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.

Forgiveness That Makes a Difference

About halfway through the TV season, I got involved in watching 24. I'll let you judge my spirituality in your comments, but the action, storyline, and cultural relevance really drew me in. We can gain much perspective on our culture's worldview by watching shows like 24. We must always do so with caution, because if we are not careful, cultural worldview will (if it hasn't already) affect our biblical worldview. I do not let Hollywood define my theology, so this commentary is not meant to be critical of the writers of 24--I expect nothing from them in the way of correct understanding of spirituality. With all of the ethical dilemmas facing the individual characters, there was one scene that immediately hit me as bloggable, the scene near the end when Jack, faced with inevitable death, turns to a Muslim cleric in search for peace.

Jack's despair is vocalized with phrases such as "you don't know the things I've done," and "it's too late for me." The cleric actually speaks the truth when he says, "It's never too late." Sound familiar? How many of us keep ourselves from knowing God because we believe we are unforgivable and it is too late for us? The cleric offers encouragement but then does what would be expected from Hollywood writers writing from a secular humanistic worldview--closes his eyes as if to offer a prayer and then speaks to their souls to find the "forgiveness within themselves." Their goal was for Jack to be reconciled to his enemies by seeking and extending forgiveness, as if this reconciliation is what matters the most. In Hollywood, it is apparently not politically correct for even a Muslim cleric to share the love and mercy of his god.

To people who are facing an impending death (all of us at some point in our lives), the Bible does not ask you to search inside yourself. To do so would only create disappointment and frustration. After all, we have made a mess of ourselves. Are we really going to find the source of peace from within a being whose essence is chaos? Instead, we are told from Scripture that God loves us and extends to us the opportunity to be forgiven. His love and forgiveness is not subject to the limitations we place on ourselves. Romans 5 tells us that "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (v. 8), and that "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (v. 10). We may through our own human effort find peace for a short period of time. But if we want a peace that lasts into eternity, we need to look beyond our own temporal existence, and be reconciled to God, the One who owns eternity. Seek His forgiveness, then the forgiveness of others will make a difference.

Respect, Tolerate, or Equal Value

Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, has recently posted a blog about respecting other religions. You can read the full article at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3799.

Mohler, as usual, articulates an evangelical position very well. There are many things that we can respect with regard to the people who adhere to other religions, but any belief system that moves poeple in the opposite direction of the God of the Bible and His terms of salvation through Jesus Christ must be rejected.

In addition to what Mohler writes, I would add that the term respect has been misappropriated by a pluralistic, politically correct world that insists that all views are equally true, even the ones that are diametrically opposed. Respecting people as human beings in our conversations and acts of good will is not enough for our relativistic society.

Equally valuing differing worldviews as true is illogical. Tolerance has been over played and proven inconsistent in its use. Maybe the word respect as applied to differing faiths is just the next step in the evolution of a culture that may one day not be able to defend or recognize truth because to do so would "disrespectful." And nobody wants to be disrespectful.

Miss California and Cultural Intolerance

Just when I think it is time to move on to something more recent, I see another story related to the controversy surrounding Miss California and the Miss USA Pageant. In case you are not familiar with the controversy, during the Miss USA Pageant, Miss California was asked a question concerning same-sex marriages. Perez Hilton, celebrity blogger, gay activist, and judge #8 asked, "Recently Vermont became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?" Miss California expressed her belief that marriage was between a man and a woman--not a politically correct response.

The Today Show with Matt Lauer ran the story with the usual media bias. He recently interviewed Perez Hilton and during the conversation Perez Hilton made the comment that he was "floored by the response." Then he said, "I personally would have appreciated it if she left her politics and her religion out." While others are commenting on the legitimacy and political correctness of Miss California's response, I want to to comment on this statement by Perez Hilton because it demonstrates another form of the double standards of the cultural definition of tolerance--questions that express political and moral views are acceptable and answers that express these views are not.

Hilton suggested that Miss California could have said that each state should decide. He claims to believe that he had given her a very easy and politically safe question. However, there are two problems with his logic. First of all, if she would have responded with Hilton's suggested answer, she would have been sharing a political view--that states should exercise their rights without federal interference--which according to his statement to Matt Lauer would have been inappropriate as well. Second, she would not have answered the question. He clearly asked, "Should every state follow suit?" His answer would have been a non-answer and I am fairly certain that she would have been penalized for a non-response as well. In other words, he wanted her opinion on same-sex marriage and when it did not agree with his opinion, he became intolerant of her intolerance. The only safe answer for Miss California would have been one that went against her convictions.

Just in case we think we are immune to cultural pressure and media bias, I realized as I wrote this article thatI knew the name of Perez Hilton. Miss California remained anonymous. That is the influence of media. By the way, her name is Carrie Prejean. I had to look it up because Matt Lauer never mentioned it.

Cooperative Program

I love being a Southern Baptist. The Cooperative Program has proven to be one of the most effective methods of making a difference in the kingdom worldwide. We can do more together than we can by ourselves. I have not always agreed with the policies or structures of the SBC, but rather than complain and threaten to withdraw funds, I took a different approach--involvement. I became moderator of our Association because I believe that if change is going to come to the SBC, I want to be involved in the front lines of that change.

Too often, the question is asked, "Why give to the CP? We don't get anything out of it." I cringe when I hear pastors say that. As pastors, we ask our people to invest in something bigger than themselves, the work of the kingdom through the local church. We expect our people to give regardless of their feelings about "how the money is managed," or "whether or not they are getting anything out of it." We even go so far to say that it is their attitude if they are not getting anything out of being involved in the church.

The same should be true in our churches' commitments to the Cooperative Program. Our churches should be setting the example for our people. We should be giving at the Associational and State levels because it demonstrates our commitment to kingdom work that is bigger than us and it models the type of giving that we ask of our people. If we expect our people to live on 90% of their income, then we should demonstrate that same level of faith in our own investments to the CP.