(The Greek word ÒauthenticasÓ means authentic,
originating; if there were no original one hundred dollar bills there could be
no counterfeit ones)
Theme: Authentic ministry for the
Authentic Church:
1. What is The Church? Whose is it?
2. Was/Is there an Authentic Church?
3. Is there a Biblical Model of Ministry?
4. Is there an Authentic Church for our
multicultural, post modern world?
Three Disclaimers:
Evangelicalism is not a recent phenomena. From Britain to North America there have been distressing
market habits used to target people to get them emotionally involved. The evangelical faith is not a recent
innovation. (How do you define
religious divergent groups?) Professor James D. Hunter of the University of
Virginia states:
ÒLeading
academics apparently describe evangelicals as Òright-wing zealots,Ó Òreligious
nuts,Ó Òa misanthropic cult,Ó Òfanatics,Ó Òdemagogues,Ó Òanti-intellectual and
simplistic,Ó while our message is considered Òvicious,Ó Òcynical,Ó Ònarrow,Ó
ÒdivisiveÓ and Òirrational.Ó
(James D. Hunter, Culture Wars (NY: Basic Books, 1991), p. 144)
(1) This exposes both popular and unpopular
accounts. Yet this movement is the
most rapidly growing group in the world.
Evangelicalism is grounded in the New Testament. The Reformers were innovators by the
Roman Catholic Church, but they refused the accusation. The Reformers claimed that their
message was back to basics, accusing Medieval Catholics of radical deviation
from the authentic first century gospel.
The classical reformers insisted that they were recovering the biblical
faith, not the innovators of it.
John Wesley claimed--ÒIt is the plain old Christianity I teach.Ó (John Wesley, The Character of A
Methodist (1742), p. 12)
In
our Post Modern malaise, Billy Graham was accused not of novelty, but of being
hopelessly out of date, set back the cause of Christianity one hundred
years. He replied that he did not
want to set Christianity back only one hundred years, Òbut 1900 years to The
Book of Acts, where first century disciples were accused of turning the
Roman Empire upside down.Ó
(2) The Evangelical faith is not a
deviation from Christian orthodoxy.
From The Bible to The Apostles Creed and The Nicene Creed is part
of our long and honorable pedigree.
From the 17th to 18th centuries ÒEvangelicalÓ came into widespread usage
from the Puritans in England to the Pietists in Germany. This turn was associated from Martin
Luther (die Evanglishen, short for evangelici viri-evangelical
men). From the Evangelical Revival
associated with John Wesley and George Whitefield the term gained powerful
significance.
From
Charles Simeon (vicar of Holy Trinity Church in Cambridge 1782-1833) to William
Wilberforce, champion against African slavery to J.C. Ryle, there were numerous
outspoken champions for the Evangelical truth against the tendencies against
ÒRomanismÓ and ÒScepticismÓ (developments in science and Biblical criticism and
the influence of Hume and Kant). A
prominent 19th century evangelical leader in North America was Charles G.
Finney (1792-1875) who was committed equally to evangelism and to social
reform; also Dwight L. MoodyÕs influence (1837-1899) extended beyond the United
States to Britain. He was a strong
adherent for education (the Moody Bible College and the entire Moody influence
is global).
(3) Evangelicalism is not a synonym for Fundamentalism. The two forces have a different history
and a different connotation. Fundamentalism, which is frequently used as a
theological smear word, had very respectable origins. It came from a series of
twelve paperbacks entitled The Fundamentals distributed between 1909 and
1915 by Lyman and Milton Stewart, brothers from southern California. They circulated millions of copies free
of charge. The word
ÒfundamentalistÓ was coined to denote anybody who believed the central
affirmation of the Christian faith.
The
Fundamentals are still important.
(Compare them with the book, This We Believe (Zondervan, 2000);
comparison with the authors of the original articles and the new articles in
the above mentioned work would be constructive; see esp. Carl HenryÕs work, Uneasy
Conscience of Modern Fundamentals (1947). An ensuing debate began between Dr. James Barr (Fundamentalism
(London ECM Press, 1966) and Bishop Jack Spong (Rescuing The Bible From
Fundamentalism (London, 1966).
Bishop Spong strongly suggested that the only clone was between
enlightenment liberalism or obscurantist (ignorant) fundamentalism. This debate continues in our post
modern theological arena, where biblically grounded Christians are still
accused of having a rationalistic, fundamentalist mind set (Harris A.
Harries, Fundamentalism and Evangelism (OUP, 1998), p. 313; compare with
John StottÕs, Evangelical Truth (InterVarsity Press, 1999).
This
ensuing debate entails at least ten tendencies: (1) Human Thought (Faith/Reason); (2) Nature of
The Bible; (3) Biblical Inspiration (compare with the dictation of
Allah in Arabic and the Muslim view of the Koran; (4) Biblical
Interpretation (eg. my papers ÒPost Modern HermeneuticsÓ and ÒGadamerÕs
DeconstructionismÓ; ÒConservative Level Bible--Premillennialism/
DispensationalismÓ; ÒHow are the Old Testament and the New Testament
related?Ó ÒTheology of Promise: Christ
the CenterÓ; ÒTrue TruthÓ; ÒHermeneutics--Relevance to Reader and
AudienceÓ (5) Ecumenical Movement (WCC and
ACCC failure replaced by multicultural pluralism (Diversity/Tolerance--ÒAllÓ
beliefs are leveled in post modern analysis). (6) The Church: ÒIn but not of the worldÓ--How in the
World? The balance between
discipline and tolerance is not easy to find and/or to keep. (7) The World: How is the Church to relate to the World
(eg. NiebuhrÕs Christ and Culture). The Church is continually challenged by mere assimilation
and syncretism (eg. Seeker Friendly audience becomes the authority)
Nineteenth
Century development of Comparative Religions, History of Religion, Sociology
of Religion, Philosophy of Religion (from Kant forward), Phenomenology of
Religion (see my paper ÒFrom Syncretism to Relativism to PluralismÓ
(Epistemological Relativism, ÒSociology of Knowledge ThesisÓ. (8) Race: the myth of white supremacy, racial segregation ÒIn Christ
there are Jews and Gentiles, rich, poor, etc.,Ó U.S. Seventies, South African
Apartheid, missions and American colonialism (the Ugly Americans).
(9) Christian Mission: Missions and Evangelism
are not synonyms (problem of post modern charge of Eurocentricism) Fusion of
Good News and ÒGood WorksÓ supplement and reinforce one another. Their separation, wrote Carl Henry, is
ProtestantismÕs embarrassing divorce.Ó
(Uneasy Conscience, p. 36-37). (10) Christian
Hope: Christian hope is not
totally future oriented!
Fundamentalism tends to be dogmatic about the Future, while our Lord
prefers to remain silent (see my papers, ÒJesusÕ Last Words on The FutureÓ; all
millennial theories are transcended by ÒTheology of Promise (Prophecy and
Promise)Ó.
Our
first concern is as Diagnosis (critique); our second concern is Prognosis
(positive presentation of response).
It is not enough for Christians to be against something, someone or some
program or agenda. We must clearly
present the Christian alternative.
How
can the biblical mandate for Òthe people of God to be One, because He is One!Ó
be realized in our pluralistic diversified post modern world? There are almost as many evangelical
tribes as varieties of Heinz soup.
Peter Beyerhaus distinguished six different evangelical groups present
at the 1975 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization, ÒLet the Earth
Hear His VoiceÓ (ed. J.D. Douglas, World Wide Publishers, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Nearly
twenty years later Gabrie Faekre, Ecumenical Faith in Evangelical
Perspective (Eerdmans 1993) present six categories of evangelicals: (1) Fundamentalist,
(2) Old Evangelicals, (3) New Evangelicals (acknowledge social
responsibility, justice, peace, etc.), (4) Charismatic Evangelicals
(Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, miracles, etc.), (5) Ecumenical
Evangelicals (unity, tolerance, cooperation) (compare this list with D.W.
BebbingtonÕs comprehensive survey, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain
(1989).
J.
I. Packer lists six evangelical fundamentals: (compare with Alister McGrathÕs Evangelicalism
and The Future of Christianity (IVP, 1995, pp. 53-88) (1) Supremacy of Scriptures; (2)
Majesty of Jesus Christ (His Birth, The Cross, Resurrection and
Atonement); (3) Lordship of the Holy Spirit; (4) Necessity of
Conversion (no Christians anonymous or universalism); (5) Priority of
Evangelism /Missions; (6) Importance of Fellowship.
(Read
especially George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicals
(Eerdmans, 1991); and the papers ÒWorld Congress on EvangelicalismÓ (Volumes I
and II), One Race, One Gospel, One Task, 1967, Volumes I and II.
The
crisis is exposed in Òdenominational declineÓ in membership. The renewed emphasis on ÒevangelismÓ
attempts to stem the ebbing tide.
A fundamental drive of this movement is too often a Òmembership recruitment.Ó Often growth is solely a Òmembership
relocation.Ó The spate of
Ògrowth-ismÓ is crumbling and begging for a much deeper diagnosis and
prescription than Òdoing things more and better.Ó Mainline churches are losing their members to conservative
evangelicalism. Does this suggest
that an aggressive program of evangelization will be the solution? Yet, our ÒrealÓ program is surely
articulated by Wade C. Roof and William McKenney. Their brilliant research has shown mainline churches are
losing their members not so much to conservative churches as to Secular
Lifestyle (American Religion: Mainline Religion (New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press, 1987), p. 242; Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of
Disbelief (How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion)
(Basic Books Harper/Collins, 1993).
Too
often The Church Growth Movement has failed to perceive the gap between Òinner
lifeÓ of the Churches and their appeal to Òcompanions in the culture can be
bridged by better techniquesÓ and more effective technicians. This phenomena is exposed by the
emphasis on marketing the Church (eg. Barna) and appeal to ÒConsumerismÓ of
Post Modern religious shoppers in our theological cafeterias.
The
crisis is not first of all about decline and growth. These are merely symptons. The crisis is how The Church
sees itself and forms its life--personal and social dimensions. There are at least two corollary
dynamics in the ChurchÕs current position in relation to its cultural
environment. (1) We must face the
truth that we have co-opted into the perspective of Wesleyan culture, commonly
labeled The Enlightenment (see esp. Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to The
Greeks (Eerdmans, 1986) and his The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society
(Eerdman, 1989; here he proposes Òmissionary eyesÓ as the approach for the
Western Churches.
From
Leibnizian and scientific world view influence, Western cultural tendency has
been to express a dichotomy between ÒFactsÓ (science) and ÒValuesÓ which are
private opinions or beliefs of individuals. Scientific facts are in the Òpublic dominion;Ó values are
only available in the Òprivate realmÓ (eg. The Death of God, Situational
Ethics, Cultural, Epistemological and Ethical Relativism; see my bibliographies
on The Death of God; Relativism; Contextualization; The
Development of Science; and Atheism on reserve in the LCC
Library). The Church has accepted
this dichotomy and has capitulated, becoming voluntarily enslaved to the
cultivation of private morals and values.
We must avoid intimidation of the dominate plausibility structure of the
language of personal preference.
Our
resident culture is described as Post Critical, Post Enlightenment, Post
Modern, Post Secular. In virtually
every field of inquiry there are signs of collapse, transition and emergence. Post Modernism is a seismic shift for
which only partial clues are available.
The paradigmatic revolutions of Copernican/Newtonian proportions
continues almost unabated. Into
the seismic field of scientific and cultural changes enters Polanyi, Popper and
Kuhn (Thomas Kuhn is the most referenced author in the past forty years).
Into
this milieu of radical change how are we to maintain Christian conviction and
provide Christian leaders to create and sustain Christian disciples of Jesus
and produce change agents Òfor such a time as this?Ó We must understand the times! GodÕs new leaders must stand within a Christian World View,
as well as understand alternative world views.
The
seismic changes of the 21st century necessitates that we give attention
to: (1) Forming a communal world
view; (2) Casting a wider vision than local or provincial; (3) Healing our
fragmented worlds; and (4) Igniting a subversive witness. These factors are not a Òjob
descriptionÓ or strategic plan; they are pervasive tasks which inform all of
the daily and weekly practicalities of the job of being servant leaders. They must prioritize concerns essential
if we are to recover the missionary character of the Christian Community.
In
our Post Modern Global Village, The Church must become genuinely
missionary. (1) A Church (The
Church) must indwell the Òplausibility structure of The Scriptures. Here is the dynamic for cross-cultural
encounter--a dialogue of witness to others in the culture will emerge. This encounter requires that the
Community of The Exodus and the Community of Aliens must have a clear Òself
Identity.Ó Christians are
participants (missionaries).
(2) In our Post Modern
(Enlightenment) culture, The Church has been discharged from its chaplaincy and
must accept the obligation consciously to remove itself from its accommodating
co-option into the assumption of the culture it has so long supported. Yet the same Western culture is moving
through a sea change of its own.
The
signs of raped social change are everywhere evident. Peter DruckerÕs voice can
be ignored at our own peril. He
declares that Òwe are already in the 21st century, where we do not know the
answers, but we know the issues.
Sometime between 1965 and 1973 we crossed over a divide and entered the
21st century. We passed out of the
creeds, commitments and alignments that shaped politics for a century or
two. We are on terra incognita
with few familiar landmarks to guide us.Ó
(Peter Drucker, The New Realities (NY: Harper, 1989).
A
strategic vision is a clear image of what you want to achieve, which then
organizes and instructs every step toward that goal. The extraordinarily successful strategic vision for NASA was
ÒPut a man on the moon by the end of the decade.Ó That strategic vision gave magnetic direction to the entire
organization. Nobody had to be
told or reminded of where the organization was going. Contrast the organizing focus of putting a man on the moon
by the end of the decade with, ÒWe are going to be the world leader in space
exploration,Ó which doesnÕt organize anything.
In
a constantly changing world, strategic planning is not enough; it becomes
planning for its own sake.
Strategic planning must be completely geared to a strategic vision and
know exactly where it is going, with a clarity that remains in spite of the
confusion natural to the first stages of change.
Too
often a shared vision or purpose is absent. Drawing from the public sector, let me suggest how important
it is to have a shared sense of a common purpose: What business are we really in?
(John Naisbitt, Megatrends (NY: Warner Books),
1982, p. 95)
1.
Industrial -- to Informational Society
2. Forced to High Technology--A.T.& T.
(Reach out & touch someone)
3. National -- to World Economy
4. Short --
to Long Term
5.
Centralization -- to Decentralization
6.
Institutional -- to Self-Help
7.
Representative -- to Participatory Democracy
8.
Hierarchies -- to Networking (Systems)
9. North
-- to the South (Florida, California, Texas)
10. Either/Or -- to Multiple Option
(Sam Paradine (Jack KeroukÕs) self-centered self in a
world of megatrends)
James Strauss