Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations

Putting the Conservative Reformed Theology movement (Piper, MacArthur, and Dever) in perspective

Summary of this post:

I think the Conservative Reformed Theology movement's emphasis on solid theology is good but I think there is a lot of other great theology being done today outside this movement. 

Why does the Conservative Reformed Theology movement matter?  

1. Recently a reader of my blog from the UK emailed to ask me for seminary advice.  One of the things he mentioned was that one of his three favorite authors was John Piper. 
   
2. Another friend recently told me that his congregation wished he preached more like John MacArthur. 
3. Another friend who attends a United Methodist Church (not-Reformed) expressed her frustration with her own church and her appreciation for Mark Dever and his Reformed Theology. 
4. One of my best friends attends Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

What do these four things all have in common?  Conservative Reformed Theology.   

Christianity Today's Collin Hansen described the movement in his September 2006 Christianity Today cover story positively as: "Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church."

Collin has now written a book called Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (Mar 30, 2008) (which I haven't yet read).  Hansen covers the Passion Conference in Atlanta, John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota, Yale University's Jonathan Edwards Center, The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville (Al Mohler), Covenant Life Church in Maryland (CJ Mahaney & Josh Harris), The New Attitude Conference in Louisville, and Mars Hill Church in Seattle (Mark Driscoll).

John Piper is perhaps the best known of these Conservative Reformed leaders and is also a leader in some organizations that are not explicitly Reformed but are strongly influenced by Conservative Reformed Theology:   

• Together for the Gospel
• The Gospel Coalition
• Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Piper's fans admire him for his passion and academic rigor.  Who doesn't like that? 

But problems develop when Piper's fans don't realize that the Conservative Reformed Theology movement is only one slice of the church-renewing substantive theology being done today in a variety of places in a variety of theological traditions. 

1. Conservative Reformed Theology is just one particular kind of Reformed Theology.

I call this Piper-associated movement "Conservative Reformed Theology," because there is Reformed Theology that is associated with the Presbyterian Church (USA), Princeton Theological Seminary, Jurgen Moltmann, Lesslie Newbigin, and Karl Barth which would not be related at all to the Conservative Reformed Theology of Piper and friends.   I use the adjective "Conservative" because this is the operative word within American theological circles.  It is left over from the Fundamentalist / Modernist and Conservative / Liberal controversies within the United States in the twentieth century.  It bothers me that the Piper movement sometimes seems to portray themselves as the only theological heirs of Calvin when there are many more "Reformed Theology," "contemporary Calvinist" and "evangelical Calvinist" theologians.

2. Much of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement is Baptist-leaning.

Some significant parts of the Piper / Dever /MacArthur / Mohler "Conservative Reformed Theology" are very Baptist (rather than Reformed in their polity).  For example, unlike Calvin and the Puritans they often cite, many embrace Believer's Baptism rather than Infant Baptism.  Non-Presbyterians Jonathan Edwards (Congregationalist) and Charles Spurgeon (Baptist) are some of the people these Baptist-like Conservative Reformed Theology people see as their theological fathers. 

3. Some of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement is Reformed in polity (that is, Presbyterian). 

But Piper and friends see theological kinship even with others who disagree with them about Baptism and other polity issues.  Piper writes, "I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism" (from John Piper's dialogue with Wayne Grudem on infant baptism). As Piper indicates, there are people who are Reformed in their polity (church structure) who Piper sees as colleagues in the Conservative Reformed Theology movement.  Presbyterian Church of America people include Tim Keller and Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. Westminster Theological Seminary, R.C. Sproul's church, Reformed Theological Seminary are not officially part of the Presbyterian Church of America but are part of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement. Michael Horton of Westminister Seminary California (Reformed Episcopal Church and United Reformed Churches in North America) and Modern Reformation is also associated with the what I am calling the Conservative Reformed Theology movement. 

All of that to say, that one of the main things that unites this disparate group is the Conservative part of their theology.  The "Reformed" part varies greatly.   

4. What the Conservative Reformed Theology people have in common is the "the study of doctrine" and particular emphases on substitutionary atonement and limiting women's roles in church leadership.

The two greatest "doctrines" that I hear unanimously emphasized by the Conservative Reformed Theology people are (1) an emphasis on substitutionary atonement and justification by faith (See Piper's book in response to N.T. Wright) as the uniquely true interpretation of the cross; and (2) opposition to women in church leadership.  Piper was one of the founders of Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with his Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.  I see very little else that starkly differentiates the insiders of the Conservative Reformed Theology movement from those outside. 

I agree with them that the inerrancy of Scripture is not something that is unique to their movement. That doctrine is closely associated with places that are not explicitly Reformed like Dallas Theological Seminary.  Furthermore, there are many people those who agree with them about the inerrancy of Scripture but would argue the Bible describes the work of the cross with a variety of metaphors not just substitutionary atonement.  There are also those who would subscribe to inerrancy but would argue the Bible teaches ministry according to gifts regardless of gender.  See for example the work of Craig Keener, William Webb and Gordon Fee - exemplified in Discovering Biblical Equality.   

5. The Conservative Reformed Theology movement wants to see theological depth.  This goal is being pursued as well by theologians from other traditions. 

Hansen writes in the following quote that Calvinism does partly unify the Conservative Reformed Theology movement but that opposition to shallow theological thinking may be the real common ground. 

Perhaps an attraction to serious doctrine brought about 3,000 ministry leaders to Louisville in April for a Together for the Gospel conference. The conference's sponsors included Mohler and Mahaney, and Piper also spoke. Most of the audience were in their 20s and 30s. Each of the seven speakers holds to the five points of TULIP. Yet none of them spoke of Calvinism unless I asked about it. They did express worry about perceived evangelical accommodation to postmodernism and criticized churches for applying business models to ministry. They mostly joked about their many differences on such historically difficult issues as baptism, church government, eschatology, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. They drew unity as Calvinist evangelicals from their concerns: with seeker churches, church-growth marketing, and manipulative revival techniques. Roger Olson, professor of theology at Truett Seminary, Baylor University, said more than just Calvinists worry about these problems. "A lot of us evangelical Arminians agree with them in their criticisms of popular folk religion," Olson said. "I agree with their basic theological underpinnings—that doctrine is important, that grace is the decisive factor in salvation, not a decision we make."

I agree with Olson that the Conservative Reformed Theology movement''s concern about the shallowness of much Christianity is not unique to them.  What I think the Conservative Reformed Theology people fail to recognize is that many other Christians are seeking to deepen churches but are drawing from different theological resources than they are.  Some of the Conservative Reformed Theology people like to cite Charles Spurgeon's quote: "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."  At Duke Divinity School, a United Methodist Church school, it is easy to see that there is much gospel work that does not call itself Calvinist.  It is remarkable to me how circumscribed these groups are. The Calvinists read Calvinist books.  The non-Calvinists can smell the Calvinists books a mile away and ignore them.   

In my limited knowledge of what is going on theologically, I would submit that the strengthening of the church theologically is being resourced by a variety of different movements today. 

• The Conservative Reformed Theology people turn to Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and the Puritans. 
• Evangelicals and Biblical studies people look for more depth by turning to the Scriptures. Examples of this mentality are as diverse as N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight, Walter Brueggemann, Eugene Peterson, Dallas Theological Seminary, Rob Bell, and the Evangelical Theological Society. 
• Others look for answers in reading the Church Fathers, the Great Tradition and liturgy. Examples of this include Chris Hall, Thomas Oden, Bryan Litfin - see CT interview, Robert Webber, see Chris Armstrong's CT cover story, Warren Smith at Duke Divinity School, and Rowan Williams. 
• Many post-liberal mainline theologians at Duke Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary turn to Karl Barth as a way of exploding liberal theology and forming a biblically-rooted theology.
• Tony Jones of Emergent Village likes Jurgen Moltmann.  Brian McLaren draws eclectically from all of the above. 

Disclaimer:

This is my take!  This is my perception of what is going on in the theological landscape!  I have not read all of the books by the 100 or so people mentioned in this post!  I am happy to have my perception corrected by others who have carefully read particular people mentioned above.   My goal is to sketch the theological landscape and my hope is that my orienting might help some people understand where they are and perhaps where else they might want to explore!  Two years ago I wrote a post called Seminaries for Evangelicals which similarly aimed to help orient people about the seminary landscape however fallibly.   Grace and peace, andy

Related Reading:

a. Conservative Reformed Theology movement News
Justin Taylor often covers (he is like a reporter) what is happening among the Conservative Reformed Theology crowd at his Between Two Worlds blog.

b. Responses to the Conservative Reformed Theology movement
A guest blogger on Between Two Worlds, Thomas McCall, assistant professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, wrote a post April 29, 2008 called Two Cheers for the Resurgence of Calvinism in Evangelicalism: A Wesleyan-Arminian Perspective. McCall is not Reformed but appreciates much of what these young Calvinists are about.  Still he warns them about a few things.  Because of his appreciative but critical perspective, this is a very helpful way of seeing the movement in my opinion. 

On November 26, 2007, North Park New Testament professor Scot McKnight posted a letter from someone about his experience with some Conservative Reformed Theology people.  There were over 200 comments from people discussing the phenomenon.  See Letter about those pesky Calvinists

This week there has also been a five-part dialogue at Christianity Today:

Emergent's New Christians and the Young and Restless Reformed

Tony Jones and Collin Hansen find connections as they discuss each other's books and movements.

Collin Hansen and Tony Jones | posted 5/01/2008

c. Non-Reformed Theological Reflection
It is worth noting that there are explicitly non-Reformed theologians pushing for depth and vitality.  For example, in the blogosphere, there are some good United Methodist blogs worth watching:    

Adam Hamilton - Seeing Gray - megachurch UMC pastor in Kansas
Andrew Thompson - Gen-X Rising, UMC pastor and Th.D. student at Duke
Ben Witherington - Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary
Scott Jones - Kansas UMC Bishop Blogs and Columns
Will Willimon - A Peculiar Prophet - Alabama UMC Bishop

Many of the other blogs on my List of 80 Church Leadership Blogs I am watching would not call themselves Reformed or Arminian/Wesleyan categories.  They would probably call themselves "ecumenical," "evangelical," "emergent," "Anglican," "Baptist," "Presbyterian," or something else. 

d. More Conservative Reformed Theology links
From the Conservative Reformed Theology perspective, you might read Mark Dever's 10 post series entitled: Where'd All These Calvinists Come From?
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10


See also my post from two years ago February 14, 2006 John MacArthur Attacks the Emergent Church For Questioning the Clarity of the Scriptures

Willow Creek's Discipleship Problem: How to Fix the Seeker-driven Church

Update, December 10, 2007

As I suspected, the interpretation and methodology of the Reveal study are deeply flawed.  I like Willow Creek's ministry model but they have really bungled this survey. 

See the Review of Reveal by Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut. 

Here’s a selection from Wright’s conclusions:

The conclusion draw by the study’s authors, and loudly echoed by critics of Willow Creek, is that the Willow model is flawed. The data presented here are sufficiently ambiguous to make such strong claims. Given the weaknesses of the study design and analytic strategy, it’s possible that the results indicate strong support for the Willow Creek model . . . Simply repeating the Reveal study with hundreds more churches potentially adds very little knowledge.

Though Willow does not need to repent for its ministry strategy (though we could all repent for our ministry strategies to some extent - whose is perfect?), those who published this sociologically unsophisticated research probably need to apologize to seeker-sensitive church proponents everywhere. It is hard to say if Willow’s reputation will ever recover from the tidal wave of publicity saying that the Reveal quantitative data discredits Willow’s approach.

Still, all is not lost. The idea of doing quantitative research is a good one. But next time Reveal needs to do it right. Those who are part of Reveal need to do a serious crash course in American religious sociology: Christian Smith, Mark Chaves, Robert Wuthnow, Scott Thumma, and Nancy Ammerman.

For an example of a more a more sociologically sophisticated study see the U.S. Congregations Study which surveyed 300,000 congregations in 2001.

U.S. Congregations Survey

U.S. Congregational Life Survey, 2001, Random Attenders

Or see the:

National Congregations Study

See also the excellent summary of different recent postings about this at Leadership Networks Leanings blog "Reveal Squeal gets louder on the web" by DJ Chuang.

Original Post October 19, 2007

Though Willow Creek continues to reach "people far from God" they admit that they are not doing as good a job at helping those people become "fully devoted followers of Jesus" as they thought they were.  Of course a lot of critics are saying "We told you so" but it is good Bill Hybels and friends are broadcasting their "mistake." (Leadership's Out of Ur blog post "Willow Creek Repents?" brought this to my attention.  There are 120 comments there now on that post).  They also have an updated post with a response from Willow Creek: Willow Creek Repents? (Part 2): Greg Hawkins responds with the truth about REVEAL.  They are not giving up their seeker approach.

Below I have summarize what Willow Creek has realized in the last few years in five quick statements.  Then I have described Willow Creek for those who are unfamiliar with it.  Finally, I have tried to put in perspective their five realizations. 

"Willow Creek's Five Realizations."
1. They want to be good stewards.  They want to use the financial resources they are given in the offering plate wisely. 
2. Research helps. They did a survey. 
3. They are still effective with seekers. They find that people who are exploring Christianity or are new Christians still rate what Wilow is offering very highly. 
4.  Consumer discipleship is not working.  There are many people who are highly involved in activities (i.e. consuming the religious goods they are offering) but are not growing in Christ that much. 
5.  Many mature Christians are unsatisfied with the church. There are a number of people who are strong Christians but are dissatisfied with their church.  But, Willow has concluded, the issue is not just offering people more meaty options, rather people need to learn to feed themselves.

All of this is available on their new website (August 2007) "Reveal."  You can hear executive pastor Greg Hawkins and founding pastor Bill Hybels describe the findings in their own words in 13 minute video presentations.  (I had to use Internet Explorer rather than Firefox to make them work).   Or you can buy the book which is only available from Willow Creek Resources.  (Why not have Amazon distribute it too?)

Who is Willow Creek?
If you don't know who Willow Creek Community Church is, it is the "second most influential church in the nation" according to a survey commissioned by Leadership Network. 

Still, many mainline church leaders (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran) have never heard of Willow Creek, which is something I have become increasingly sensitive to.  Those people have other churches they admire.  They wouldn't admire Willow even if they knew about it because they place much more value on continuity with the the great tradition of Christianity as passed down through church history and denominations. 

Anyway, Willow Creek Community Church (i.e "Willow") is led by Bill Hybels who founded it 30 years ago in South Barrington, IL which is about 45 minutes from Chicago in the suburbs.  It is a non-denominational church with weekly attendance of about 23,500 according to Hartford Seminary's database of megachurches.  It was designed specifically for "seekers" or what they now call "people far from God."  As the story goes Hybels, walked around the area going to door to door asking people why they didn't go to church and they reported things like "they are always asking us for money," "boring," "irrelevant," "nothing for the kids." So Hybels and friends started a church in a movie theater that had upbeat music, relevant sermons, and no offering plates.  As the church grew exponentially, they formed a consulting branch in 1992 called Willow Creek Association which sells resources to churches like bible study materials, sermon tapes, etc. and also holds conferences.  Churches can become a member of the Willow Creek Association but all this really means is that the pastor subscribes to their resources for about $249 a year. 

Perspective and Context on Willow Creek's Five Realizations.

1. They want to be good stewards. My comment: Amen.  May they continue to wrestle with the problem.  When you see Willow Creek's facility, you are either envious or disgusted.  There is a 7400 seat auditorium complete with state of the art lights and audio.  The building includes a bookstore, coffee shop, and expansive facilities for children.  Most people say, "It feels like a mall."  These facilities were intended to make Willow a comfortable place for people who were turned off to church and needed to hear about Jesus in a place that was more familiar than a gothic cathedral.  I think this makes sense given their philosophy of ministry.  Still, it is very good to hear them saying, "We want to welcome people well but we don't want to spend a penny more than we have to.  Are we spending God's resources appropriately?  Are there other ways that God might be calling the wealthy North American church to use its resources?"  Additional note: Willow Creek has never had a major financial scandal and their books, salaries, etc. are public.

2. Research helps. My comment: Make sure this research is done well.  Randy Frazee, author of The Connecting Church, has been a pastor at Willow for a few years now.  He is one of the preeminent people in the evangelical world insisting that we need to measure and assess the development of people's discipleship.  As pastor of Pantego Bible Church in Texas, he came to see the need for assessing whether small groups actually help people become better disciples.  He even made up a tool to measure discipleship called The Christian Life Profile. 

I was glad to see Willow hire Randy because I knew he would encourage them to evaluate how they are doing beyond the kneejerk way it is often done, i.e. the ABC's (Attendence, Buildings and Cash) or the three B's (Bodies, Buildings and Bucks). 

I would simply urge them to continue to get good advice about how to do sociological research well.  There are many people out there doing research on the American church and for this I'm thrilled.  Here are some that I'm familiar with: Barna Group, Gallup Poll, Baylor Surveys of Religion, Natural Church Development, Pulpit & Pew: The Duke Center for Excellence in Ministry, National Study of Youth & Religion, the Louisville Institute, Hartford Institute for Religious Research, the new book After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion
by Robert Wuthnow (chair of the sociology department at Princeton University), Church Innovations, the Alban Institute.  But the devil is in the details.  Numbers can be manipulated to say most anything.  We, as church leaders, have got to pay more attention to appropriate use of statistics.  I am not saying we need to use statistics less.  Actually, I think we need to do so more but we need to deal with those statistics and studies in a better way.  We need people who know statistics and who understand sociological research so that our numbers mean something.  (Are there any sociology majors and professors at Christian colleges out there listening to this?)  We need people who can sort through all of these statistics in such a way that it makes sense and in a way that is meaningful for congregations.  It drives me crazy when I hear stats like, "You know you need to add another service when 80% of seating is filled up" and "You know children who sit in the worship service with their parents continue to attend church after they have left home better than those who just go to youth group."  Sure, these have a glimmer of truth but they are more conventional wisdom (i.e urban legend) than solid analysis.  People build entire ministries on statistics like this.  For more outrage at evangelical misuse of statistics, see Christian Smith's "Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics: Mistakes were made" from Books & Culture February 2007 and "What Scandal? Whose Conscience? Some reflections on Ronald Sider's Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience." by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. from Books & Culture August 2007 .   

3.  They are still effective with seekers. My comment: Willow Creek's gift to the wider church has been its passion to see unchurched people become followers of Jesus. Willow Creek, along with Andy Stanley's North Point Community Church, is still one of the best examples of an effective seeker model.  They see many people who were not Christians become Christians.  In this way, they are a model of contextualizing the gospel so that nonChristians can learn about it and begin to follow Jesus.  Though there are other ways of doing evangelism by the church, the seeker model is still one to be reckoned with because most the other approaches are so ineffective.  (Are lots of adults becoming Christians at the churches you know?) 

One of the principle problems with the seeker approach is that they replace Sunday worship with Sunday evangelism services.  Willow though still does have a worship service on Wednesday nights called "New Community."  Though some would see Sunday seeker services as a tragic terrible flaw, I think it is a valid move because of the lack of evangelism happening through other methods and because I place less value on the traditional-handed-down-for-centuries liturgy. 

Other resources on this topic: I recently wrote a reflection on this: Download The Seeker Model Paper.doc.  See Andy Stanley's Seven Practices of Effective Ministry for the most persuasive compelling case for the seeker-driven approach.  See my category Andy Stanley for more that I've written about him.  For a critique of the seeker approach, see The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies by David E. Fitch. 

Many mainline denomination (Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran) people who have a heart for evangelism put forward the Alpha course as the best evangelism program going right now.  It, like the seeker approach, allows people to learn about Jesus in a non-threatening way, with informational talks about the basics of Christianity by the winsome Nicky Gumbel, a meal, non-directed conversation in a non-churchy atmosphere.  The Alpha course comes from Holy Trinity Brompton in London, England.  They do this on a Tuesday night and then have regular worship services on Sundays.  Thus, you keep the tradition on Sundays but have effective evangelism program during the week.  For many people, this is the ideal approach. 

Interestingly though there are some mainline people who want to imitate seeker driven approaches (e.g. United Methodist Bill Easum and  Episcopalian Tom Ehrich).   

  4.  Consumer discipleship is not working.  My comment: Programs have limited usefulness.  It sounds good to put a system in place as Rick Warren suggests in The Purpose Driven Church (p.130) where people move from 101 (first base - discovering membership) to 201 (second base - discovering spiritual maturity), to 301 (third base - discovering my ministry) to 401 (home - discovering my life mission).  But discipleship is not an assembly line and it just doesn't work (for long) like that.  After working at seeker-driven megachurch, my friend wrote me: "I think discipling people may only be able to be done a few at a time."

Another friend wrote me about his experience working in a megachurch, "The megachurch approach can truly breed an unhealthy consumerism mentality. Specializing in everything to cater to our every need (affinity groups, a cafe in the lobby, Sunday school programs for children that are incredible, etc) isn't always bad, but can foster a 'it's all about me' mentality."  This is the concern of basically all of the critics of the megachurch approach. 

5.  Many mature Christians are unsatisfied with the church. Their conclusion is that people need to learn to feed themselves.  My comment: I think probably people want tradition and depth not just a personalized spiritual growth program. John Ortberg, now pastor at Menlo Park Presbyterian (PCUSA), was a pastor at Willow Creek for many years.  He has written one of the very best books on "feeding yourself" called The Life You've Always Wanted: Spiritual Disciplines for Ordinary People.  These were originally sermons at Willow.  It is not new to Willow to feed yourself.  Thus, I think they probably need to dig deeper in order to find out what the path forward should really be. 

Hybels says that one thing they want to do is help people design a personal spiritual growth plan.  On the one hand, this still sounds consumeristic.  But on the other hand, my experience in theological education does lead me to believe that when mature Christians want to dig deep intellectually in order to further grow in their faith, they have very different interests as is evident in any list of course offerings at a seminary.  (See Fuller Seminary's School of Theology courses or Duke Divinity School's list of courses). 

This leads to my other point.  I think some of the mature Christians who are dissatisfied with what they are receiving at Willow, want a better connection to Christian history.  You find this in spades here at Duke Divinity School.  People want to connect to Augustine, Aquinas, Barth - someone with more worldwide and historical importance.  Traditional liturgical churches have a taste of those resources in the music and liturgy of every worship service.  The most extreme form of being unsatisfied with the nondenominational church is converting to Catholicism which a few of my friends have done.  Because church tradition is the one thing Willow decided to systematically expunge during its founding, its people miss it.  Like most churches, its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. 

If Willow's mature believers long for history, there is no quick fix.  But here are some suggestions. 

• Give each of the staff a subscription to Christian History. 
• Encourage mature Christians to take seminary correspondence courses. 
• Foster connections with local Roman Catholic priests and nuns to do spiritual direction. 
• Attempt to introduce a modified Anglican eucharist to the mid-week service (Invitation, Confession, Gloria, Word, Eucharist, Benediction). 
• Use Robert Webber's outstanding eight volume Complete Library of Christian Worship which gives us an easy to use reference for deepening worship through the insights of the centuries. 
• Have the staff and congregation work through some of Richard Foster's Renovare resources like Devotional Classics and Spiritual Classics. 
• Have learning sessions with mainline people who have confessional (orthodox) theology and are pro-evangelism who are positive about things like the Alpha course (described above).
  
• Listen to North Park New Testament professor, amazing blogger, and Willow Creek attender Scot McKnight.
• Ask Mark Noll, preeminent historian and former Wheaton College professor, now at Notre Dame and author of Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. 

 
If those solutions seem too far removed from the Bible-centered non-denominational tradition, then at least read the very best Biblical Studies people that you can find (which I am told Randy Frazee is now doing).  I recommend An Annotated Guide to Biblical Resources for Ministry by David R. Bauer or Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources by John Glynn as a way of sorting through the vast array of commentaries out there.   When you are preaching, you should always (if possible - I have always been near a theological library), consult commentaries.  Use these resources to find some good ones.  When you begin a series, invited your congregation members to buy a commentary and read through it with you.

Update.  Here are a couple of "I told you so" articles:

"Willow Creek Repents?
by Diana Butler Bass, author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church Is Transforming the Faith.  Book description: "A detailed survey of progressive church growth in recent decades reveals how non-evangelical, neighborhood churches are flourishing without emulating the tactics of mega-churches, in an analysis that counsels Protestant readers on how to remain authentic to denominational traditions while promoting one's spiritual community."

A Shocking “Confession” from Willow Creek Community Church
by Bob Burney, a Christian radio host in Columbus, Ohio

"A Former Pastor Goes Church Shopping" - my post is up on Leadership Journal's blog Out of Ur

Amy and I have been looking for a church here in Durham, North Carolina after moving here for my Doctor of Theology (Th.D. program) at Duke Divinity School.  I have a new article published on Leadership Journal's blog "Out of Ur."  It is called:

"A Former Pastor Goes Church Shopping: And he wrestles with the advantages and disadvantages of mainline and nondenominational churches."

You can click on the title above and go directly there. 

Make your comments there!

Excellent LA Times article on why Chuck Smith, Jr. has moved away from his father's Calvary Chapel movement

Update February 18, 2007: Check out this series of article in Christianity Today on Calvary Chapel.   

Day of Reckoning

Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel face an uncertain future.

Original post:

I enjoyed learning more about Chuck Smith, Sr., founder of the Calvary Chapel fellowship of churches, and his son Chuck Smith, Jr. in this excellent LA Times article.

Father, Son and Holy Rift: For Pastor Chuck Smith, the big issues are undebatable. For Chuck Smith Jr., also a pastor, it's not so crystal clear. Something had to give.

By Christopher Goffard, Times Staff Writer
September 2, 2006

Summary:  Chuck, Jr. was asked to sever ties with the Calvary Chapel fellowship of churches because he has become less of a fundamentalist.  Father and son still have a good relationship with one another.

All the bloggers I have read feel the article is quite well done and fair with both sides.   

The wikipedia article on Calvary Chapel gives good background on the movement. 

If you know someone who attends a Calvary Chapel or you attend one, this is must reading.

Should we be worried about Contemplative Prayer?

A fellow professor asked about what the contemplative prayer movement is and if we should be concerned about it.  Here is how I responded:

Critics of contemplative prayer are particularly worried that Christians will accept Hindu or Buddhist practices.  When Christians speak of “meditating” or “meditation” or “Lectio Divina” (spiritual reading) or what we can learn from Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Avila, these critics start getting very concerned about these manifestations of contemplative prayer influencing people toward eastern mysticism.  For example, Richard Foster has a chapter on “meditation” in his book Celebration of Discipline. These critics worry about the continued influence of that book.  They worry that Christians will do Eastern mysticism practices and dismiss Scripture.  In reality, most people including Richard Foster are simply showing people what Biblical prayer and Scriptural meditation is all about. 

A number of Christian writers including Robert Webber and Tony Jones have decried our lack of historical knowledge. They have tried to remind modern Christians that Christians throughout history have memorized Scripture and prayed in solitude.  Some people within the emerging church movement (such as Jones) have encouraged these “ancient” practices as a response to the harried and consumeristic modern life-style.  You won’t be surprised to learn that contemplative prayer is not spreading like wild fire because it mostly entails mediation on Scripture and times of prayer in solitude!  This is not easy for any of us! 

It is appropriate to listen to the warnings about contemplative prayer but I would assume the best about Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, Larry Crabb, Tony Jones, Robert Webber, James Houston and any others who urge us to meditate on Scripture and spend time in prayer!  This is the right kind of contemplative prayer. 

I would be happy to hear if there is more I need to know about this movement. 

Update February 2007:

See also a well known church Church of the Open Door (Maple Grove, MN) that has a Response to Emergent Church & Contemplative Movements (PDF) that sounds a lot like my response. 

What is the Emerging Church Movement?

I have been asked to brief a fellow professor on the Emerging Church Movement.  Here is how I responded. 

In my opinion, "The Emerging Church Movement" is a description for the new styles of evangelical churches that are being led by younger pastors who are between the ages of 25 and 40 today (who we used to call "Generation Xers").  (There are people younger and older but I’m trying to give you a ballpark sociological description).  Most used to be youth pastors and are now senior pastors.  They are using their youth ministry experience to help create churches that better reach younger people.  Of course any changes in church structure or practice could become heretical and deserve reflection.  But, it seems to me that all of the main "emerging church" writings would easily fall within the boundaries of the National Association of Evangelicals statement of faith.  The most controversial things some emerging church writers have questioned include how to best reach out to homosexuals (see an example from Brian McLaren at Leadership Journals’ Out of Ur blog 1, 2, 3) and whether hell has been biblically taught correctly within evangelicalism (See again McLaren at Out of Ur 1, 2, 3).  In my opinion, these are standard conversations within evangelicalism.  (As you can see, they are happening on Christianity Today’s website). 

As theological educators, I think we should view it this way:

the emerging church proponents = innovative evangelical youth pastors

They will make some mistakes in their enthusiasm for changes and relevance but they are trying their best to reach young adults and teens.  These are not enemies to argue with but rather people to cheer on, put your arm around, and offer guidance.  They will also challenge us in good ways and keep our churches fresh. 

Below I have provided some resources.  Let me know if you have questions or concerns.   

andy

Resouces:

The proper term is "The Emerging Church Movement" not "emergence" or "emergent."  And it does fit the sociological definition of a "movement."  The "Emergent Village" is the most organized group within the movement.  You can read their "statement of faith" which they call an "order" here.

You can read a decent description at Wikipedia on "Emerging Church."  (Wikipedia is a user generated encyclopedia that anyone can edit and both critics and supporters of the emerging church have basically agreed upon this description). 

The best scholarly book on the subject is:

Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures
by Eddie Gibbs, Ryan K. Bolger

Baker Academic (November 1, 2005)

You will be interested to know as well that the highly respected Trinity Evangelical Divinity School New Testament professor D.A. Carson has written a book that is mostly critical of the movement. 

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church : Understanding a Movement and Its Implications
by D. A. Carson

Zondervan (May 1, 2005)

Carson tries to analyze the movement by analyzing Brian McLaren's epistemology.  It is a theological and philosophical analysis of what is really a practical phenomenon.   

See especially North Park New Testament professor Scot McKnight’s review of D.A. Carson’s Becoming Emergent with the Emerging Church

Parts: 1 2  3  4 5  6  7  8  Final issues: 1 1a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Or if those links don't work, the first eight parts are here. 

Here is Scot McKnight’s description of the emerging church: 

What is the Emerging Church?

What is the Emerging Church? Protest

What is the Emerging Church? Postmodernity

What is the Emerging Church? Pro-Aplenty

I have my students read a book about the emerging church in Program and Curriculum Development.  They compare it to the megachurch movement.  We look at them as both influential church models within evangelicalism.

 

Seminaries for Evangelicals

Seminary is great.

A number of Taylor students have asked me about seminary. I think seminary is a wonderful thing. It is a chance to read great books and devote time to the intellectual side of faith. Meanwhile, if you are intentional, you can work on spiritual formation with a group of friends. You can also get involved in a local church and get ministry experience. There is no replacement for seminary if you are going to work with adults.

Start on it early if you want to.

Another thing I always tell students is that they can start right away from wherever they are. For example, I took Church History 1 and 2 from Gordon Conwell through their extension program. They sent you a bunch of tapes or CD’s and you have to listen to them. Then you have to have someone unrelated to you proctor your exam. Then you have to send in your paper. It is great!

Most credits will transfer from school to school. Check on this but I think this is almost always true.

How to pick a seminary:

1. When you are nearby traveling for other reasons, check out the seminary, visit a chapel, talk to an admissions person, meet with a prof, and see what you think of it.

2. Pay attention to the books you like (and don’t like). Where did the authors go to school? Where do they teach?

3. You will likely have some interests. Are you looking for apologetics? Are you looking for mentoring? Are you looking for innovative church ministry? Do you want a seminary that hates the megachurch or loves it? Do you want a seminary that likes the emerging church conversation or hates it? Do you want a seminary with a wider statement of faith or a narrower one? Many schools have some kind of specialty.

4. Check out the websites.

5. Realize that where you go to seminary will often influence where you end up living. You will tend to settle down nearby.

6. A seminary will certainly form you so this is a big decision.

7. Go to Regent College’s summer school. They have awesome 1-2 week classes in May, June and July with professors from many seminaries.

8. Seminaries accept most everyone.  I'm not saying not to take the admissions process seriously.  Write good essays, turn in your recommendations, send your transcripts, follow the directions, etc.  But, it bothers me when people say, "I got in so that must be the right place!"  Hmm . . . no.  Most everyone with a college degree and a C average without a criminal record gets accepted at most every seminary.  Hmm . . . again, you should check on whether this is true.  Princeton and Duke are more picky.  All I am saying is that getting is not necessarily God saying "Go here."  Talk to your friends and family, visit, read, etc.   

My List of Seminaries

Below I have listed a number of seminaries where Taylor grads have attended. I have tried to list them from most liberal to most conservative. There are some schools that I don’t exactly know where they lie so I have guessed.

Certainly there are many, many more seminaries. There are many more that are smaller and more denominationally oriented. There are many that are more liberal. There are bible colleges. There are many in other countries!

After naming the seminary and providing the link, I have listed some of the more famous faculty members. Now, this “fame” is just my opinion and is most often determined by authors I have happened to have read. I just thought it would get you started on your search. I have also listed some friends of mine and where they went to school. If you email me, I can probably give you their contact info.

The List

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary - Pittsburgh, PA. Craig Barnes, Edith Humphrey. Friends: Scott & Fairlight Collins-Jones who now pastor in Philadelphia.

Princeton Theological Seminary - Princeton, NJ. Darrell Guder, Ellen Charry, Kenda Creasy Dean. Friend: Brendan Benz – fellow 1998 Taylor grad. Aaron Messner – pastor in Philadelphia.

Duke Divinity School - Durham, NC. Ellen Davis, Amy Laura Hall, Stanley Hauerwas, Richard Hays, Richard Lischer. Friend: Ryan Moore – 1999 Wheaton grad.

Palmer Theological Seminary - Wynnewood, PA. Craig Keener, Ron Sider.

Fuller Theological Seminary - Pasadena, CA. Ray Anderson, Colin Brown, Eddie Gibbs, Archibald Hart, Don Hagner, Richard Mouw, Joel Green. Friend: Jacob Gaines – 1998 Taylor grad.

Mars Hill Graduate School - Bothell, WA. Dan Allender, Nancy Murphy. Friends: Jon Stanley, Atta Dawahare, Ken Peer, Jason Jost, Jon DenHartong, Chris Keller – all Taylor grads.

Regent College – Vancouver, BC, Canada. J.I. Packer, Gordon Fee, Bruce Waltke, James Houston, and John Stackhouse. Friends: A million because I went there. Amy Rowell, Matt Ghormley, Ben Suriano, Cynthia Bennett, Jon Yeager, Brad Brummeler – all Taylor grads.

Bethel Seminary – St. Paul, MN. Associated with the Baptist General Conference.

Asbury Theological Seminary – Wilmore, KY.  Ben Witherington III. Friend: Sally Evans – 1997 Taylor grad.

Denver Seminary – Littleton, CO. Craig Blomberg, Douglas R. Groothuis. Friends: Brooks Penner – 1999 Taylor grad.

Calvin Theological Seminary – Grand Rapids, MI. Cornelius Plantinga, John Witvliet. Friend: Mark Dykstra – 1998 Taylor grad.

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary – Hamilton, MA Robert Coleman, Scott Gibson, Scott Hafemann, Walter Kaiser, Haddon Robinson, David Wells. And Charlotte, NC. Friends: Brad Bitner and John Noble 1998 Taylor grads. Eric Kniffin – 1998 Wheaton grad.

Wheaton College Graduate School – Wheaton, IL. Greg Beale, Doug Moo, John Walton. Friends: Jeff Loaney and Beverly Matos.

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School – Deerfield, IL. D.A. Carson, Grant Osborne, Kevin Vanhoozer. Friends: JR Kerr and Jim Matter – 1998 Taylor grads.

Truett Theological Seminary - Baylor University, Waco, TX. David Garland, Roger Olsen.

Multnomah Biblical Seminary - Portland, OR.

Talbot School of Theology – La Mirada, CA. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Michael Wilkins, Norman Wright. Friends: Hank Voss – 1998 Taylor grad and Brent Croxton – 1998 Wengatz hall director.

Westminster Seminary California - Escondido, CA. Michael Horton, Robert Godfrey, Steve Baugh, David VanDrunen.

Westminster Theological Seminary – Glenside, PA. Presbyterian and Reformed. Peter Enns.

Reformed Theological Seminary – Jackson, MS. Orlando, FL. Charlotte, NC. Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC. Boca Raton, FL.

Covenant Theological Seminary – St. Louis, MO. PCA seminary. Bryan Chapell. Friends: Andrew Stern and Jeff Loaney.

Dallas Theological Seminary – Dallas, TX. Darrell Bock, Howard Hendricks. Friend: Jon Easterhaus – 1998 Taylor grad.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary – Louisville, KY. Thomas R. Schreiner, Albert Mohler. Friend: Joseph Bonura - 1999 Taylor grad.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary – Fort Worth, TX. Paige Patterson, Craig Blaising.

The Master's Seminary – Sun Valley, CA. John MacArthur.

Update:
See the post by John Stackhouse (a professor at Regent College): Seminary: Who Needs It?  from March 8, 2007.

Strengths of the Purpose Driven Church and Sober Advice For Those Considering the Megachurch

I first read The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren soon after it came out in 1995. I am now teaching a Christian ministry course at Taylor University entitled "Program and Curriculum Development." I require my students to read the book because of how influential this book has been. I don't want them to be in the dark at a staff meeting or conference when people refer to it. Ten years after reading the book and being involved in pastoral leadership during that whole time, it has been interesting to read the book again. There are some definite strengths of the book. But I also have some cautions for my students about the megachurch as well.

The huge strengths of The Purpose Driven Church

Programming inspired by vision, moved by need and thoughtful about its approach.

Experiment. Warren admits that his strategy was mostly to just try things out! Emulate him in this way! p. 27-29

Consistency. A family will not be healthy if it has 10 fathers but might be healthy with one. Consider committing to a place for the long haul. p. 31

Programming with purpose, balance and discipline.

Balance p. 49, 76, 122. Left to our own devices, we will do what we are most passionate about and neglect other aspects of the biblical mandate.

There is a time to pray and a time to take responsibility. p. 58 There is a time to put our heads together and try to solve a problem with the brains and abilities God has given us rather than just spiritualize problems.

Major on the majors. p. 89 If your church is majoring on something like a choir, which is pretty peripheral to God's purposes, think about majoring on something more important.

No program is meant to last forever. p. 89-90. If it has stopped being useful, nix the program.

Need a leader for every program. p. 90. Do not start a program without leadership.

Programming with awareness of reality

Levels of commitment will differ. p. 131-136. Program in light of the fact that you are ministering to people with different levels of commitment.

Pay attention to people. Yes, target people but realize that the kingdom of God is about more than one demographic. Warren targeted Saddleback Sam but admits God has led them to minister to many new targets. p. 160.

Programming with hospitality and excellence

Emphasize hospitality - welcoming people - over attractiveness though they are similar. Warren and Saddleback are very hospitable and we can learn from this. All churches think they are friendly but most are not in reality.

Pursue excellence but realize that the smaller the congregation, the less you will be able to do what the world would judge as excellent and that is ok. Recognize what you can do well (160) (for example, fellowship) and yet also strive to do the other purposes well as you can (worship, discipleship, evangelism, service).

The importance of outreach. p. 50 Most churches never reach any non-Christians and essentially serve the believer. Warren and friends remind us of the importance of reaching the lost. "The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members" (William Temple).

Think like an unbeliever. p.189 Do not try to reach out by using Christian jargon like "Come hear the preaching of the inerrant Word of God."

Encourage people to find a place they can thrive in ministry. It is not about filling spots. p. 382 They will most likely need to experiment. I have taught the SHAPE ("spiritual gifts, heart, abilities, personalities, experiences) assessment course and the most important message is for people to jump in and try something. p. 387

Introduction to the Megachurch

In the next sections, I do not focus specifically on Saddleback and The Purpose Driven Church but rather the megachurch in general.

I received the following excellent statistical introduction to the megachurch from Bill Easum's article The Exponential Church ...Learning From America’s Largest and Fastest-Growing Congregations.

"Twenty years ago American megachurches (more than 2,000 attendance) numbered just over two dozen. Today, they exceed more than 830, with more than 30 now exceeding 10,000 worshipper- launching a whole new category we call the "gigachurch." Since the late 1950s, the time it has taken for a church to grow large has been cut in half almost every decade. Ten of the churches started in 1990 reached attendances of 5,000 to 18,000 in one decade.What is driving this growth? The factors are many, including the migration of people to urban centers, word-of-mouth, sharpened leadership skills, churches becoming multigenerational and most recently, Web site access, TV exposure and megachurches teaching other churches through seminars, books and curriculum."

I had never heard of the gigachurch and I don't think that terminology has taken off yet but it does make sense to me to differentiate the 30 churches over 10,000 attendance from the 800 over 2,000 but less than 10,000.

Because it is big, its strengths and weaknesses are exaggerated. It is great to study because it has systems for everything and they are often visible on the grand scale.

Not all people thrive in a megachurch. Consider the following.

If you grew up in a megachurch, you may intuitively understand who tends to fit there. But if you didn't, consider the following.

Because it is a large organization, it has to function as one. Thus business skills and larger-organization leadership skills are sought after.

Because the megachurch is always trying to make things better and this is visible to thousands of people on a weekly basis, it can tend to be a high pressure, result-oriented environment.

Because vision-casting is needed to rally volunteers and you are often known by your brief public speaking opportunities, outstanding public-speaking skills are an asset.

Because cutting edge technology is often used to keep track of lots of people and do ministry programming on a large-scale, technology skills are a sought after.

My friend writes: "Like those in big business, mega-church workers need to bring at least one towering strength to the enterprise. It's not a place for those who can do many things with average skill; it's a place for those who can do one or two things with tremendous skill. Excellence is of such high value that only over-achievers need apply. Smaller church workers can be generalists; most mega-church workers have to be specialists."

If you walk into a megachurch or visit a website of a megachurch and are attracted by the facility and professionalism, this may be your thing. If you have a bad taste in your mouth and feel like it seems fake, you should run the other direction because it probably isn't you.

Crucial Questions to Contemplate If You Decide to Work at a Megachurch:

Think about what ministry "success" really means.

It is customary (not just in the megachurch) to equate success with the A, B, C's (Attendance, Buildings, Cash) or you can also say it as the three B's (Bodies, Buildings, Budget). How can we measure quantitatively some things that are hard to quantify (discipleship, inner growth, godly character development, true worshipfulness)? Randy Frazee, author of The Connecting Church and formerly pastor of Pantego Bible Church and now at Willow Creek, has tried to to create an assessment tool of 30 core competences which is a place to start.

Take into account the location.

Don't feel too proud of yourself if your church grows and you are in a geographical area that is booming economically and growing quickly. Don't be too discouraged regarding your church growth if you are in an area that is suffering economically. Megachurches often (but not always) occur in growing areas where there is a Target, Starbucks and new developments. In the megachurch game (a spoof on megachurch leadership) there are different levels of difficulty: “suburban church plant (for those who want it easy or just starting out). Or pastor an inner-city, multi-ethnic 80 year old church with 50 members and $1 million mortgage debt (for those who really want a challenge)."

Do not uncritically accept the idea that "quantity frequently indicates quality."

Rick Warren writes, "Health produces growth . . . Quality produces quantity" (p.49, 51). Natural Church Development, another school of thought, concludes that of the major eight positive characteristics they look for in churches only "Inspiring Worship" is most typically stronger in large churches.

1. Empowering Leadership
2. Gift-oriented Ministry
3. Passionate Spirituality
4. Functional Structures
5. Inspiring Worship
6. Holistic Small Groups
7. Need-oriented Evangelism
8. Loving Relationships

This makes sense that people would assume that all the characteristics are stronger in a megachurch because when one visits a megachurch people are often moved by the large-setting worship.

Impact is not fame or joy.

It is tempting to think that you are making a bigger impact if your ministry is famous. It is good to want to make a profound impact for God's kingdom. Go do it! You may not get noticed for it by Christianity Today but you may end up with a better family life, more joy, more friends, and more satisfaction than the famous Zondervan "____ Church" author. I'm told fame can be a pain - people who don't know you say all kinds of silly things about you and you don't know whether to respond or ignore it. Remember that "audience of One" concept.

Consider making biblical reflection a priority.

The megachurch is often characterized by a radical pragmatism that focuses on doing "whatever works." It can be very difficult with the weekly deadlines and pressure to thoughtfully consider the merits of a particular decision in light of biblical values. The thinking usually goes: "if it gets butts in seats, it is exposing people to the gospel, so it must be good." The megachurch may not appropriately value biblical reflection including the foundation of biblical reflection that is hopefully instilled in theological education / seminary.

Consider carefully how to use resources.

The megachurch often spends extraordinary amounts of money that might seem to be frivilous (a shuttle to bring people in from parking lot with video screens, etc.) Are there other ways that God might be calling the wealthy North American church to use its resources? Consider this question often.

Understand biblical evangelism.

The strength of the seeker megachurch is that it stresses outreach to the unchurched. I tell my students: "You're not allowed to throw stones at the seeker church unless you are committed to an equally intense evangelism approach (small groups that invite unchurched, Alpha program, 1-on-1 evangelism training, special seeker events, etc.)" However, the seeker church can also tend to get a bit over-focused on "getting souls into heaven" which may not reflect the totality of the message of Scripture.

Consider discipleship in the seeker church.

My friend writes: "When evangelism is the primary purpose of every Sunday's gathering...you're essentially doing 'crusade' ministry on a weekly basis. And if there's one thing that stadium crusades have taught us, it's that it's easier to draw a crowd than to disciple a crowd. As I recall, a study of the Billy Graham Association showed that about 4% of the respondents at their crusades ultimately wound up assimilated into a church. The mega-church might not be doing much better. I think discipling people may only be able to be done a few at a time."

Consider discipleship in the non-seeker church.

Some megachurches do not have weekend seeker services and a midweek believers service. They gear the weekend worship and preaching to