The Looming Crisis in Conservative Evangelicalism
This blog was written by Charles Wood in The Woodchuck's Den on February 10, 2010. Many issues are raised in this article. Most of the issues I would agree with. This blog is worth calling it to your attention.
THE LOOMING CRISIS IN CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICALISM:
For the purposes of this article, I including all of fundamentalism in the term “conservative evangelicalism” even thought I doubt that my subject will have much effect on the right-of-center portion of fundamentalism because there is a tendency toward much stronger pastoral leadership in the segment of the movement.
I also wish to take into account something I have said several times before (and Brent just wrote about recently): there is a vast difference between success and God’s blessing. In our pragmatic society, we tend to think that if works, it is right and therefore blessed by God. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove, but I am convinced that much “success” in the Christian world today has little or nothing to do with God’s blessing. It wouldn’t really matter were it not for several things taught in Scripture. To cite just a couple: One is the verse that describes the successful by saying, “...they have their reward.” The other has to do with the fact that our works will be judged , and we are warned that much of them may turn out to be wood, hay and stubble.
As I observe the conservative evangelical landscape as a whole, I am impressed that there is a growing disdain for doctrine. The “Emergent Church”, much of which most of us would include in evangelicalism, is openly disdainful of doctrine because of its supposedly negative impression when coupled with evangelism. Anyone who has been around long enough knows that disdain for doctrine invariable leads to loss of doctrinal acuity, thence to a measure of doctrinal indifference and finally to a blurring of the lines between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (or even worse). But the problem appears to have spread beyond the “‘Emergent” perimeters and is affecting even some who reject the major tenets of the “Emergents” (that is, if they have any major tenets). As the article progresses, I believe this last point will become clearer.
In my observations, I also perceive a measure of disdain for the teaching and practice of Scripture. Increasingly, there is a basic lack of necessary Biblical knowledge. We tend to know the Ten Commandments and Beatitudes by heart (and some even appear to know the order of the Hebrew kings), but there is a vast amount of life-related material that is either unknown or ignored because of its disagreement with one’s own intellect or sense of common sense. Lack of transparency, integrity, and forgiveness seem to prevail along with hardheartedness. At the same time, forgiveness, kindness, love, the extension of grace to others, community, concern for the well-being of other believers, etc, are present in very minimal amounts. On a personal level, I have found that raising issues of Biblical teaching, even on the local church level, has created little but animosity, defensiveness and a deeper commitment to do it man’s way rather than God’s.
This self-determination to do things as one man or a group of men insist is not a scattered or “sometime” thing. It is often a hardened position that operates in churches almost as if it were a part of the constitution or of the practiced policy of the church. The Scriptures warn us that in the last days, self-willed men will abound. As I look at the local church in general, I am convinced that we have already reached that point or are right on the verge of seeing it become the prevailing position.
From my email and phone calls, I think we have an epidemic of churches that no longer qualify for the older description as a place for the winning of the lost and the edifying of the saints. They are much more marked by the quest for power, opportunities to promote one’s self and the same political maneuvering that is so common in the public square at the present moment. Deals struck in the lobby prevail, prior agreements made before the meetings to decide the issues are common and even rigged elections rear their ugly heads. There is talk about winning the lost, but those involved in the problematic conduct described above are seldom directly involved in anything as mundane as that. In fact, there seems to be more emphasis on building the church than there is on genuinely winning the lost (and I sometimes think I am back in extreme fundamentalism where “building the church” had less emphases on getting people to pray a prayer than it did on ever-increasing numbers that became fodder for bragging. The ever increasing size today is supposedly a mark of God’s blessing - see my second paragraph in this article).
As might be expected in all this, there is a decreasing interest in or conformity to Biblical structure in the home or the local church. The suggestion that there is a Biblical way to do a certain thing is almost sure to bring the retort that the way we are doing it is much better and produces greater results. Whereas the Bible lists such characteristics as good character, spirituality, compassion, a “clear-slate” reputation, many modern evangelical churches pay far more attention to financial or social status, so-called “know how” (and I find a lot of people who supposedly have “know how“ don’t have the vaguest idea of any “how” when push comes to shove) and basic popularity. I think it was to avoid the popularity factor that Paul instructed Pastor Titus that he was to appoint elders (try that one in many a local church). I won’t dwell on the home issue as it is not particularly germane to this article, but I do sense in many cases, children are raising their parents and not doing a particularly good job of it from examining the outcomes.
Then there is my “Johnny One Note” issue of who owns the church. Increasingly, it is obvious that referring to it as the “Lord’s” church is nothing more than a mere mantra or narrative. Arrogant, ambitious, self-willed individuals, left unchecked, soon come to believe that they own the church. This has reached the point where there are far too many “hired guns” in the pastorate, men who are willing to trade a place to peach and a regular salary and benefits for actually proclaiming the Word of God without thought of the popularity of so doing. For some men, the honest answer for “whom do you serve,” would be to give the name of a powerful individual in the church.
Those who seek to run God’s church without any call to ministry or direction to assert authority often want authority without any accountability. “I’ll take care of that,” seems to be the byword of those who have arrogated power to themselves and are subject to no review or limitation of their assumed power. Any power without accountability is a sure recipe for disaster as the state of our present political Administration so amply demonstrates. I wrote recently about the person or persons to whom a pastor is responsible. Power-grabbers often appear to have no accountability to anyone and are only checked when they simply can ram through their own plans and purposes.
Accompanying and underlying it all is a complete disregard for the congregation. I have heard it said by church “leaders” that there were certain things they won’t discuss with a member of the congregation. Really? Hey, Mr Big, the congregation happens to be your final boss and only conceivable source of authority. If you would tell your employer that there are certain things you won’t discuss with him, maybe you might try it on a congregation, but I don’t think you are going to get away with it. Sooner or later, the people get wise to all this stuff, and they vote on it either by raise of hands, secret ballot or walking out the door (I just told you why some churches can’t seem to grow, no matter how good their circumstances, facilities, program, etc.).
The larger the church, the less likely some of this stuff is to exist. Most of the men and women I have described would simply be lost in the enormity of a mega-church and would get nowhere with any attempt to promote their own program or self-exalted opinion of themselves. The problem lies in the medium-sized and, more especially, in the smaller churches. The problem is that there are far more of the medium and smaller sized church than there are of the really large ones so the problem tends to proliferate to the point that it has an impact almost as destructive on the cause of Christ as if it were in the larger church as well.
If all of this is true (and I wouldn’t have written it if I didn’t think -and know, in some cases) that it is. What can we do about it? Do we just stand there frustrated and defeated while our churches are hi-jacked from us and the Lord? That is hardly necessary. What we need (and I’ll write on this more) is some courageous individuals with heart and internal fortitude large enough to challenge this kind of stuff. No matter what form of church government you practice, the congregation still holds the authority and governs that church. It’s just time for some folks to start asking questions and to start questioning the answers or lack of answers they receive and for the rest of the peasants and peons who are not in power to stand with those with the courage to challenge what is going on. Maybe a few pastors need to get in on that action as well.
Years ago I heard Doug Oldham sing, ”The Church Triumphant” for the first time. These lines have never left my mind, “Let the Church be the church. Let the people rejoice. I’ve settled the question, and I’ve made my choice.” It’s time to let the church be the church instead of the playground where unqualified and unauthorized men play their silly little games of “take over the church.”
For the purposes of this article, I including all of fundamentalism in the term “conservative evangelicalism” even thought I doubt that my subject will have much effect on the right-of-center portion of fundamentalism because there is a tendency toward much stronger pastoral leadership in the segment of the movement.
I also wish to take into account something I have said several times before (and Brent just wrote about recently): there is a vast difference between success and God’s blessing. In our pragmatic society, we tend to think that if works, it is right and therefore blessed by God. Unfortunately, it is difficult to prove, but I am convinced that much “success” in the Christian world today has little or nothing to do with God’s blessing. It wouldn’t really matter were it not for several things taught in Scripture. To cite just a couple: One is the verse that describes the successful by saying, “...they have their reward.” The other has to do with the fact that our works will be judged , and we are warned that much of them may turn out to be wood, hay and stubble.
As I observe the conservative evangelical landscape as a whole, I am impressed that there is a growing disdain for doctrine. The “Emergent Church”, much of which most of us would include in evangelicalism, is openly disdainful of doctrine because of its supposedly negative impression when coupled with evangelism. Anyone who has been around long enough knows that disdain for doctrine invariable leads to loss of doctrinal acuity, thence to a measure of doctrinal indifference and finally to a blurring of the lines between orthodoxy and heterodoxy (or even worse). But the problem appears to have spread beyond the “‘Emergent” perimeters and is affecting even some who reject the major tenets of the “Emergents” (that is, if they have any major tenets). As the article progresses, I believe this last point will become clearer.
In my observations, I also perceive a measure of disdain for the teaching and practice of Scripture. Increasingly, there is a basic lack of necessary Biblical knowledge. We tend to know the Ten Commandments and Beatitudes by heart (and some even appear to know the order of the Hebrew kings), but there is a vast amount of life-related material that is either unknown or ignored because of its disagreement with one’s own intellect or sense of common sense. Lack of transparency, integrity, and forgiveness seem to prevail along with hardheartedness. At the same time, forgiveness, kindness, love, the extension of grace to others, community, concern for the well-being of other believers, etc, are present in very minimal amounts. On a personal level, I have found that raising issues of Biblical teaching, even on the local church level, has created little but animosity, defensiveness and a deeper commitment to do it man’s way rather than God’s.
This self-determination to do things as one man or a group of men insist is not a scattered or “sometime” thing. It is often a hardened position that operates in churches almost as if it were a part of the constitution or of the practiced policy of the church. The Scriptures warn us that in the last days, self-willed men will abound. As I look at the local church in general, I am convinced that we have already reached that point or are right on the verge of seeing it become the prevailing position.
From my email and phone calls, I think we have an epidemic of churches that no longer qualify for the older description as a place for the winning of the lost and the edifying of the saints. They are much more marked by the quest for power, opportunities to promote one’s self and the same political maneuvering that is so common in the public square at the present moment. Deals struck in the lobby prevail, prior agreements made before the meetings to decide the issues are common and even rigged elections rear their ugly heads. There is talk about winning the lost, but those involved in the problematic conduct described above are seldom directly involved in anything as mundane as that. In fact, there seems to be more emphasis on building the church than there is on genuinely winning the lost (and I sometimes think I am back in extreme fundamentalism where “building the church” had less emphases on getting people to pray a prayer than it did on ever-increasing numbers that became fodder for bragging. The ever increasing size today is supposedly a mark of God’s blessing - see my second paragraph in this article).
As might be expected in all this, there is a decreasing interest in or conformity to Biblical structure in the home or the local church. The suggestion that there is a Biblical way to do a certain thing is almost sure to bring the retort that the way we are doing it is much better and produces greater results. Whereas the Bible lists such characteristics as good character, spirituality, compassion, a “clear-slate” reputation, many modern evangelical churches pay far more attention to financial or social status, so-called “know how” (and I find a lot of people who supposedly have “know how“ don’t have the vaguest idea of any “how” when push comes to shove) and basic popularity. I think it was to avoid the popularity factor that Paul instructed Pastor Titus that he was to appoint elders (try that one in many a local church). I won’t dwell on the home issue as it is not particularly germane to this article, but I do sense in many cases, children are raising their parents and not doing a particularly good job of it from examining the outcomes.
Then there is my “Johnny One Note” issue of who owns the church. Increasingly, it is obvious that referring to it as the “Lord’s” church is nothing more than a mere mantra or narrative. Arrogant, ambitious, self-willed individuals, left unchecked, soon come to believe that they own the church. This has reached the point where there are far too many “hired guns” in the pastorate, men who are willing to trade a place to peach and a regular salary and benefits for actually proclaiming the Word of God without thought of the popularity of so doing. For some men, the honest answer for “whom do you serve,” would be to give the name of a powerful individual in the church.
Those who seek to run God’s church without any call to ministry or direction to assert authority often want authority without any accountability. “I’ll take care of that,” seems to be the byword of those who have arrogated power to themselves and are subject to no review or limitation of their assumed power. Any power without accountability is a sure recipe for disaster as the state of our present political Administration so amply demonstrates. I wrote recently about the person or persons to whom a pastor is responsible. Power-grabbers often appear to have no accountability to anyone and are only checked when they simply can ram through their own plans and purposes.
Accompanying and underlying it all is a complete disregard for the congregation. I have heard it said by church “leaders” that there were certain things they won’t discuss with a member of the congregation. Really? Hey, Mr Big, the congregation happens to be your final boss and only conceivable source of authority. If you would tell your employer that there are certain things you won’t discuss with him, maybe you might try it on a congregation, but I don’t think you are going to get away with it. Sooner or later, the people get wise to all this stuff, and they vote on it either by raise of hands, secret ballot or walking out the door (I just told you why some churches can’t seem to grow, no matter how good their circumstances, facilities, program, etc.).
The larger the church, the less likely some of this stuff is to exist. Most of the men and women I have described would simply be lost in the enormity of a mega-church and would get nowhere with any attempt to promote their own program or self-exalted opinion of themselves. The problem lies in the medium-sized and, more especially, in the smaller churches. The problem is that there are far more of the medium and smaller sized church than there are of the really large ones so the problem tends to proliferate to the point that it has an impact almost as destructive on the cause of Christ as if it were in the larger church as well.
If all of this is true (and I wouldn’t have written it if I didn’t think -and know, in some cases) that it is. What can we do about it? Do we just stand there frustrated and defeated while our churches are hi-jacked from us and the Lord? That is hardly necessary. What we need (and I’ll write on this more) is some courageous individuals with heart and internal fortitude large enough to challenge this kind of stuff. No matter what form of church government you practice, the congregation still holds the authority and governs that church. It’s just time for some folks to start asking questions and to start questioning the answers or lack of answers they receive and for the rest of the peasants and peons who are not in power to stand with those with the courage to challenge what is going on. Maybe a few pastors need to get in on that action as well.
Years ago I heard Doug Oldham sing, ”The Church Triumphant” for the first time. These lines have never left my mind, “Let the Church be the church. Let the people rejoice. I’ve settled the question, and I’ve made my choice.” It’s time to let the church be the church instead of the playground where unqualified and unauthorized men play their silly little games of “take over the church.”
Comments