Chapter 3 of Healthy Small Churches set my thoughts off in several different directions. I trust these thoughts will prompt you to add some comments and ask some questions. As they do, click "comments" and join the conversation. If you're reading Bickers, you'll notice that I changed "proper" to "orthodox" in this posting. I'm confident that's what Bickers has in mind, but I wanted to make it clear because those who have departed from the historic Christian faith would also consider their theology and doctrine "proper."
Orthodox theology and doctrine is part of the DNA of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. If you're one of our readers from outside the EPC, please bear with this in-house comment. At our denomination's founding in 1981 we identified in the Essentials of Our Faith what Bickers calls "some basic firm beliefs that cannot be abandoned." We also identified ourselves with the Reformed tradition by adopting the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Our leaders afffirm the Confession as "containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures." Our General Assembly Moderators often travel extensively and get acquainted with our churches around the country. Many have commented on how faithfully the Bible is preached in our pulpits. Almost all of the pastors in pulpits in our small churches - are filled by ministers with seminary educations - even those who are bi-vocational. As Bickers points out, that is often not the case.
Orthodox theology and doctrine is a distinguishing mark of an evangelical-missional church (for detailed background of what I mean by the term, download the "Missional Primer"). "Missional" is a term many church traditions now use to describe themselves. Depending on the group's theological bent, the common term takes on varied nuances. Even with the varied meanings, "missional" is a good term because it forces us to ask, "What do we mean?" and brings together a cluster of important concepts reaching back into the scripture and church history and informing us about how to relate to our rapidly changing culture. As we seek to be a missional denomination, our theology must be clear about the nature of the kingdom of God, the nature of the Gospel, and, together, their ethical imperatives. Otherwise, there is little difference between a missional church and a social gospel.
Orthodox theology and doctrine is essential for a church to be considered truly healthy. I appreciate Bickers putting theology and doctrine right up front in his book. There are numerous lists of what makes a church healthy, and theology us usually not on the list. One of them, Natural Church Development (Christian Schwarz), addresses church health by assessing and improving eight "quality characteristics": empowering leadership, functional structures, gift-oriented ministry, holistic small groups, inspiring worship, loving relationships, need-oriented evangelism, and passionate spirituality. I have no quarrel with these as signs of church health. My problem is that by using these "quality characteristics" as the sole measurement, a group teaching heretical doctrine could could be considered healthy. It would be a healthy group, but not a healthy church. I think highly of Kennon Callahan's book Small, Strong Congregations, but theology is nowhere to be seen his list of what makes a small church strong (look on the sidebar of of last year's book blog for his list). Orthodox theology and doctrine shouldn't simply be assumed as part of church health, but be foundational and explicitly stated.
It takes more than orthodox theology and doctrine to make a healthy church. Churches may think they have all their doctrine straight, but then slip into the "elder brother" role in the parable of the Prodigal Son, forgetting that the gospel is something lived and forgetting that they are participants in the mission of God. They may have right doctrine but miss where that doctrine points. Orthodox theology is essential for church health, but a church becomes diseased if it becomes a theological clubhouse. It's fascinating that "good teaching" has been used as a key reason for both growth and non-growth of a church. If a church takes it's missionary identity seriously, it learns the language of its community and becomes skilled at communicating timeless, orthodox truth in a timely, understandable way. Healthy churches have the characteristics described in Natural Church Development and Small, Strong Congregations, and they are rooted in orthodox theology and doctrine.
(By the way, did you notice that this "small y" yankee chose a photo with a compass pointing south?)
Posts
First, a disclaimer, I am not reading Bickers' book, but I do have a 27 year pile of books on church leadership and growth. Years ago I met Rick Warren when he was skinny and running 6 miles a day. I drank the cool aid at Willow Creek. The end result: I am a little jaded when it comes to church growth tactics.
ReplyDeleteI am so happy that someone actually believes the small church is meant to be healthy and not the place where young pastors kick off their ladder climbing careers and old dinosaurs, such as myself, go to die.
That being said, I would say regarding orthodox theology that we are rehashing an old battle, aren't we? Let me recommend a study of THE RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS by Jonathan Edwards. He was writing his most mature understanding of revival (Calvinists like revivals? see Psalm 80). He was answering the critics who thought all revivals were expressions of untamed emotions. To Edwards there had to be light in the understanding (God's illumination within Word and Sacrament) and then there would be a right inclination of the heart to choose Christ Jesus.
Edwards was also addressing the problem of truly defective understandings of Christian spirituality. Now, before you dismiss Edwards and me, think of this: Edwards is liked by charismatics and cessationists. (?!)
You will see why if you read Sam Storm's "interpretation" of the Religious Affections called, SIGNS OF THE SPIRIT.
Personally, I am not into "deeds over creeds" because that is exactly where the old liberal line went. Doesn't matter what you believe, just do good stuff. By the way, preaching the Gospel in the liberal's 'theology' ISN'T a good work, just pass the soup and soap and keep your pie hole closed.
Thank the Lord (really) for the Essentials of the EPC constitution.
So, beware.Been there, got the t shirt, the mug and the runner's up trophy in 'church growth.' But nothing is better than tasting of the Lord Himself. Now contemplate Psalm 42. Shouldn't we help our parishioners get their thirst for God met?....thirsty for God?
Being a recent graduate of the PCUSA, I am probably more impressed by this than many. Proper theology and doctrine is essential, but i believe it requires more than the pulpit.
ReplyDeleteLiving it, explaining it, and connecting it life issues is necessary, and I think that is a church-wide affair.
I think strengthening the teaching ministries of the small church will need to look more at these things, not just preaching and Sunday School. But, that is enough for another book. i suppose.
I would not put this book in the camp of church numerical growth methods - which I think became a part of the DNA of the Hybels, Warren, etc... movement. I see it as a church HEALTH (or spiritual growth) effort.
ReplyDeleteFor a church to be truly healthy, it must have sound theology and teaching while reaching out missionally with the love of Christ.
As much as I appreciated the NCD material and previous training, I have to say that I prefer to both build strengths while adjusting for weaknesses. And Ed, as we have discussed, that is why LRM believes in the categories of "Spiritual Basics" and "Spiritual Disciplines" as the foundation of the Spiritual Growth and Community Impact Survey (SGCIS).
Great warning to not become the 'older brother' too. That is one of the great barriers to reaching the next generation...
Kissing the Face of God is an interesting book.
ReplyDeleteTo name the author, Sam Hinn, is like throwing a pork chop in the Synagogue.
Church growth surely is not a mathematical formulae.Sam reminds us of some basic Biblical "strategies". "Be still and know that I am God" is one.
The early Church received the apostolic anointing. Let's not argue how many times that word is used in the NT. Rather, ask, receive, live in the apostolic power, and others will be drawn to the Christ in you.
Back to the trenches
jerry voss
This book was not written to be a church growth book but one that focuses on small church health. While I believe that a healthy body will be a growing body, I also know that every small church will not experience major numerical growth regardless of how healthy it is. Other factors, some beyond the immediate control of church leadership, will impact the growth of a church. This book, hopefully, will help small church leaders recognize that there is a difference between small church health and church growth, and that a small church can be a healthy church even if it is not experiencing numerical growth.
ReplyDeleteNone of this is to say that I believe growing a church numerically is a bad thing. That is a great thing, but if a church is not healthy the new believers in Christ will be brought into an unhealthy situation and may grow to be unhealthy disciples as a result. As someone said, people drink the Kool-aid and believe everything they are being taught, and this can sometimes lead to serious problems in one's spiritual development.
To Ed's comments about my discussing theology first in this book, that was not an accident. In previous writings I had assumed a sound theology and felt no need to address it, but as I began formulating this book I realized that assuming this is dangerous. As a judicatory leader I have seen too many churches and leaders who did not have a sound theology. I felt this had to be addressed because in my opinion a church will never be healthy without sound theology. In a book I'm currently writing I address this in further detail.
Thank you for the comments. This has been an interesting discussion that I hope is beneficial to each of you. Thanks again, Ed, for hosting this forum. To my knowledge this is the first time this has been done with one of my books
Wow! Great discussion and I'm sorry I haven't made time to follow along. I have nothing new to say or add to this discussion other than I am a small church pastor in rural America in-between urban sprawl. When I came here this church was in spiritual and physical ICCU barely on life support. We had maybe 10-15 showing up for worship and no other activities at all. I started with the doctrines of grace in plain and ordinary, culturally understandable terminology in a weekly Bible study format. On Sunday's we began to review the basics of the gospel studying Mark's presentation of it and stayed there for two years. After that we began unpacking Paul's wisdom concerning the nature of the church in Ephesians. I have deliberately stayed away from tainted and misunderstood theological terms without watering down their essential meaning. The theological condition here is not yet orthodox but the cement is setting up. Consequently, we have quadrupled our Sunday attendance as well as our membership in 2 1/2 years, revitalized a non-existent Sunday School program; added several community outreach projects; started a vibrant women's ministry; started a men's initiative and last February, in conjunction with five other regional churches, kick off the first ever Ark-La-Tex Men's Rally and just last week initiated a youth outreach program modeled after the Red Revolution. Are we healthy? Not yet, but what we are is in recovery no longer in the ICCU. We are trying to practice the orthodox historic faith without yet revealing the orthodoxicological (if such a word exists) terminology that initially raises illogical responses from them who misunderstand them (and there are many here!) so that when they begin to examine the historical record they will hopefully observe their practice as being in accord with orthodox Reformed theology and perhaps say "wow! This is good stuff!" Maybe I am wrong in my approach but it seems to me, to be is far better than to know first so that when we come to know, we can be satisfied with not what we have done and become but with what God has made us to be and to do. I suppose time will tell whether this approach (though probably not novel) can be determined to have been healthy. I invite comments and observations, dear friends. - Pastor Ed
ReplyDeleteI have very little if anything to add to the great comments on this chapter. What I can say is that I appreciate the comments that separate the issue of numerically growing a church and church health.
ReplyDeleteOur congregation is becoming healthier simply because of an inisistence on good theology over geting along. Just because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings doesn't mean their bad theology gets a free pass.
Perhaps the rudest awaking for our elders will be the training in theology that is going to become common place for the leadership of the church.
Peace,
Alan
This is our experience also. Although I've studied most of the major works on "church growth" few if any make sense for smaller churches. I confess I have not read the Natural Church Development stuff but from what I hear its very similar for where we have landed.
ReplyDeleteWe are a "Purpose Driven Church" in that I believe the image of the 5 purposes is usefull to push people in a direction of growth. Beyond the image we do very little to systematize the purposes.
One of the reasons I don't have time to read the book is that I'm leading our congregation through a study of the Westminster Confession in preperation for our complete transition into the EPC - orthodoxy or if you prefer unity of vision is critical to health.