The Gospel Coalition

Yesterday, I posted a summary of Aubrey Malphurs’ book, A New Kind of Church: Understanding Models of Ministry for the 21st Century. Today, I offer some strengths and weaknesses in Malphurs’ proposal.

Strengths

Malphurs offers many suggestions that deserve consideration from pastors and church leaders today. He is right to critique some of the critics of the new models, especially when that criticism has been unfounded, exaggerated, or unloving.

He is also correct to make distinctions between principles and patterns, or description and prescription, as we attempt to be faithful to the biblical portrait of New Testament Christian belief and practice. Malphurs clearly demonstrates a passion for biblical faithfulness, and he ably critiques both the new model churches and the traditionalists for their shortcomings, while spurring us on to love and good deeds.

Further Questions

Despite the strengths of Malphurs’ work, there are a number of questions raised by his proposals that are not answered satisfactorily in this book.

Essentials and Non-essentials

First, one must wonder how Malphurs distinguishes between “essentials” and “nonessentials.” This kind of terminology can be easily misunderstood. Albert Mohler’s categorization into issues of “first-level” and “second-level” seems better. Mohler sees a hierarchy of doctrines flowing down from the central truths of the gospel. Malphurs’ categorization of “essentials” and “nonessentials” ultimately leads him to steadfastness on issues of gospel primacy and wide flexibility on everything else.

In the end, there is little room left for denominational distinctives. Malphurs writes:

“I don’t believe that I would deny membership in my church to brothers or sisters in Christ who differ over the nonessentials unless their belief was disruptive” (53).

How does this work out in practice? Since Malphurs considers baptism to be a “nonessential,” does that mean that local churches should adopt a variety of positions on baptism? It appears so, since Malphurs later writes:

“The church may practice immersion but should be willing to adopt another form if an individual requests it or his or her situation merits it” (63).

This kind of freedom will inevitably lead to church conflict or to the downplaying and neglect of very important Christian practices. Baptists believe that baptism is not a merely a function that can take place in a variety of forms. Immersion is baptism.

It appears that Malphurs would still encourage his readers to take a firm position on certain nonessentials. He later writes:

“Liberty says that it is okay to take a firm position on the nonessentials, but we must recognize that we are in the realm of interpretive tradition” (137).

But what if this argument is turned back against Malphurs’ entire proposal? His position on liberty and nonessentials would necessarily be included in the “nonessential” category of doctrines, which means that he too is in the realm of interpretive tradition and cannot make a firm case from Scripture for the views he holds.

Can the form ever compromise the function?

Regarding forms and practices, Malphurs is generally correct. We do have freedom to use different practices and forms.

But he gives us little help in determining when forms affect the function, or when practices change the doctrine. How do we know when our contextualization has led to compromise?

Malphurs’ evaluation comes from asking questions like “What practices and forms best serve our constituency or the people we desire to teach?” Likewise, he asks, “What forms is God currently using and blessing?” (85). These are good questions, but Malphurs never defines “blessing.” How do we know what “success” and “blessing” is?

Here is a case in point. If a church that is seeing numerical growth has offered two different styles of worship for different generations, should others churches in the area follow the same pattern? Or should we consider what our inability to worship with people of different generations is communicating to a watching world? At what point do we question our definition of “success” and look past initial results to the unintended implications of our actions?

Malphurs is right to see forms as changing, but he gives us little advice in understanding at what point the form compromises the function. He uses the Lord’s Supper as an example (90), arguing that crackers or bread, wine or grape juice can be used. The forms change, but the substance of the function remains the same.

But how far can this be taken? Can a group use kool-aid and cookies on the beach and consider this the Lord’s Supper? I suspect that Malphurs would say “no,” but unfortunately, I do not know the reasons he would give for saying that such a drastic change in form is unacceptable.

The Culture-Adapting Church? Or the Culture-Creating Church?

Malphurs advocates “contextualization, which attempts to plant or reestablish churches within people’s cultural context and to communicate the gospel in language and practices that are understandable so that the biblical message is clear” (105). Certainly some level of contextualization is necessary. The gospel must be communicated in ways that contemporary people understand.

But Malphurs’ emphasis on contextualization takes the cue from culture, making it seem that the church should always adapt to culture, rather than seeing the church as an organism that creates a culture of its own.

Churches should, of course, be sensitive to those who are not believers. But a church service should be a culturally alienating experience for unbelievers. We are a distinct people with a distinct vocabulary.

Who else gets together and sings to an invisible Being?

Who else eats bread and drinks wine together in commemoration of a dying Savior?

The church is supposed to exist as a counter-culture, which means that those who do not believe will not and should not feel completely at home in a Christian church service.

Lordship Salvation

The biggest problem with Malphurs’ theological outlook is his rejection of “lordship salvation.” He writes:

“Some believe that the gospel includes a commitment before salvation to let Jesus control one’s life after salvation. This is the lordship salvation view. Others correctly point out that this view mixes salvation with sanctification and adds works to the gospel, which is a false gospel” (148).

By divorcing Jesus’ identity as Savior from his identity as Lord, Malphurs should not be surprised to see a growing proportion of unchurched people. Surprisingly, Malphurs considers this group, even perhaps the majority as “deeply committed believers” (21).

The idea that one can be a deeply committed believer and yet have no relationship with the body of Christ is troublesome. This statement signals that further theological issues in relation to Malphurs’ proposals need to be discussed.

Conclusion

Aubrey Malphurs’ passion for the church and the expansion of God’s kingdom is on full display in A New Kind of Church. This book should be read and considered by pastors and church leaders seeking to be biblically faithful and culturally relevant. Despite some flaws, this book asks good questions, makes good points, and will surely provoke important conversations on the nature and manner of the church’s missional identity.

Jim Belcher continues the conversation about Deep Church with an interview at the Gospel Coalition blog. Interesting insights into the gospel, the kingdom, and the church:

I agree with Keller when he says, “I must admit that so many of us who revel in the classic gospel of ‘grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone’ largely ignore the eschatological implications of the gospel.” I think that is right. The Good News is not only the forgiveness of sins but the promise and hope for new-creation.

Glad to hear that the new Christmas Carol film doesn’t sentimentalize the bleakness of Dickens’ original tale:

Dickens’s classic also continues to capture our imagination because of its portrayal of a social and economic world of great inequity and deep suffering. It’s a world more brutal than we sometimes imagine, and one that in many ways is not too different from our own.

A comparison between Charles Spurgeon and Bruce Wilkinson’s expositions of the Prayer of Jabez:

Spurgeon’s approach to the Christian life, on the other hand, leaves room for pain and delay. Focusing as he did on the formation of Christian character and on intimacy with God in Christ, Spurgeon could tolerate and even welcome suffering.

A video that shows a groom who immediately updates his FaceBook status relationship after the minister pronounces them husband and wife. Whatever you may think about social media, this is funny.

Aubrey Malphurs is the professor of pastoral ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written a number of books on contemporary models of church planting and church revitalization.

His book, A New Kind of Church: Understanding Models of Ministry for the 21st Century, makes a case for using new models for ministry in the 21st century. Throughout the book, Malphurs answers criticisms of the new models while offering a vision for moving forward in effective church ministry.

Today, I will offer a brief summary of Malphurs’ argument. Tomorrow, I will offer some strengths and weaknesses to his approach.

Summary

A New Kind of Church is divided into two parts. The first part addresses the changing times in which we live. Malphurs explains why churches find themselves in the position of being forced to adapt to new cultural realities.

He begins by pointing out the ways in which culture has changed:

• People no longer think the way they did fifty years ago.
• Faith is no longer tied to church attendance.
• A diminishing view of Sunday morning as a sacred time (35).

Churches have been too slow to adapt to these new realities. We missed opportunities to reassert the importance of Christian faith (September 11), and despite a few glimmers of hope (the church’s response to Hurricane Katrina), the church has moved toward irrelevance. Add to these problems a general apathy toward evangelism and the picture grows even starker (43).

According to Malphurs, churches must change or die. But many believe that change equals unfaithfulness. Therefore, Malphurs examines the arguments launched against churches that implement new models and methods.

Central to his proposal is the distinction between doctrines and practices. He divides doctrines into “essentials” and “nonessentials.” Churches should be exclusive regarding the essentials and inclusive regarding the nonessentials (51).

The second (longer) half of the book provides information for leaders to help them make wise decisions regarding church models and ministry methods. Malphurs seeks to base his proposals on Scripture. He makes a number of helpful distinctions in the New Testament, showing that not everything described in first-century Christianity is necessarily prescribed in 21st century America (66-68). Likewise, he distinguishes between patterns and principles, showing how we are not bound to the specific patterns of first-century ministries, but to the principles seen in these contexts (70-73).

Next, Malphurs encourages churches to develop a theology of change. Leaders must recognize that the functions of the church are based on the Bible, and therefore, they are timeless, unchanging and nonnegotiable (76-85). However, the forms we use in order to practice these functions are flexible. Churches must exercise freedom in choosing the way in which the functions are to be accomplished (85-92).

Malphurs also challenges churches to develop a theology of culture. It is important to understand a culture before we can effectively reach people for Christ. He defines culture as “the sum total of what people believe and how they act on their beliefs” (98). Malphurs warns us against isolation or accommodation, and instead encourages us to contextualize the unchanging gospel in an ever-changing world (102-108).

In Malphurs’ understanding, the church is “an indispensable gathering of professing believers in Christ who, under leadership, are organized to pursue its functions to accomplish its purpose” (117). He spends an entire chapter unpacking that definition and defending its usefulness.

In the last section of the book, Malphurs encourages the church to serve the surrounding community as an expression of faithfulness to Jesus (127-34). He also challenges churches to think through issues of form and function. Critics of new-model churches should avoid sweeping generalizations and the impugning of others’ motives (151-9). The final chapter offers tips to pastors thinking of leading their church to develop new models and methods (163-80).

Tomorrow, I will list some strengths and weaknesses to Malphurs’ approach.

A brief history of Antarctica:

Antarctica has no permanent residents, just the 1,000 to 5,000 scientists who staff its research centers, usually for a few months at a time. But more and more are coming to visit: more than 45,000 tourists visited Antarctica during its most recent summer, and on average about 30,000 visitors flock to the frigid continent each year.

Jesus has AIDS:

When we stand in judgment, we’ll stand, Jesus tells us, accountable for how we recognized him in the trauma of those who don’t seem to bear the glory of Christ at all right now. We see Jesus now, by faith, in the sufferings of the crack baby, the meth addict, the AIDS orphan, the hospitalized prodigal who sees his ruin in the wires running from his veins.

I wonder how many of us will hear the words from our Galilean emperor, “I had AIDS and you weren’t afraid to come near me.”

Why some Methodists are listening to Mark Driscoll:

It’s high time that Wesleyans got serious about the gospel God raised us up to preach. We’ve been playing at dolls far too long.

Check out why Scot McKnight endorsed the Manhattan Declaration, and why Michael Horton did not.

Rick Warren challenges Obama on abortion:

Warren said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program that Obama is taking an abortion stance that contains a false juxtaposition by saying he wants abortions to be rare but not believing human life begins at conception.

For Warren, the admission that abortions should be rare acknowledges there is something wrong with abortion. And if there is something wrong with abortion, why won’t Obama take the position they should be prohibited.

Recent surveys indicate that the question of “where one goes after death” is no longer a pressing issue for most people today. Instead, people are asking fundamental questions about life’s purpose and ultimate meaning.

At the same time, many evangelicals have discovered that the gospel is not merely about “going to heaven when you die”. The gospel tells the story of Jesus Christ and what he has done to bring about salvation. The gospel leads to mission, which transforms our life here on earth and provides us with the purpose for which we long.

Readers of this blog know that I have supported efforts to keep the gospel from being merely the answer to the question “How do I get to heaven?” Books like Surprised by Hope by N.T. Wright and Heaven Is a Place on Earth by Michael Wittmer have rightly challenged our emphasis on the “where do I go when I die?” question.

But in recent days, I have noticed that some gospel presentations have ceased speaking of the afterlife question altogether. The gospel becomes solely about salvation “here and now” and has little bearing on what takes place when one dies.

The motivation for leaving aside the question of the afterlife is the desire for relevance. Since fewer people are concerned about their eternal destiny, today’s evangelists have left behind that issue and are seeking to answer the questions people are actually asking.

A popular saying goes like this: Find out what questions the people in your culture are asking. Then answer those questions with the gospel.

On the surface, I agree with this statement. If people in our culture are asking questions concerning purpose and meaning, then perhaps we ought to consider that the most effective evangelistic technique will probably not begin with: “If you were to die tonight, where would you spend eternity?” This question isn’t bad. But it might not be effective as an evangelistic tool.

The gospel does indeed answer a variety of questions. Discovering the questions of the culture and then answering them can lead to creative ways of telling the good news.

But this kind of contextualization only takes us so far. I am uneasy saying, “Answer the questions of the culture” and leaving it at that. Why? Because this impulse can reduce the gospel to a mere response to whatever questions our culture puts forth. In the end, we let others frame the question, while we seek to fit the gospel into that cultural framework.

But what if the culture isn’t asking the right questions?

What if the culture has so downplayed the idea of guilt that a biblical understanding of sin has all but disappeared?

What if the people in our society refuse to grapple with the fact of their own mortality?

The gospel does not just morph and adapt depending on the culture. Instead, the gospel is culture-creating. The gospel does not merely answer the culture’s questions. It includes those answers, yes. But it also creates a culture of its own… a culture that leads to other fundamental questions.

So the gospel provides us with not only the right answers to the world’s questions, but also the piercing questions the world does not want to deal with. The gospel tells us what the world should be asking.

As witnesses to the gospel, we can and should seek to answer the questions of the culture. But we must go further – pointing people to the right, biblical questions that they may not have thought to ask. We are called not to fit the gospel into our current cultural framework, but to challenge the cultural framework with the earth-shattering, death-defying news of a risen King.

Christians are lazy to rely on past evangelistic strategies and formulas to present the gospel in this day and age. If we think the “unchanging gospel” refers to our pet methods for presenting the gospel, we deceive ourselves, reduce the gospel, and fail to think through ways of presenting the gospel that might be more effective in our contemporary society.

On the other hand, we are lazy if we let the culture define the terms in which the gospel must be presented. If we think that contextualization is merely adapting the gospel to whatever questions the world is asking, we too reduce the gospel and fail to provide a full-orbed presentation.

What is the way forward between these two extremes? A gospel presentation that uses the culture’s questions as the starting point for evangelism, and then opens up the full-orbed understanding of Scripture, which will include biblically faithful questions.

We can contextualize in order to be effective. But we mustn’t gut the gospel message of the elements that are not culturally popular or relevant. Instead, we can begin where the culture is, answer the questions the culture is asking, and then move forward to the answers and questions that arise from a biblical worldview.

Last month, Collin Hansen’s article in Christianity Today on evangelicals and Catholics quoted Taylor Marshall, the former Protestant who says he became Catholic after reading N.T. Wright. I published the full response from Wright regarding Protestant-Catholic relations. Now, Marshall has responded, asking Wright ten questions about how his view differs from that of the Council of Trent. At times, Marshall tries to argue the Catholic position by using Wright’s words. Other times, he counters Wright’s words by making a Catholic apologetic against Wright’s Protestant positions. Here’s a taste:

I would like to point out that I am not simply an isolated “this person” who “needed a change.”… If Anglicanism can provide a Christianity that is “sacramental, transformational, communal, and eschatological,” then why are these Anglicans so deeply dissatisfied with Anglicanism? Would Wright also say that their “jump to Rome” is “very odd”?

From The New Yorker’s profile of Tim Keller:

It’s a Sunday evening at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, and the pews are full. Redeemer is a conservative Evangelical Christian congregation, but the parishioners don’t fit the easy Bible Belt stereotypes. They are a cross-section of yuppie Manhattanites…

Ed Stetzer on “preaching that sticks“:

If you want your sermon to stick, you must pull back the curtain to reveal who God is, who we are and what He really wants. It is too easy for preachers to slip into becoming moral teachers–religious instructors who pass out rules for spiritual living without pulling back the curtain on God and ourselves; pulling back that curtain is what our people need the most!

Longing for King Jesus:

Come King Jesus! Deliver us from EU bureaucrats, from hypocrites in the religious right, and idiots in the religious left. Save us from Obama, Palin, any political leaders, and ourselves. We know that we are not the One we are waiting for, because if we were there would be no hope at all.