Post-Modern Mainstream Churches, Ecclesiology, and Local (SD) Examples

In 2006, Zondervan released three unbelievably influential books:

• Rob Bell’s Velvit Elvis (Zondervan, July 1, 2006)
• Shane Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution (Zondervan, February 1, 2006)
  
• Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy (Zondervan, February 1, 2006)

This unofficial trilogy officially launched American evangelicalism into the age of “the emergent church,” usefully outlined by Wikipedia:

Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a “postmodern” society. Proponents of this movement call it a “conversation” to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints and its commitment to dialogue. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community.

Generally speaking, post-modern movements like the emergent church aren’t terribly fond of church history. “Commitment to dialogue” and the “deconstruction of modern Christian worship” and the “institutional church” are almost always presented as something “new,” denominationally neutral, distinguishing, “relevant,” and unifying. Of course, the great irony is that these are the very distinctives that forge new denominations, split churches, and allow the culture to quietly transform the church, instead of encouraging the church to transform culture. So when basic facts of church history actually are laid on the table, like in the video “Good News According to Rob Bell,” evangelicals around the world are struck with awe as if no one had heard these things before. A following starts to form, labels become solidified, and soon enough, history repeats itself both in its mistakes and, if by the grace of God, its triumphs. Of course, if the church had always been informed of itself, there would be no need for internal revival to begin with.

It is my contention that the average post-modern, mainstream evangelical church that consciously tries to be distinguished from other, more traditional churches by being culturally relevant (and sometimes even intentionally enculturated) forces the church out of its natural distinctiveness and forces the gospel out of its natural radicality. In other words, if you’re a true Christian, there’s nothing more you need to do in order to be different in the eyes of the world. And if you’re a true group of Christians (a true church), there’s nothing more you need to do in order to be different in the eyes of the world. The second a Christian says, “look at the early church! They were different and radical, we need to be like them, so let’s go start program x and change worship style y and make service n different,” that Christian will quickly become irrelevant to the world. Distinctiveness is automatic and natural, not intentional and awkward.

It almost reminds me of the football program at Dordt College. Every Christian institution wants to offer something unique, to be distinguished among other colleges, to be a shining light in a dark world full of liberalism and godlessness. So Dordt adopted the football program – to reclaim an area of creation for the glory of Christ. And what did it do? The very opposite of what it was intended to; instead of bringing unity and coherence, it brought division and incoherence. Instead of distinguishing Dordt College from the rest of the academic world, it simply blended in. Just another private Christian college with football. Big deal.

The same is true with the post-modern, mainstream evangelical (and its constituent emergent) church. It wants to be special but every attempt to stand out from the crowd makes it even less distinctive. By willfully submitting the church’s direction into the directionless wave of post-modern culture, the emergent church and its constituent movements have become stale, irrelevant, and ordinary, not refreshing, relevant, and extraordinary. By hiring MBAs and CEOs to run the church, we’ve blended into the world of business. By making worship services full-fledged concerts, we’ve blended into the world of entertainment. By installing coffee shops in the lobbies of our facilities, we’ve blended into the consumerist world of the service industry. Different from traditional churches? Maybe. Different from the world? No. Just another mainstream evangelical or emergent church. Big deal.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with MBAs and CEOs on church staff or coffee shops in a building or any of those other things listed.  In fact, I think many churches need to correct their balance in regards to fellowship and cultural relevance – unless, of course, it comes at the expense of other needs, like truth, teaching, and the proclamation of the gospel.

The New Testament does present a very different picture as to how a “church should be.” The Bible asserts that when you are a Christian, when you preach the gospel as you ought to, you are naturally different and stand out from the rest of the world. Distinctiveness is automatic and natural, not intentional and awkward. There’s nothing in Scripture that reads, “after you become a Christian, be culturally sensitive and try to find out things you can do to be different and distinguish yourself from the world and from other churches.” Nonsense. There’s no conscious, intentional effort on behalf of the disciples or the early church to completely revamp their worship services, teaching program, administration structure, preaching style, or anything else in order to be relevant or different.

Simply being a Christian is different. Simply being a Christian in 21st Century, English-speaking America is culturally relevant. There’s nothing else to do if you want to be radical and be a light unto the world as God intends.

Of course, emergent churches don’t try to distinguish themselves exclusively from the world - they try to distinguish themselves from other churches. This is even more confusing and harmful to the body of Christ; for in what context has anyone or anything in Scripture made conscious efforts to be different from another group of believers (or tradition) for the sake of being relevant to the culture? There is none. It is outright foolishness for a church or church denomination to be formed for no other reason than to be different from other churches.

The Christian church evolved out of the proclamation of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus in the Scriptures, not from the conflict between different communities. That means the goal of every church ought to be the goal of the first church: worship, the proclamation of the gospel, and discipleship. Granted, differing interpretations of Scripture lead to different applications of Scripture, which lead to different denominations. But this is much different than forming a church for the distinct purpose to be different than other churches, or to not fall into the mistakes of other churches. If a true church is a true church, it must align itself with an identity of what it is, and not merely what it is not.

Indeed, doctrine came before heresy. Theology came before apologetics. The church came before church denominations. The former in all of these cases are directly given and instituted by God, while the latter only exist because of worldly corruption. Why, then, do Christians insist on identifying themselves in terms of anything but God’s revealed truth?

Christians should go to a church because it is a place of worship, the proclamation of the gospel, and discipleship. That’s what a church does. And people who do that is the church itself, the assembly. Christians should not go to a church simply because it promises to be different than others, because it promises a contemporary (or ancient) worship style, because it promises expositional (or topical) preaching, or because it promises not to make the mistakes of other denominations.

Such is not the case in Sioux Falls. Let’s look briefly at a few churches and see how instead of developing a sound, systematic, biblical foundation for their existence, they’ve asserted their identity only in the form of ecclesiastical reaction. (Keep in mind, none of this has to do with a church’s particular “statement of faith,” which has to do with a church’s beliefs. This essay has to do with the church’s own ecclesiology and rationale for existing and worshiping as it exists and worships).

Consider the “Sick of Church” essay on the website of Rustic Hills Community Church in Sioux Falls, SD:

…I understand that feeling and I agree with you! Why should anyone go to church to listen to a boring speaker talk about something that doesn’t relate to the real world? That’s a waste of time. Why should anyone go to a church that sets itself up as a courthouse to judge and condemn you instead of helping you? The last thing you need is heavy rules and regulations that not even ministers can keep. Why should you listen to a negative preacher put you down, attack your self-worth, insult your intelligence, or publicly embarrass you? Why should you go to a church that ignores your personal struggles and problems and fails to give you what you really need? Too often, churches give you little, but ask for much. You go to church looking for a little understanding and God’s help, but what do you often get? Only more guilt and pressure to add to your overload condition.

If you’ve ever felt that way, you are someone I would like to meet. God wants you to know Him through a loving and personal relationship, not through a religion of fear and judgment. Life was meant to be enjoyed, not just endured. Why am I sharing this with you? Because YOU are important! Rustic Hills Community Church intends to be the kind of church that cares about people the way Jesus did…This is a place for YOU!

Of course, the statement “intends to be the kind of church that cares about people the way Jesus did” is defined by emotionalism and apparently a plethora of bad religious experiences, not by biblical teaching. And if a particular fellowship’s identity isn’t primarily rooted in biblical teaching, it’s probably going to be rooted in human reaction, emotion and psychology – as is the case here. This is not a good foundation for a church. No, indeed.

Most churches aren’t as bold as Rustic Hills. It’s hard to find what particular movements and beliefs the church is responding to, at least without spending years of participation in a given community. But it becomes easier if we just look at what’s being publicly promoted, and then invert the meaning.

For example, Crosswalk Community church is typical of the mainstream, evangelical identity:

Our services feature high energy contemporary music, meaningful worship, timely and relevant messages taught from the Word of God that will be applicable for your daily living.

These kind of descriptions are so common today that we’re virtually immune to what’s being asserted. What exactly is suggested by this description? What is the alternative church, the community that’s being reacted to?

This isn’t difficult to find; just invert the message:

Our services feature low energy old hymns, meaningless worship, outdated and irrelevant messages taught from the Word of God that won’t be applicable for your daily living.

I’m not sure how many churches in existence actually meet that description. But put in these terms, the actual positive statements put forth (without direct Scriptural association) become rather meaningless. Of course there is meaningful worship – there’s no such thing as meaningless worship. Of course there are “timely and relevant messages taught from the Word of God,” there’s no message “taught from the word of God” that isn’t relevant. So what’s the point of identifying your community as one that promotes “meaningful worship” or “relevant messages taught from the Word of God”? No genuine church lacks those things. If it does, then it probably isn’t a real church except in name and appearance.

The megachurch Celebrate is rather straightforward in its identity. Under “Core Values,” it lists the acrostic:

• Committed to Biblical Truth (1 Peter 2:2)
• Expressing Grace (John 13:34)
• Leading by Example (1 Timothy 4:11)
• Exercising Restoration (2 Corinthians 5:18)
• Believe the Best in Others (Galatians 6:1)
• Respect for Family (Romans 12:5)
• Authentic Worship (John 4:24)
• Tithing for People and Ministry (Malachi 3:10)
• Experiencing God (Nehemiah 8:10)

Here, we actually have bold distinctives directly associated with Scripture. Convenient. Succinct. But accurate? Sufficient?

Perhaps not. As I argue in my forthcoming book, The Saving Grace of God (originally published in 2005), how we do theology determines our theology. There is exegetical theology (technical), biblical theology (historical/canonical), and systematic theology (logical, topical, dogmatic). A failure to make these distinctions will result in dishonoring the original intent of the author and failing to understand the Bible correctly. Anyone can find almost anything they want in the Bible. If you want to find Scriptures to fit a certain acronym, then you can do it. The Bible is a massive volume with 66 books with virtually every type of genre imaginable. It’s foolishness to think we can quote a few verses out of context and arrive at a sound understanding of the church for all ages.

In short, method matters. And no wise person would enter a building, regardless of how beautiful it is or how “warm” the people are inside, when the whole thing is teetering on a poorly built foundation that’s doomed to collapse in on itself sooner or later.

What we have in the case of Celebrate is a rash quotation of various verses, contexts, and time periods that assert a variety of generic Christian principles. There is a degree of clarity, but there is a lack of consistency. Acronyms can be helpful (i.e. TULIP has certainly been helpful for Calvinism). But the proof is in the pudding. Does the Bible consistently and accurately teach those beliefs? And, does it teach anything more? And, does the Bible give as much emphasis on these certain teachings as the acronym makes it appear? When we consider these questions, and when we take seriously the fact that no evangelical systematic theology gives direct support to such an ecclesiology, we become suspicious.

In conclusion, a church to be true and genuine must seek its identity from the source: Scripture. To build a “better” church in response to another church’s problems is only going to lead to the type of imbalance that the community was originally trying to correct in the first place.

We see, then, that so-called distinctive marks of certain churches are really nothing but poor attempts to be distinguished, all of which result in irrelevancy and confusion. God defines the church through his Word, the church does not define itself in contrast to something else (reminds me of the gender debate). Distinction comes as a result of formation, not the other way around. And the radicality and relevance of the church in the world is born out of the radicality and relevance of the saving work of Christ in an individual’s life. That same adoration and heart of trust amplified and expressed at a communal level is (roughly speaking) a true church.

In the words of Chan:

Modern Christians are not lacking in “relevance.” What they do lack is a disciplined life and a critical mind to resist the temptation to conform to what everybody thinks or does (Rom. 12:1-3). What they sorely need is an in-depth spiritual renewal of the whole person in order to decide for God or for the world. Decisiveness is the mark of true discipleship. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mat. 16:24). There is no “middle ground,” according to Calvin: “either the world must become worthless to us or hold us bound by intemperate love of it.” Spiritual Theology, 69