Scot McKnight: August 2006 Archives

Some twist of fate tossed me and my wonderful Jesus of Nazareth students into a brand new classroom outfitted with the wizardry of technology. Tuesday morning I entered the room, walked to the "rostrum" (not sure of the right word here), and put down my book bag -- a Stanley Traveller -- and then began to explore all the techno stuff.

Here are my observations:

First, there was a screen on which we could put images, but they were recessed into the ceiling and I couldn't for the life of me find a switch that lowered them -- not that I would need them.

Second, a big black box full of lights -- like the cockpit of an aeroplane -- and switches and lines and holes. I assume that thing was the power and the brains of all the fancy stuff that was on the "rostrum."

Which was my main problem: there were wires going in all directions. There was a white board with two switches and a small light-like looking object that a student told me I could use to write on a piece of paper and it will show up on the screen (which, of course, was recessed and I didn't know how to lower). Another techno gadget did something else, but I never figured what it did.

Now, I'm sure our school kindly thought it would be good for me to have a nice classroom for my students, and I appreciate it, but I'll be informing them soon that someone else might find such a classroom more to their style.

I'll be getting a chair and sitting at the table in the front row. I'm pumped about this class -- should be lots of fun.

FYI: My new rule about using computers only in the front row: not even a smidgeon of a protest. Nada. Nichts. But, then again, one of the two students using a computer was using an Apple PowerBook, and I can't believe such folks would ever think of surfing the net during class!

We're off to a good start. I haven't brought up the issue of cell phones during quizzes yet.

This is the last of my posts on David Wells' new book, Above All Earthly Pow'rs. I thought his criticism a bit relentless, and I found his conclusion a bit surprising, but I thought his emphasis on immigration as significant to the face of the Church in the USA important.

Wells finishes off his long chapter on the megachurches by excoriating their shallow theology. This sums it all up: "Seeker methodology rests upon the Pelagian view that human beings are not inherently sinful, despite credal affirmations to the contrary, that in their disposition to God and his Word postmoderns are neutral [this is part of his critique of the "seeker" mentality], that they can be seduced into making the purchase of faith even as they can into making any other kind of purchase" (299). Sinners, in other words, are customers who have to be served. "Bring on the popcorn but be careful about the Cross" (306).

Evangelicalism, especially in the seeker and megachurches according to Wells, have two weaknesses: they have adopted marketing strategies and they are slowly stripping themselves of the truth.

Then Wells makes a concluding proposal of what the evangelical church needs, and it is this conclusion that shocked me. After stating that the evangelical church has to proclaim the truth of the gospel in the teeth of the culture, he says this:

"That proclamation must arise within a context of authenticity. It is only as the evangelical Church begins to put its own house in order, its members begin to disentangle themselves from all those cultural habits which militate against a belief in truth, and begin to embody that truth in the way that the Church actually lives, that postmodern skepticism might begin to overcome. Postmoderns want to see as well as hear, to find authenticity in relationship as the precursor to hearing what is said. ... What postmoderns want to see, and are entitled to see, is believing and being, talking and doing, all joined together in a seamless whole. This is the great challenge of the moment for the evangelical Church. Can it rise to this occasion?"

What surprises about this conclusion is that it is exactly what others -- but from different theological platforms -- have concluded. I guess I could also say it is encouraging -- both emerging and seeker churches also contend that the most powerful apologetic is the combination of gospel truth and praxis.

You just have to be impressed by the number of times in Romans Paul pulls things together with this idea: therefore, "all" who believe (anyone/everyone) in the Messiah will be saved/justified. At times we emphasize the "saved/justified" part, but Wright is keen on emphasizing the "all" part as well.

Notice once again Romans 9:11-13:

No one who believes in the Messiah will be put to shame.
There is no distinction: Jews and Greeks. (All are sinners; Rom 3:23; no one is privileged, not even Jews.)
Same Lord.
Same Lord is generous to all who call on him.
Everyone who calls on the name ... will be saved.

There you have it: the message of Romans at deep level is that the gospel is for all and everyone who believes in the Messiah will be saved.

The dynamic of his logic is the universalization of redemption from the covenant people of Israel/Judah to the covenant people of the Messiah.

I'm asking for your cooperation today. First a question about women in ministry and then some guidelines for participation. The question: Why is it that, in denominations that have chosen to ordain women, ordained women are not being appointed or called to churches of 350 or more members? Now the guidelines:

First, I don't want this post to turn into a debate about whether or not women should be ordained. I know some of you think that women should not be ordained. If you are tempted to write in something like "Because God doesn't want women ordained," please don't. This post will be one for you to watch and listen to, or choose not to read; it might be good for some of us to hear how others think about these matters.

Second, if you participate in a denomination that does ordain women, I'm particularly interested in what you think of the article in the NY Times about this topic. I will make a few points to generate discussion, but do read it if you can and then come back and let us know your thoughts.

Third, I'm very much interested in what you (if you participate in an ordaining-women denomination or are open to such) think; and I hope my readers who disagree with women ordination will listen to what these others think.

Fourth, I'm especially interested in why this is the case in the Evangelical Covenant Church, the sponsoring denomination at North Park University.

Some facts from this article:

"Women now make up 51 percent of the students in divinity school. But in the mainline Protestant churches that have been ordaining women for decades, women account for only a small percentage — about 3 percent, according to one survey by a professor at Duke University — of pastors who lead large congregations, those with average Sunday attendance over 350."

" People in the pews often do not accept women in the pulpit, clergy members said. “It’s still difficult for many in this culture to see women as figures of religious authority,” said the Rev. Cynthia M. Campbell, president of McCormick Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian seminary in Chicago.

The Rev. Dottie Escobedo-Frank, pastor of Crossroads United Methodist Church in Phoenix, said that at every church where she has served, people have told her they were leaving because she is a woman.

At a large church where she was an associate pastor, a colleague told her that when she was in the pulpit, he could not focus on what she was saying because she is a woman. A man in the congregation covered his eyes whenever she preached."

Women are now in major positions in denominational leadership and in the academic community, but are not finding their way into the local church pastorates of larger churches.

NY Times Article: By the way, the picture is of Alise Barrymore, our former campus pastor, and at Emmaus Community church where I recently preached. What a great church she is co-pastoring!

David Wells, in his new book Above All Earthly Pow'rs, points a big finger at megachurches and seeker-friendly churches for their approach to ministry -- for "doing church differently." He points to five factors leading to this new approach, and then critiques their church-growth-movement approach.

Here are the five factors that have prompted doing church differently, and I'm not sure many disagree here: humans need to be seen as seekers, evangelicalism is no longer growing, there is a new marketplace environment and there is also a new social environment, and there is the fear that if something isn't done the church will become obsolete. Wells then weighs in (that's a mild way of putting it) against the seeker church appropriation of a business model.

What I'd like to get your response to is his survey of the church-growth movement approach to doing ministry by appropriating the "homogenous unit principle" (like ministers best to like; niche ministries) and the "mechanism of conversion" (which refers to the fact that many think the fundamental obstacles to conversion are sociological rather than theological [he means humans as sinners]). His focus, though, is not on the latter so much as "niche" ministry.

He asks this: "Did the early church separate itself out into units of the like-minded in terms of ethnicity, class, and language as these megachurches have done?" (293).

Since I have attended the mother of megachurches (Willow Creek), and since I have gotten to know some of its teaching pastors, and since Wells mentions Willow (I don't recall he mentions any others by name), I was most interested in what Wells had to say. I don't know the research on some of this, so let's try to make this a learning experience.

First, Wells means by "separate itself out" suburban churches that are comprised mostly of white suburbanites -- affluent, cocooned from the rest of the world, etc.. Here's his point about the self-conscious method at work in these churches: "Yet, when we set out with a methodology which we know will create churches that will be culturally, generationally, economically, and racially monolithic and monochromatic, something is amiss" (295).

Against this he counters with NT evidence of churches that are mixed -- and that problems came from being mixed -- and of evidence that the early Christians had churches made of all sorts (Gal 3:28) and that it evangelized all sorts. Well and good: I agree with each point. Except for this: I'm not sure we know the sociological make-up of churches as clearly as he says. Some would suggest that Paul's letter to Rome argued that the Gentile Christians were supposed to be a whole lot more generous when it came to Jews and Jewish Christians. Still, Wells is right: the early Church was diverse (but it became very quickly Gentile as our messianic Jewish friends always point out) and it evangelized all kinds and its churches were most likely multi-generational.

I'm wondering what you think of the following:

Is monolithicism a problem in megachurches or a problem with most American churches? As I read Smith and Emerson's book(Divided by Faith) and then the book that followed from that (United by Faith), I am struck by the fact that most American churches are racially, ethnically, and economically homogenous. In fact, the numbers are staggeringly frightful. 9o% of churches are 90% non-diverse. I measure progress here by whether or not the local church is like its demographic location or unlike it. I'd like to see stats that show megachurches are worse than non-mega-churches in this regard. Are they?

In other words, do megachurches reflect church culture or a megachurch particularity when it comes to this problem of being monolithic?

On top of this, Wells has a problem with the niche focus of megachurches -- that they target a kind of audience, and they do so in light of McGavran's principle.

Here are some questions for you:

Are niche ministries a bad thing? Sure, if the "church" itself becomes niche, then there is a problem -- but that "niche church" (as I've already said) is characteristic of the American church. Still, I hold out hope for the value of niche ministries. I like those who minister to athletes and to businessmen and women's Bible fellowship and 20somethings ministries -- I like this. Why? Because it tailors the gospel into a context.

Do we really know that the early Christians didn't have some niche ministries? In fact, we don't. We don't know how they did lots of what they did. I suspect they preached to anyone who would listen -- if it was all men, they'd preach to men; if it was all women, they'd preach to women; if it was mixed, they'd preach to mixed crowds; if it was a bunch of philosophical types at the Areopagus, they'd tailor the message to them.

Are these megachurches learning about this? What I'm seeing at Willow Creek is a growing awareness that the church is too monolithic. So, what are we seeing? The growth of Casa de Luz, a ministry to Latinos. A close association with Salem Baptist in Chicago, a predominately African American church. A pastor who has put his reputation on the line for racial reconciliation. And Willow has knocked down Axis (its 20somethings ministry, which cleary was a niche ministry) and is forming more of a multi-generational church. It has an active ministry to the poor, and plenty of poor folks attend Willow.

Wells makes other points, and I'll look at them in another post, but this one has focused on the homogenous unit principle as underlying the strategy of megachurches. It seems to me that this problem may not be a problem with megachurches so much as it is with all churches. In fact, I'm seeing signs at Willow Creek that it might be paving new ground for how to end the homogenous unit principle.