I came across an article recently in The Wall Street Journal titled “What’s Wrong With the Teenage Mind?” It explores the cultural changes leading to a contemporary vision of “adolescence.” Of particular interest to me was the role of “apprenticeship” throughout history.

In gatherer-hunter and farming societies, childhood education involves formal and informal apprenticeship. Children have lots of chances to practice the skills that they need to accomplish their goals as adults, and so to become expert planners and actors. The cultural psychologist Barbara Rogoff studied this kind of informal education in a Guatemalan Indian society, where she found that apprenticeship allowed even young children to become adept at difficult and dangerous tasks like using a machete.

In the past, to become a good gatherer or hunter, cook or caregiver, you would actually practice gathering, hunting, cooking and taking care of children all through middle childhood and early adolescence—tuning up just the prefrontal wiring you’d need as an adult.

The article then pointed out the loss of this way of learning and its impact on society today:

Contemporary children have very little experience with the kinds of tasks that they’ll have to perform as grown-ups. Children have increasingly little chance to practice even basic skills like cooking and caregiving. Contemporary adolescents and pre-adolescents often don’t do much of anything except go to school. Even the paper route and the baby-sitting job have largely disappeared…

Of course, the author is not making the case that children today are less knowledgeable than children in previous generations. The results appear to be just the opposite. Still…

There are different ways of being smart. Knowing physics and chemistry is no help with a soufflé. Wide-ranging, flexible and broad learning, the kind we encourage in high-school and college, may actually be in tension with the ability to develop finely-honed, controlled, focused expertise in a particular skill, the kind of learning that once routinely took place in human societies. For most of our history, children have started their internships when they were seven, not 27.

The author concludes by pleading for the return of apprenticeship as a way of helping teenagers move forward into adulthood.

Instead of simply giving adolescents more and more school experiences—those extra hours of after-school classes and homework—we could try to arrange more opportunities for apprenticeship. AmeriCorps, the federal community-service program for youth, is an excellent example, since it provides both challenging real-life experiences and a degree of protection and supervision.

“Take your child to work” could become a routine practice rather than a single-day annual event, and college students could spend more time watching and helping scientists and scholars at work rather than just listening to their lectures. Summer enrichment activities like camp and travel, now so common for children whose parents have means, might be usefully alternated with summer jobs, with real responsibilities.

Evangelicals are talking a lot today about prolonged adolescence and the problems caused by this new phenomenon. I wonder, though, if the need for apprenticeship goes beyond application to teenagers and speaks to the very nature of discipleship in general.

If knowledge and learning in biblical times took place primarily through the role of teacher and apprentice, then perhaps when the New Testament authors place such a strong priority on teaching, they are not thinking merely in terms of lectures and sermons. Perhaps their vision of teaching also includes the idea of apprenticeship. If so, how should this affect our view of discipleship today?

I’m open to ideas. More on this tomorrow…

James MacDonald’s Elephant Room conference has stirred up celebration and consternation among evangelicals – and no wonder! MacDonald envisions a place where pastors and church leaders can bring private disagreements into the public eye, where leaders with varying theological viewpoints and ministry philosophies can come together and hash out their differences in light of the Scriptures. No easy feat.

I have decided to attend the upcoming Elephant Room conference on January 25, 2012, and then blog about the event. I will explain my reasons for accepting the invitation in a post tomorrow. But before considering the upcoming conference, I think it would be good to offer a few reflections about the first Elephant Room meeting. The conference took place on March 31, 2011, and featured eight conversations between seven pastors. (I collected some blog notes from each session here as well as various clips at the Elephant Room website and here.)

Debates and discussions have long had a place in the evangelical conversation, but the Elephant Room is different. Why? Because it captures so well the ethos of contemporary evangelicalism – for good and for ill. Here’s what I mean…

1. Evangelicals continue to affirm that the Scriptures are authoritative for church life and practice.

One of David Bebbington’s four characteristics of the evangelical movement is that we have a high regard for the authority of Scripture. This means that evangelicals seek to apply the authority of Scripture to all areas of church life and practice.

In the first Elephant Room, everyone at the table was united by the belief that when it comes to ministry practice, what the Bible says is most important. This is why, at the end of the day, evangelicals are unique in having these types of discussions. Many church leaders would shrug their shoulders at this event, having already dismissed the absolute authority of Scripture for all aspects of church life. Fundamentalists would avoid these conversations because their understanding of Scriptural authority would preclude them from associating with those who interpret the Scriptures in ways that lead to, in their view, aberrant ministry practices. The Elephant Room debates, however, make no sense apart from the underlying assumption that the Bible is the supreme authority for what we believe and what we practice.

You may be thinking, If evangelicals can and do have these discussions, what is unique about the Elephant Room? The simple answer is the face-to-face interaction. Whereas the leaders of different tribes within evangelicalism tend to talk at one another, it is rare to see leaders sitting down to talk and listen to one another. That brings us to the second snapshot.

2. Evangelicalism is not a tribe but a reservation where many tribes live.

A key assumption of the first Elephant Room is that tribalism is inevitable but not totally justifiable. In other words, it is normal for evangelicals to divide up into networks and tribes but unhealthy for our divisions to solidify to the point we no longer recognize other brothers and sisters who live on the same reservation (i.e., in agreement with the supreme authority of Scripture).

MacDonald uses the image of a family, a loud and opinionated group of people whose fierce arguments with one another are matched only by their fierce love and loyalty to one another. MacDonald believes that robust debate is healthy for brothers. Of course, the emphasis on brotherhood was the main reason why the upcoming Elephant Room became so controversial: MacDonald invited T. D. Jakes, a pastor who was raised as part of a denomination that denies the Trinity. I’ll address the Jakes issue tomorrow.

But for now, let me say in regard to the first Elephant Room that I appreciate James MacDonald’s willingness to host conversations with brothers who do things differently than he does. Contrary to what many think, the ability to sit down with believers from “outside your tribe” is not a sign of theological wobbliness but of steadfast conviction. It means you are firm enough in what you believe to be able to listen charitably to other points of view, even if you choose not to adopt those viewpoints.

3. Evangelical identity is contested, which leads to questions of association.

As a movement, evangelicalism is fragmenting. The notion of evangelical identity is contested and debated in books, blogs, and conferences. Many hope for a renewal of evangelicalism but disagree as to how to bring about that renewal.

1. One approach to renewing evangelical identity is that we embrace the diversity of theological options as part of the definition of being evangelical. This is the direction that leaders like Roger Olson would take us.
2. A second approach seeks to reclaim the center of evangelicalism (the gospel) by maintaining adherence to a core of theological convictions. The Gospel Coalition would be an example of “reclaiming the center.”
3. A third approach is to take prominent evangelical pastors with different philosophies of ministry and bring them together for conversation about their different methodologies. I place the Elephant Room in this category (and perhaps Catalyst and the Willow Creek Leadership Summit).

The Elephant Room approach differs from the first because it does not revel in diversity as being good in and of itself. Instead, the whole tenor of the discussion is that diversity should not be celebrated but challenged in light of the Scriptures.

This approach differs from the second by significantly broadening the core of what theological convictions and ministry practices must be held in common. Whereas the second approach takes pastoral associations very seriously, the third approach is less concerned with confessional identity and chooses instead to bring together pastors on the basis of a common commitment to the authority of the Bible, regardless of their methodological decisions.

What makes the Elephant Room interesting is that James MacDonald and other participants are official members of an organization that takes the “reclaim the center” confessional approach, even though the Elephant Room intends to influence a much wider swath of evangelicals. (This becomes even more clear when we consider the invitations for Elephant Room 2.) What does this mean? Put simply, options 1-3 are not necessarily incompatible options for renewal (though it’s rare to find people who agree with both 1 and 2). Participation in any of the three does not necessarily preclude participation in the others.

4. Evangelicals continue to unite around big personalities.

The proto-evangelicals of the Reformation and the Great Awakenings were attracted to big personalities. Just think of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, and Spurgeon. The development of contemporary evangelicalism took place around key leaders like Billy Graham. Today, the Elephant Room reinforces the evangelical fascination with “big personality” preachers and teachers.

It’s interesting to note that one of the commonalities that united the pastors who participated in the first Elephant Room was that they all lead beyond their local churches. Each of them wields influence in movements that transcend their church contexts. Perhaps much of the camaraderie of the Elephant Room is based not in theological likemindedness but in a sort of “brotherhood of the trenches” – the ability to relate to one another and show the scars of being in leadership.

Have you ever noticed how former presidents (generally) refrain from attacking their successors and how presidents with radically different political views can be on such good terms once they are out of office? There is a bond among former presidents, perhaps because each of them knows firsthand the stress of being president. I wonder if the pastors who participate in the Elephant Room have a similar bond. They know what it is like to be shot at from all sides. (As an example, watch the reaction when Perry Noble mentions “internet bloggers,” and you see how quickly everyone is on the same page!)

The downside to this emphasis on big personalities was that the debates often steered toward entertaining conversation rather than substantive discussion. For example, David Platt laid out a view of money and possessions that James MacDonald affirmed. But then the conversation quickly turned to the soundbite issue of “giving kids goldfish crackers in church.” No longer was the conversation about the substance of Platt’s view but a caricature of his position. (My frustration with that segment led to this blog post.)

The same thing took place with the discussion on culture in the church. Driscoll and Noble were set opposite one another when it was clear that both are more alike than different on the issue of culture. And so the soundbite issue of using “Highway to Hell” in worship – an issue that illustrates the difference between ministry philosophies – took over the conversation.

5. Evangelicalism’s lack of ecclesiology leads to a divorce between theology and methodology.

When I watched the Elephant Room with church leaders, I was sharpened by the terrific conversations that followed. The videos were a springboard into discussions that pushed us to consider, in light of the Scriptures, why we do things the way we do them. What is the ministry philosophy that undergirds our methods?

The Elephant Room also made it harder to easily dismiss pastors who do not belong to our particular tribe. While no one changed their mind regarding ministry philosophy, everyone went away with new insight into the motivation behind the other approaches, even if they ultimately disagreed with those pastors’ choices. The Elephant Room took away some of our easy targets.

Watching the Elephant Room with laypeople was another experience entirely. Whereas church leaders took these debates as a springboard for robust conversation about ministry practice, church laypeople tended to relativize the discussion and see all methods as essentially equal, just different. I noticed that among laypeople, the Elephant Room discussions wound up legitimizing all the ministry philosophies represented, to the point that it didn’t matter what the choices were as long as the pastor’s heart was in the right place.

Frankly, I was surprised by this reaction to the Elephant Room, since the whole tenor of the discussion seemed to be these differences matter! So, I think the Elephant Room exposes a glaring weakness of evangelicalism in general, that our lack of ecclesiology leaves the door open for a total divorce between theology and ministry methodology. Instead of tracing the different methodologies back to the theology that gives rise to such distinctions, the Elephant Room makes it seem as if the theological core is sound and that the big issues relate to practice.

But if theology influences everything a church does, then there must be a stronger connection between theology and practice, between ecclesiology and ministry. It’s not that David Platt and Perry Noble disagree on practice alone; their theological convictions are what lead to differences in practice.

Conclusion

Too many times, when we disagree with a pastor’s actions, we judge his motives. We assume that brothers operating by a different philosophy of ministry must be motivated by numbers, by glory-seeking, or by theological ignorance. And while it is true that all of our hearts contain a mixture of conflicting motives – some pure and others sinful – we should assume the worst about ourselves and the best about our brothers. This is the strength of the Elephant Room. Listening to people from outside our own tribe should give us pause before launching into critique.

At the same time, assuming sincerity of heart and love for Jesus on the part of other church leaders does not mean that different ministry philosophies and methodologies are equally valid. At the end of the day, our faithfulness and service to the Lord will not be examined in light of our devotion to dynamic preacher personalities but by the actions we take in light of God’s revealed Word. Ideas have consequences. Ministry philosophy matters. People get hurt by bad theology and unwise practices.

So yes, theological humility reminds us that we do not have all the answers. But theological conviction reminds us that there is right and wrong, there are choices that are either wise or unwise, and that the Scriptures must guide how we think through these issues.

Tomorrow, I’ll offer a few reasons why I will be attending and blogging about the upcoming Elephant Room conference.

As I recently read through Crossway’s collection of the Letters of Francis Schaeffer, I was struck by how applicable Schaeffer’s insights are today, particularly in regard to evangelical movements, leaders, and doctrine. His counsel deserves to be heeded by those of us in the “gospel-centered” stream of evangelicalism.

With this in mind, I have selected some favorite excerpts from these letters and woven them together creatively. Using Schaeffer’s own words, I am imagining out loud what counsel he might give us today.

What Francis Schaeffer Might Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement Today

1. Make sure your loyalty to Christ supersedes any loyalty you have for the “movement.”

[Brothers and sisters,] I see the need for Christians across the face of the earth who are indeed brothers in Christ, standing on the fundamentals of the faith and separated from unbelief, to come into personal fellowship one with the other to the praise of our Lord. And yet how quickly such a thing can grow into that which is merely cold, formal, and dead. The cry of my heart is that God may have mercy on us.

I increasingly see the dangers involved in organization, and I do think that most of us get the cart before the horse. That is, we organize first and then go forward, rather than growing close to one another through spiritual and personal contacts and then letting whatever organization grow naturally out of that-as the tree puts forth the leaf and then the bud and then the flower as the Lord leads.

I don’t think [that the deeper spiritual walk is] in antithesis to an organization. And yet, I must say that it does seem to me that so often organization becomes a means to an end in itself. So often it takes so much energy to turn over all the machinery that the work never gets finished. And so often we put the machinery in the place of the Holy Spirit, feeling that if we can just get organized enough then the thing is sure to go on and be successful.

Of course, this is all very wrong, and not only wrong but wicked. We must realize that it is only the Holy Spirit who can give the power, and we must realize that the only motivation which pleases our dear Lord is our love for Him. Merely keeping machinery turning, and getting all mixed up in the self-aggrandizement that so often goes with a large organization, completely casts aside this primary motive of love to the Lord and a dependence then on the one source of true Christian power-the Holy Spirit.

The problem is not one of loyalty or lack of loyalty to a “cause” or “movement.” [The problem is that] loyalty to organizations and movements have always tended over time to take the place of loyalty to the person of Christ… We must urge each other not even to give final authority to principles about Christ, but only to the person of Christ.

2. Don’t let your orthodox doctrine be disconnected from a living relationship with the living Christ.

Doctrinal rightness and rightness of ecclesiastical position are important, but only as a starting-point to go on into a living relationship – and not as ends in themselves.

[Take the Reformation, for example.] The Roman Catholic Church had come to teach the wrong doctrines. And I feel that most of the Reformation then let the pendulum swing and thought if only the right doctrines were taught that all would be automatically well. Thus, to a large extent, the Reformation concentrated almost exclusively on the “teaching ministry of the Church.”

In other words almost all the emphasis was placed on teaching the right doctrines. In this I feel the fatal error had already been made. It is not for a moment that we can begin to get anywhere until the right doctrines are taught. But the right doctrines mentally assented to are not an end in themselves, but should only be the vestibule to a personal and loving communion with God.

The danger of orthodoxy, even true orthodoxy, is in falling off the other side of the knife blade: that is, in stating the intellectual position and then placing a period. What we must ask the Lord for is a work of the Spirit . . . to stand on a very thin line: in other words, to state intellectually (as well as understand, though not completely) the intellectual reality of that which God is and what God has revealed in the objectively inspired Bible; and then to live moment by moment in the reality of a restored relationship with the God who is there, and to act in faith upon what we believe in our daily lives.

3. Live in a way that demonstrates the holiness and love of God.

We must exhibit simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God. Anything else than this simultaneous exhibition presents a caricature of our God to the world rather than showing him forth.

We are in a day when evangelicals tend to let down the absolutes in the Word of God in doctrine and in life, and we must be careful not to contribute to this. On the other hand, we are in a day when other evangelicals are becoming more and more heartless, and we must be careful not to contribute to this as well.

The problem is in being those who insist upon the absolutes of God and yet show forth beauty to the world, which is strangling for the need of both absolutes and beauty. These things are beyond us in our own strength, but not in His strength as we allow Him to bring forth His fruits through us in this sinful and ugly world and generation.

May the Lord lead you that you not deny His existence through lack of faith, nor deny His character in either His holiness or His love.

4. Rely on the Spirit as you grow in your love for God.

[Remember that] the decisions of a growing work demand that the One who directs be constantly at hand.

It brings me increasingly to my knees – to ask that the Holy Spirit may have His way in my life; that I may not think just of justification and then the glories of Heaven (with merely a battle for separation between). [But that I may also think of] all the wonders of the present aspect of my salvation, and that they may be real to me in my life and ministry.

What a wonderful Lord we have, and how glorious it is to indeed have God as our Father, and to be united with Christ, and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Oh, would to God that our ministry could be under His full direction, and in His power without reservation.

God really is there. He really does exist, and He made us for Himself. Knowing that He is there, and therefore that we do not live in a silent universe, changes everything. To know that we can speak and that there is Someone who will answer fills the vacuum of life that would otherwise be present. And then, when we realize His love for us as individuals – that Christ really did die for us as individuals, for us personally – life is entirely different.

You need not be afraid to enjoy God. The beautiful thing is that He uses us, but never in the way a soldier would use a gun only to throw it down and take another. He uses us, but He always fulfills us at the same time.

A pastor friend of mine, Chris Brauns, recently asked me a few questions about how to keep the centrality of the gospel at the forefront of a church’s search for a pastor. Chris has written a very helpful book called When the Word Leads Your Pastoral Search (Moody, 2011), and he has developed a Web site full of resources for churches looking for a pastor. Earlier this year, Chris and I had a blog conversation about his book.

Last week, Chris asked me some specific questions about the importance of a candidate’s view of the gospel. Our conversation is below:

Chris Brauns: Would you first give us a concise definition of the gospel?

Trevin Wax: People hear the question – “What is the gospel?” – in different ways, which may lead to different responses.

Some pastoral candidates will hear the question in terms of evangelism, How would I share the gospel with an unbeliever? Usually that will lead him to articulate a message that begins with God as Creator and Judge, articulates the reality of human sin and the brokenness of our world, climaxes with the announcement of Christ crucified and raised so that we might be justified before God, and then calls for the response of repentance (turning from sin) and faith (trusting in God’s mercy).

Other pastoral candidates will hear the question in terms of New Testament exegesis, How did the apostles define the word “gospel”? Usually that will lead to a Jesus-focused announcement: He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and promises through His perfect life, He died on the cross for our sins, conquered sin and Satan forever, and is now exalted as Lord over all.

I think it’s good to specify with a pastoral candidate what you mean by the question. If you ask, “What is the gospel?” and they answer exegetically, you might follow that up with a question about how they share the gospel with an unbeliever. If they answer evangelistically, you might follow up with a question about how the Scriptures define the word. Whichever direction you take, you’ll want to make sure that Christ’s death and resurrection is at the center of the candidate’s message.

CB: Do you think that it would be easy for churches looking for a pastor to assume his definition of the gospel?

TW: Absolutely. Too many times, pastoral search teams want to get to know a pastor on a superficial level, asking questions about ball teams or favorite foods rather than probing theological viewpoints to see how one’s methodology necessarily flows from one’s view of the gospel.

When listening to a pastor’s sermons, it’s important to see how Jesus is represented.

• Is He present in the sermon?
• Is He described as a helper or motivator?
• Or is He presented as the crucified King?

Churches often look to the superficial elements of a preacher (Was he funny? Did he keep me interested? Will our people like him?) rather than the core issues that flow from his view of the Bible’s storyline and the gospel announcement.

CB: I am very thankful for your book Counterfeit Gospels. It helped me think more clearly about a balanced view of the Gospel. How might it help churches looking for a pastor?

TW: Ideally, Counterfeit Gospels might alert pastoral search teams to ways in which we evangelicals can drift from the centrality of the gospel. The analysis of different counterfeits that are prevalent in society may help a search team distinguish between a candidate who proclaims the gospel clearly and biblically and a candidate whose thoughts on these matters are foggy and uncertain.

CB: Are there any interview questions you would suggest for pastoral search committees that would help them evaluate a candidate’s commitment to the gospel?

TW: The question of personal evangelism is a must. If everyone in your church was as committed to personal evangelism as is your pastoral candidate, what would that do to your church?

I don’t think commitment to the gospel can be measured only in one’s fidelity to ideas. Instead, we ought to measure one’s commitment to the gospel in terms of how prone we are to share this unbelievably good news that has transformed our lives.

Regardless of a pastor’s biblical knowledge, there is no such thing as “spiritual maturity” apart from living a Great Commission life.

CB: What in a candidate’s background might warn a church that a pastoral candidate does not really see the Gospel as of first importance?

TW: I’m not sure that background will determine this question. A better way forward is to look at the pastor’s preaching. Is he clearly relying on the gospel to bring about life change for his listeners? Or is he relying on something else to “deliver the goods” every Sunday? Does he see the power as residing in this message he’s been given? Or does he see the message as an add-on to his own skills, a more popular message, etc? These are issues that generally come out in public preaching and in personal conversations with the candidate.

CB: Do you have any other advice or suggestions for churches in the midst of a pastoral search?

TW: Don’t settle. Better to spend more time finding the right pastor than to settle for the wrong one. Keep the gospel in view as you search for a candidate. Look out for counterfeit messages that drift from biblical teaching. And pray, pray, pray for God’s direction.

This interview was first posted at PastorSearchResources.Com.

The temptation in predicting trends is that we imagine God in Deistic fashion, as if he were uninvolved or absent in human affairs. But history is not an inevitable progression. God may choose to start a revival in the United States within the next ten years. He may allow the U.S. to wither from a nuclear attack. Who knows what the Lord has planned? We should never speculate about the future in a way that makes God seem distant and removed.

There is, however, something to be said for understanding the times in which we live. If we can discern contemporary trends in evangelicalism, we should consider their implications and trajectory for the coming years. Here are five trends to watch for:

1. Chastened Expectations of Culture Change through Politics

Evangelicals will be less inclined to focus our efforts on changing culture through the political process. Books like Culture Making by Andy Crouch, To Change the World by James Davidson Hunter, and Christ and Culture Revisited by D.A. Carson are already influential among thoughtful evangelical leaders. Younger evangelicals (on both the political right and left) are increasingly put off by the politicization of evangelicalism.

Evangelicals will continue to be socially aware and active – perhaps even more than in the past – but in different ways (art, literature, movies, etc.). And even our expectations in these areas will be chastened by a theologically-driven humility regarding how much change we can effect.

2. Growth of Evangelical-Style Prosperity Teaching in South America and Africa

The new face of world Christianity is no longer the European man, but the African woman. The missionary movement has resulted in a dramatic demographic shift.

Unfortunately, the result has not always been a vibrant evangelical witness, or even a recognizable evangelicalism tainted by the prosperity gospel. In many places, the teaching is fundamentally “health and wealth” with just a few evangelical qualities. I expect the spread of evangelical-tinged prosperity teaching will persist.

3. For evangelicals in North America, homosexuality will become a wedge issue that reveals the major cracks in our theological disunity.

In the next ten years, we will see a number of prominent evangelical pastors come out in favor of committed same-sex relationships as compatible with a life of Christian repentance. The controversy in the mainlines will reach historically evangelical churches and denominations.

A number of historically-conservative churches will surprise us on this issue. The atheological foundation at the bottom of what used to be a cultural-conservativism will give way. The distinctions between traditional and novel views of Scripture and its role in the church will become evident, with homosexuality representing the edge of the cliff.

At the same time, a large number of pastors will maintain biblical convictions on the issue of homosexuality, and yet will preach and teach on the subject less and less – as they don’t want to offend newcomers in a way that would preclude a hearing for the gospel.

4. We will tighten the belt for ourselves and (hopefully) recommit to world missions.

The speed and quality of internet connectivity will fuel more mission work and collaboration with people in other countries. This exposure to other contexts will force us to re-think our historic emphasis on big buildings and maintenance. This trend is already evident, as church planting becomes more prominent, multi-site campuses become an option for many mega-churches, and guys like David Platt call us on the carpet for building “monuments” while people need the gospel (not to mention the basic necessities of life).

Many churches will rethink the purpose of big buildings because of cultural pressure (extravagant sanctuaries like the Crystal Cathedral are viewed negatively and thus become a hindrance rather than a help in reaching out), while other churches will do so because of their passion to give more to missions.

5. Polarization regarding Philosophy of Ministry

Evangelicals are already divided on the issue of ministry philosophy. I suspect these lines will become more defined in the next decade.

The attractional model will lead many churches to adopt incredibly entertaining children’s church programs, youth group experiences, etc. The attempt is to hold on to an evangelical culture that is increasingly bored with church. Mega-churches will continue to compete with one another for a decreasing number of “regular church-goers.”

Other churches will react to the attractional model by upholding family-centered churches and dismissing event-based evangelism. I suspect that few church leaders will read and listen to people on both sides of this discussion.

(My hope is that the missional Reformed movement, which holds a lot of promise, will work to stay rooted in biblical faithfulness, not pragmatism, so that it doesn’t digress into simply the next variation of the attractional model. Right now, I see strongly missional guys taking care to make good distinctions that help prevent a drift toward the left. I also see an openness from non-missional guys to learn from the missional warning of turning into an isolated enclave. I hope this conversation continues.)

On a related note, the “worship wars” will become a thing of the past. Our society’s musical taste are too fragmented for there to be a “contemporary” and “traditional” style. Young people are less and less likely to choose a church based on the style of music.

What do you think? Are these trends likely? Are there others I should mention?

Grandpa and Grandma stepped out of their car and boarded a shuttle that whisked them away to their church’s main sanctuary. Both had been regular attenders of Higher Heights Church since its founding half a century before. That small congregation of thirty had grown consistently for the first twenty years before seeing an explosion of growth in the early 1980′s. Now numbers swelled to over 25,000 a week.

The shuttle arrived at the main entrance to the sanctuary, but Grandpa and Grandma didn’t go into the main auditorium. Instead, they began walking down the corridor, past the coffee shop, bookstore, and art gallery to a small chapel that seated around 250 people.

Grandpa nodded to the old faces he saw. Many of the people had been there for more than thirty years. Others were newcomers, but still welcome. The couple took their seats in the chapel. The organist began playing “Faith of our Fathers.” This was the prelude to the traditional worship service that Grandpa and Grandma were expecting.

“Where’s John tonight?” Grandpa asked, wondering about their only son.

“Oh, he’s at the worship venue in that big tent we passed along the way here,” Grandma replied.

“The outdoor one?” Grandpa asked.

“That’s the one,” Grandma nodded. “It’s the one called ‘Heavenly Stairway,’ – you know, the one with all that Classic Rock of the 70′s.”

“Oh, that’s right,” Grandpa sighed. “He always did love those bands.” After a pause, he added, “But Sarah couldn’t stand that kind of music. I wonder how he convinced her to go to that service.”

“Oh, she’s not with him,” Grandma answered, nonchalantly. “She goes over to Worship Venue 5 – the Country music one that gives line-dancing lessons after church. You know she’s lost a lot of weight since she started going over there,” she chuckled.

“What about our grandkids, Jessica and Michael?”

“Well you know. Jessica goes to the Hawaiian islands venue, and Michael likes Hip Hop Central,” Grandma reminded him. “They come to church together, split up for the services, and then meet back after Sarah’s dancing lessons are over.”

“Oh, that’s right,” Grandpa sighed, before adding under his breath, “I miss the old days.”

“You’re showing your age,” Grandma laughed. “What do you mean?”

“I miss us going to church all together.”

“We didn’t even have a good air conditioner back then,” reminded Grandma.

“I know. But we were still together.”

“I guess you are forgetting the gossip and the fighting and the bickering. Why, don’t you remember some of those arguments?”

“I wouldn’t mind having a good fight now and then,” said Grandpa.

“I’m sure that’s the Holy Spirit talking,” Grandma said sarcastically.

“There aren’t any arguments now because we’re never with anyone who’s any different than us. Just look around, sweetheart. Who’s going to argue in here?”

“Times have changed. We’ve progressed. Just look at our attendance!”

“Well, at least we still go to church together,” Grandpa smiled.

“That’s right. And we always will,” Grandma affirmed. The organist began playing louder. The service was about to begin. “Look at where we were fifty years ago,” she added.

Grandpa began thinking of all the memories, the family outings, the church picnics, the family feuds, the stuffy sanctuary. He remembered seeing old and young, senior adults next to seniors in high school, newlyweds, young couples with children, grandparents and great-grandparents – all together, lifting their voices as one. Now, as he looked out across the sea of gray hair in front of him, he couldn’t help but feel alone.

“We’ve come a long way,” smiled Grandma.

“Yes, we have,” sighed Grandpa sadly. “We’ve come a long way.”

first posted at Kingdom People on January 12, 2007

Many of the most popular blogs on the web have risen to prominence from pointing out the shortcomings of other believers. This is a cheap and easy way to gain traffic for your site and build some sort of “name” for yourself on the internet.

Yes, it’s easy to criticize the Church for failing to live up to all that Scripture would have her be. After all, our shortcomings are often evident – and more visible than we would wish.

Much more difficult is the task of going past the critique of today’s Church towards setting a vision for the Church of the future.

I have decided to devote more time to thinking and writing, not about the current state of the Church, but about what the Church could and should be. I want to spend time, not reacting to the current trajectory of the world and the Church today, but proactively seeking ways to navigate through this postmodern morass and out to the other side.

Despite the valiant efforts of many of my brothers and sisters, our society is not returning to a world before postmodernism. Neither is the Church. And I’m not sure we should be trying. Instead, we must be the same Church in the midst of a postmodern culture, adapting to our new environment without compromising the core doctrines and essential beliefs of our faith.

Let’s take a deep breath and remember that the true Church’s survival through this postmodern era is already assured. Jesus told us that “the gates of hell will not prevail against us.” Jesus’ bold words do not describe the Church as a fortress being attacked by the forces of evil. His picture describes the Church storming the gates of the enemy. We must make sure that our focus is not so much on defending whatever remnants of Christendom remain in our world. Instead, we must concentrate on moving forward the mission of God into our fallen, confused society. Continue