Tuesday, March 07, 2006
This Doesn't Add Up To Me
As a member of PCUSA, I will not attempt to defend much of what is going on in the church, it is wrong. I am; however, getting a little tired of condemnation instead of solutions. There is a post that tries to strike a balance that just doesn't add up to me. Mark Driscoll:
How does one become an "influential" member? In my experience - money talks, and frankly listening to "influential" members heavily accounts for the increasing liberalization in the PCUSA - its not necessarily a good thing.
Distributed leadership and a democratic approach is indeed a two edged sword. One the one end, EVERYTHING ends up as a compromise, and such compromise creeps towards liberalization, as we saw yesterday but it does reinforce the "priesthood of all believers." The problem in the Presbyterian system is most decidely not its decentralized leadership approach, but rather the lowering of standards about membership in general.
The large church model Driscoll appears to be supporting seems blatantly to be one that tries to make the church function with a large contingent of non- or marginal members. It is the church as demographic/regional community, not community-of-believers.
PCUSA, as a denomination, is broken, of that I make no denial, but within it are the seeds of the way I think church is supposed to be done. The problem is not how the organization is put together, but how those that operate the organization are ignoring those traditional rules.
Driscoll seems to be changing the paradigm for church altogeher, from the faithful in community to a permanent tent revival - that's just part of church, not all of it.
Related Tags: church, PCUSA, evangelicalism, emerging church, statistics, church growth, discipleship
the stats bear out that churches with a high view of Scripture, a high view of Jesus, and an ongoing call for people to repent of personal sin and trust in Jesus tend to grow while their counterparts do not. Why? Because there is power in the gospel, and the church has no power when it walks away from the gospel. As the PC-USA is discovering, churches marrying the spirit of the age instead of Jesus end up being widowed. The only hope is repentance, which is the key to all of the Christian life, and not merely another year of stats without an explanation, repentance, and a renewed sense of mission.But Dirscoll then goes on to cite eight variables that "help make churches grow" - now before I even look at any of the variables, I'd like to tackle the idea that growth is a sign of a good church. Simply put the great commission is NOT to build the church, it's to build disciples. Now, I know, in theory those are supposed to be synonomous, but are they? Consider this "variable"
Larger churches tend to be more conservative in theology and more liberal in practice, while smaller churches are often more liberal in theology and more conservative in outward practice (e.g., liturgy, hymns, and vestments).What makes a disciple, theology or practice? Why when discussing smaller churches are they liberal in "outward" practice, but he makes no distinction when discussing the practice of larger churches? What does he mean by "practice?" This strikes me as, at least, an arbitrary shot at traditonal worship forms as opposed to a meaningful observation, and if taken at face value, I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A CHURCH CONSERVATIVE IN PRACTICE AND LIBERAL IN THEOLOGY THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I care less if you are arminian or calvinist or cessassionist or charismatic than I do if I see Christ evident in your life - i.e. practice. Consider these "variables"
Larger churches tend to have a smaller number of leaders making decisions while smaller churches are either in theory or practice more committee and congregationally governed.The observation is largely true, and most of the reason is practical. It is simply impossible to govern a larger organization in a highly distributed fashion. Now consider a couple of other points that are very important.
Larger churches tend to listen to a small and influential number of church members for direction while smaller churches tend to give ear to most everyone.
How does one become an "influential" member? In my experience - money talks, and frankly listening to "influential" members heavily accounts for the increasing liberalization in the PCUSA - its not necessarily a good thing.
Distributed leadership and a democratic approach is indeed a two edged sword. One the one end, EVERYTHING ends up as a compromise, and such compromise creeps towards liberalization, as we saw yesterday but it does reinforce the "priesthood of all believers." The problem in the Presbyterian system is most decidely not its decentralized leadership approach, but rather the lowering of standards about membership in general.
The large church model Driscoll appears to be supporting seems blatantly to be one that tries to make the church function with a large contingent of non- or marginal members. It is the church as demographic/regional community, not community-of-believers.
PCUSA, as a denomination, is broken, of that I make no denial, but within it are the seeds of the way I think church is supposed to be done. The problem is not how the organization is put together, but how those that operate the organization are ignoring those traditional rules.
Driscoll seems to be changing the paradigm for church altogeher, from the faithful in community to a permanent tent revival - that's just part of church, not all of it.
Related Tags: church, PCUSA, evangelicalism, emerging church, statistics, church growth, discipleship
