2. A church does not honor the Word of God if its priorities are not set by that Word.
While the leaders of the fastest growing churches in
America tend not to define themselves with the doctrinal clarity that was
common in past generations, most would be defined as on the conservative side
of the divide over the “battle for the Bible” that has marked the last 150
years of American Christian history.
That is to say, most of the leaders of these churches, along with their
informed members, would claim to have faith in an infallible or inerrant Bible
which stands as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice. While many of these churches would shun any
labels that identify themselves with past sectarian battles (many even eschew
denominational identification in their church names and only accept accomodationist
labels such as “contemporary” and “seeker sensitive”), culturally and
theologically they should be generally regarded as conservative. Statements of faith found on their websites –
with diligent searching – commonly affirm Scripture as “the supreme source of
truth,” “truth without any mixture of error,” “without error,” and with similar
phrases. None of the pastors of these churches, if asked, would deny belief in
miracles, and all would affirm faith in the historicity of the resurrection and
other biblical events and claim the Bible as the authority for what they
teach. All would believe in some form of
creationism or intelligent design, and many would hold to a young earth version
of that teaching.
But, do claims to hold the Bible in high regard carry any
weight when the Bible’s priorities do not drive the priorities of those making
the claims?
Several years ago, I visited a church on a Sunday while
traveling. Bulletin inserts provided to
the members and attendees outlined the beginning of a process that the church
was undertaking in order to define its “core beliefs.” In order to facilitate that process, the
inserts asked members to respond to a survey, which included questions along
the lines of why the respondent decided to attend that church and why they
thought that unbelievers in the area might become interested in visiting the
church.
These questions might have had relevance if the church
had set out to understand whether it was welcoming of visitors or doing an
effective job at integrating newcomers into the life of the congregation. That these types of questions were being used
to develop “core beliefs” is more than a bit disturbing. A church’s core beliefs cannot be derived
from a poll of members, much less than from the suggestions of
unbelievers. Core beliefs for a church
come from the Word of God, and they are ideally expressed in confessions of
faith adhered to by the congregation. In
addition, while a church’s vision and mission might be localized to a specific
missional context, the beginning point for understanding these things is not
found in demographics, geography, or the gifts of the minister or church
members. The beginning point for understanding these things is in Christ’s
Great Commission and other relevant passages in the Word.
The misunderstanding of the church being described may be
extreme, but this particular malady is not.
Churches developing their self-understanding around the notion that the
customer – that is, the seeker – is king should recall that early Christians
met their death for refusing to say that anyone other than Jesus is Lord. The priorities of the biblical preacher must
not arise out of the felt needs of his listeners, nor out of personal hobby
horses, but they must reflect the priorities of Scripture applied to the
congregation. If the Bible is
authoritative, it must be the authority for what is preached, and its primary
message must be the focus of the church’s message.
No comments:
Post a Comment