutes, Psalm 19 provides a Reader's Digest shortened version. Maybe you will agree with the Psalmist that Word of God is more valuable than the finest gold imaginable (Ps. 19:10).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Tension between Protection and Leadership
In April 2009, Dr. Danny Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary produced at the urging of SBC President, Johnny Hunt, a document calling for the SBC to adopt a vision for a Great Commission Resurgence. The title is an adaptation of an event that occurred from 1979 to about 1993 called the Conservative Resurgence.
The Conservative Resurgence was a movement to return to sound biblical doctrine beginning with an orthodox view of Scripture. The movement established (hopefully, once and for all) the SBC belief in the fact that the Bible is God's Word without any error or contradiction. The underlying belief among Southern Baptists at that time was that a return to conservative interpretations of Scripture and sound doctrine would solidify and protect our denomination and enable it to advance the kingdom in greater ways than ever before. Now, thirty years later, our denomination is in decline and we are reporting fewer baptisms than in previous years. Whether or not the picture is as bleak as the statistics indicate is, in my opinion, suspect, but I'll save that suspicion for a later article.
As Johnny Hunt calls SBC churches to the noble task of prioritizing the Great Commission, the call has been met with some resistance and criticism from some of the peeple in leadership positions in our convention. Morris Chapman, Executive Director of the SBC, has openly criticized Article 9 of the GCR because it calls for an evaluation of SBC structures to make sure we are as streamlined and steward-minded as possible. The Florida Baptist Witness reported Dr. Hunt's responses to his critics in their June 18, 2009, issue http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10370.article.
Now, to the point of this article. Johnny Hunt stated, "He (Morris Chapman) feels he's protecting the convention and I feel like I'm leading it to greater days." As I read this statement I realized that what we are seeing at the convention level is a reflection of what has occured in SBC churches for years--a tension between protecting the institution and leading the institution. Protectionism requires rearward thinking while leadership requires forward thinking. An imbalance in either direction is unhealthy, but too often for various reasons, these two requirements polarize churches. How often has a pastor been called to lead a church into the future only to be constantly reminded of the past? Interestingly, a protectionist attitude sometimes preserves "what used to be" better than what it actually was. Local churches have been notorious for creating documents and committees that protect the church from the pastor, after all, pastors come and go, but church members remain forever.
The SBC is no different. When Johnny Hunt, a pastor, tries to lead the convention to adapt to its current cultural context and possibly make structural changes that will enable this change, those involved in protecting the institution turn to bylaws and accusations. The Witness reported, "Chapman also raised the question of whether Hunt's approach violates SBC Bylaw 18." The convenient thing about bylaws is that a leader doesn't have to actually violate the bylaw in order to be accused of violating a bylaw--and usually the accusation alone is enough to create doubt and dissension among the less informed protectionists.
We all need to take time to recognize what Scripture teaches about the church, "And He (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church, who is in the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things, including the church, He may have the preminence" (Col 1:18, italics mine). Jesus Christ is to have preeminent control in our churches, not a pastor, a board, a committee, or a bylaw. If we continue to fight to control our churches or denominational institutions, then no document or declaration will be effective in bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence. A Great Commission Resurgence will take place only when we realize (and align our organizations to) the fact that our churches and denomination exist solely for the eternal hope of those who are not yet members.
The Conservative Resurgence was a movement to return to sound biblical doctrine beginning with an orthodox view of Scripture. The movement established (hopefully, once and for all) the SBC belief in the fact that the Bible is God's Word without any error or contradiction. The underlying belief among Southern Baptists at that time was that a return to conservative interpretations of Scripture and sound doctrine would solidify and protect our denomination and enable it to advance the kingdom in greater ways than ever before. Now, thirty years later, our denomination is in decline and we are reporting fewer baptisms than in previous years. Whether or not the picture is as bleak as the statistics indicate is, in my opinion, suspect, but I'll save that suspicion for a later article.
As Johnny Hunt calls SBC churches to the noble task of prioritizing the Great Commission, the call has been met with some resistance and criticism from some of the peeple in leadership positions in our convention. Morris Chapman, Executive Director of the SBC, has openly criticized Article 9 of the GCR because it calls for an evaluation of SBC structures to make sure we are as streamlined and steward-minded as possible. The Florida Baptist Witness reported Dr. Hunt's responses to his critics in their June 18, 2009, issue http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10370.article.
Now, to the point of this article. Johnny Hunt stated, "He (Morris Chapman) feels he's protecting the convention and I feel like I'm leading it to greater days." As I read this statement I realized that what we are seeing at the convention level is a reflection of what has occured in SBC churches for years--a tension between protecting the institution and leading the institution. Protectionism requires rearward thinking while leadership requires forward thinking. An imbalance in either direction is unhealthy, but too often for various reasons, these two requirements polarize churches. How often has a pastor been called to lead a church into the future only to be constantly reminded of the past? Interestingly, a protectionist attitude sometimes preserves "what used to be" better than what it actually was. Local churches have been notorious for creating documents and committees that protect the church from the pastor, after all, pastors come and go, but church members remain forever.
The SBC is no different. When Johnny Hunt, a pastor, tries to lead the convention to adapt to its current cultural context and possibly make structural changes that will enable this change, those involved in protecting the institution turn to bylaws and accusations. The Witness reported, "Chapman also raised the question of whether Hunt's approach violates SBC Bylaw 18." The convenient thing about bylaws is that a leader doesn't have to actually violate the bylaw in order to be accused of violating a bylaw--and usually the accusation alone is enough to create doubt and dissension among the less informed protectionists.
We all need to take time to recognize what Scripture teaches about the church, "And He (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church, who is in the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things, including the church, He may have the preminence" (Col 1:18, italics mine). Jesus Christ is to have preeminent control in our churches, not a pastor, a board, a committee, or a bylaw. If we continue to fight to control our churches or denominational institutions, then no document or declaration will be effective in bringing about a Great Commission Resurgence. A Great Commission Resurgence will take place only when we realize (and align our organizations to) the fact that our churches and denomination exist solely for the eternal hope of those who are not yet members.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Differing Perspectives in the Church Growth Movement
In an article in The Chronicle Review, a "Magazine of Ideas" within The Chronicle of Higher Education, Johanna Drucker discusses the dilemma faced by Stanford University regarding the future of its library, and in essence the future of all libraries (see note). Our age of information has lessened the need for trips to an actual library, so financial and space constraints are forcing libraries to reconsider not only their function (what they do), but also their form (what they look like).
Concerning libraries, Drucker makes the statement, "Rather than envision a 'library of the future', it [the faculty plan at Stanford University] discusses the 'future of the library,' stressing continuity with an old entity rather than the creation of something brand-new. The distinction exposes what is at stake." While hardly a statement of worldview, Drucker does make a statement that dichotomizes two perspectives. This statement, applied to the church, may accurately describe the tension in church growth writing over the past 30 years. At the heart of the dilemma is whether or not believers envision a church of the future or worry about the future of the church. The latter naturally clings to contextualizing the traditions of the old while the former emphasizes the need for something completely new. As church leaders, I believe we must find ways to keep these perspectives from being on opposite ends of the church growth spectrum.
The function of the church must continue to be defined by Scripture, that of advancing the kingdom (I have intentionally left considerable denominational leeway in that statement). However, the form of the church, throughout history as always been culturally contextualized. These differences in perspective are not always generational, but I am reminded of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond, in seeking to gain his father's forgiveness for accidentally destroying jazz records thirty years ago, replaces the lost music with digitized cd versions. Raymond even bought a cd player so that his father could enjoy the clarity of the music he loved. The problem was that Frank (Raymond's father) wanted nothing to do with anything new. He simply wanted the old records back. He never gave the new medium a chance to prove itself, and opted instead, to continue to berate Raymond for destroying the albums in the first place.
Are we going to continue to complain about the lost mediums of ministry, or will we be willing to live out our faith in the newness of the changes in our culture? The Bible teaches us that even the gates of hell will not withstand the advances of the church (Matt 16:18). So I think I will not worry so much about the future of the church. Instead, I will try to think in terms of the church of the future.
Drucker, Johanna. "Blind Spots: Humanists must plan their digital future." The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 3 April 2009, sec. B, pp. 6-8.
Concerning libraries, Drucker makes the statement, "Rather than envision a 'library of the future', it [the faculty plan at Stanford University] discusses the 'future of the library,' stressing continuity with an old entity rather than the creation of something brand-new. The distinction exposes what is at stake." While hardly a statement of worldview, Drucker does make a statement that dichotomizes two perspectives. This statement, applied to the church, may accurately describe the tension in church growth writing over the past 30 years. At the heart of the dilemma is whether or not believers envision a church of the future or worry about the future of the church. The latter naturally clings to contextualizing the traditions of the old while the former emphasizes the need for something completely new. As church leaders, I believe we must find ways to keep these perspectives from being on opposite ends of the church growth spectrum.
The function of the church must continue to be defined by Scripture, that of advancing the kingdom (I have intentionally left considerable denominational leeway in that statement). However, the form of the church, throughout history as always been culturally contextualized. These differences in perspective are not always generational, but I am reminded of an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond, in seeking to gain his father's forgiveness for accidentally destroying jazz records thirty years ago, replaces the lost music with digitized cd versions. Raymond even bought a cd player so that his father could enjoy the clarity of the music he loved. The problem was that Frank (Raymond's father) wanted nothing to do with anything new. He simply wanted the old records back. He never gave the new medium a chance to prove itself, and opted instead, to continue to berate Raymond for destroying the albums in the first place.
Are we going to continue to complain about the lost mediums of ministry, or will we be willing to live out our faith in the newness of the changes in our culture? The Bible teaches us that even the gates of hell will not withstand the advances of the church (Matt 16:18). So I think I will not worry so much about the future of the church. Instead, I will try to think in terms of the church of the future.
Drucker, Johanna. "Blind Spots: Humanists must plan their digital future." The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 3 April 2009, sec. B, pp. 6-8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
