Long-Term Consequences of Pragmatism in the Church
By Did you catch Al Mohler’s provocative and important article posted today “Is the MegaChurch the New Liberalism”? Mohler does not quite put it this way, but it essentially poses the question of whether there is something endemic to the nature of megachurches in America that tempts them in the direction of theological compromise.
I say “in America” intentionally. Presumably the tendency to theological compromise is not a property of size. Rather, it would seem to be a property of the pragmatism that characterizes so many mega- (and mini!) churches in the United States. Pragmatism, in the context of a church, refers to the philosophy that churches should do “whatever works” to grow. Along these lines, Mohler cites David Wells “massive critique of the doctrinal minimalism, methodological pragmatism, and managerial culture of many megachurches.”
Of course Mohler knows well enough not to just pin the blame on megachurches; we all deserve it. We are all tempted to change our ministry methods for the sake of reaching a bigger crowd. The problem--to read between Mohler's lines--is that this kind of methodological pragmatism easily migrates into the ethical and theological stances evangelical churches are willing to take.
Since this question draws so closely to the heart of why 9Marks exists, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a moment, back up, and consider whether there is a larger picture worth seeing. The question I want to think about can be posed like this: is there something endemic not just to megachurches, but to post-1950s-evangelicalism as a whole that, over time, tends to undermine the very doctrinal convictions which makes us evangelicals? More specifically, does our doctrine of the church inevitably tend in a pragmatic direction, such that we will eventually leave the gospel and other core theological convictions unguarded?
Evangelicals Yesterday: A Theological Consensus
TIGHT GRIP ON THE GOSPEL: Think back to the 1950s and 1960s. An evangelical was someone who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ, the necessity of conversion, the call to evangelism, and the importance of engaging the culture. In order to preserve the gospel, evangelicals wanted to keep a tight grip on gospel essentials, and a loose grip on everything else.
LOOSE GRIP ON THE CHURCH: This often included a loose grip on the local church. Evangelicals rightly observed that church structure and programming are secondary, but this led many to treat these as unimportant. They decided the Bible doesn’t say much here anyway, and they began defaulting toward the latest trends of “what works.” Eventually, the Boomers wanted one thing, the Xers another, the Millenneals still another. In the meantime, parachurch ministries began supplanting churches’ work of discipleship and evangelism.
Evangelicals Today: An Ecclesiological Divergence
TRIBALIZATION: But pragmatism and parachurch ministries, for all their good uses, are poor guardians of the gospel. Since those early days, evangelical paths have diverged as churches have become distracted by one thing or another. Call it tribalization, Balkanization, or the passing of the old coalition, many people agree that evangelicalism has divided into a number of separate camps. Their members orbit around different leaders, different conferences, different books, and often different church models.
PROLIFERATING MODELS: There are the Emergents, the Neo-Reformed, the denominational loyalists (SBC, PCA, Mainliners, etc), the mystical spiritual-formation movement, the Pentecostals and Charismatics, to say nothing of several prominent megachurches which are movements unto themselves. Floating through these camps are an abundance of church models: traditional, house, multi-site, seeker-oriented, purpose-driven, cell, missional, organic, and more.
THEOLOGICAL UNRAVELING: This might not sound dangerous at face value, but in many cases these camps have begun to represent different theological trajectories. Evangelicals find it harder and harder to agree on the truthfulness of Scripture, the nature of the Christ’s atonement, God’s foreknowledge, and the importance of conversion and evangelism. In short, the old theological consensus has been passing away.
A Evangelicals Tomorrow: A Theological Divergence
GOSPEL COMPROMISE? The question that I would like to pose is, did our original evangelical starting point ultimately leave the gospel unguarded? We chose to treat the church with an open hand—pragmatically—in order to help the spread of the gospel. But did this very first step put us at risk of theological compromise? Mohler points toward the example of one pulpit which is promoting a gospel without repentance. But it's not too hard to find other examples.
These issues, as I said, go to the heart of why 9Marks exists. One of our basic convictions is that the local church and its polity present the platinum prongs that hold the diamond of the gospel in place. When one generation of Christians decides to downplay or relativize or pragmatize the local church, they just might find that the next generation no longer values the same gospel.
Jonathan Leeman's Posts
Comments | RSS Subscribe
Jonathan, regarding your question . . .
"Did our original evangelical starting point ultimately leave the gospel unguarded?"
. . . I wouldn't disagree with anything you've written. In fact, I think you're striking a crucial chord, which people who might agree with what I'm about to say have too often neglected.
But in addition to a loose grip on the local church, 1950s evangelicalism also kept too loose a grip on the universal Church (for lack of a better term). By that I mean, in the name of unity, 1950s evangelicalism called "gospel," "Church," and "evangelism," things that surely were not. My sense is that the situation we're seeing now is downstream from both of these factors.
Excellent observations. I agree wholeheartedly that there is something endemic to evangelicalism which leaves the gospel unguarded.
I would suggest, however, that it began long before the 1950s. Evangelicalism as a movement in America was born with this ecclesiological defect, it seems.
that's why people are moving BACK to the Catholic church... there's no structure in the protestant churches (especially outside the major denominations), no place with congruent definitive answers outside the Catholic church... unfortunate to say the least.
Do we evaluate mega-crowds by examining their gospel-faithfulness, or do we determine what is faithful to the gospel by its ability to produce mega-crowds? It is proving difficult to persuade shallow evangelicals to resist the pressures of contemporary culture when it comes to making truth decisions, because the mega-numbers of the majority culture carry far more weight than the still, small voice of truth. Popularity is preferred over persecution, and acceptance is more valued than the approbation of Christ.
Excellent comment Mr. Reynolds.
Excellent. But if we don't have a big church or aren't a president of a major seminary, we don't get asked to wrote blog articles or speak at T4G! The sina quo non of getting those prominent invitations is numbers, or at least connected with someone who has the numbers.
Jonathan, I think are some excellent observations. However, what is the point, practically?
I'm not sure that there is anything anyone can do with the facts you presented above. You mention:
"When one generation of Christians decides to downplay or relativize or pragmatize the local church, they just might find that the next generation no longer values the same gospel."
I think "local church" has some more defined meaning to you that is not expressed in this article. All of the other churches you mentioned above are not downplaying the local church. They are the church and are meeting, as scripture commands. Is there something biblical they are missing that you believe is leading them to wrong doctrine, ultimately?
Please elaborate biblically so we can see what the "local church" should look like as you mention above. Some church decisions must be pragmatic (i.e. "What phone company should we use?" or "Should we even get a phone to help spread the gospel?"), so please help me draw the line between what should be pragmatic and what really matters in light of scripture.
Thanks.
Ryan Gray
Jonathan, I think are some excellent observations. However, what is the point, practically?
I'm not sure that there is anything anyone can do with the facts you presented above. You mention:
"When one generation of Christians decides to downplay or relativize or pragmatize the local church, they just might find that the next generation no longer values the same gospel."
I think "local church" has some more defined meaning to you that is not expressed in this article. All of the other churches you mentioned above are not downplaying the local church. They are the church and are meeting, as scripture commands. Is there something biblical they are missing that you believe is leading them to wrong doctrine, ultimately?
Please elaborate biblically so we can see what the "local church" should look like as you mention above. Some church decisions must be pragmatic (i.e. "What phone company should we use?" or "Should we even get a phone to help spread the gospel?"), so please help me draw the line between what should be pragmatic and what really matters in light of scripture.
Thanks.
Ryan Gray
There are so many factors that go into this question, but mainly this is endemic to all churches due to our fallen nature. We can become credal to the utmost but this will only help so far as the church upholds its creed and values it. I don't know if it is a problem inherent with evangelicalism as much as it is a reflection of the culture. I think at the end of the day we are only left with a few options. First, love the local church where you are because Christ loves it and second, support 9 Marks
Yes. Our Ecclesiology is mis-shapen because it is often more informed by pragmatism and cultural ideas of commitment, participation, value, success, relevance, etc., than by the Gospel and its nature.
I'm a 35yr old LeadPastor with what most would consider a pretty contemporary church (electric guitars, small groups, lights & colors, casual dress, etc.). We do try to capture and combine Ancient/Modern concepts, creative liturgy, etc. The biggest problem I've encountered is a weakness in the Ecclesiology of many churches. Membership is more like Costco (benefits with little accountability) rather than a group of believers gathered around an Empty Tomb who covenant to do life together.
Our Ecclesiology must take into account biblical language such as "Body of Christ" "knit together" "one loaf" "one temple", etc. Those are words of unity, integrity, strength as to the fabric & make-up of something. They can and are applied both to the Universal Church as well as Local Church. Individual believers MUST understand this concept. Pastors MUST understand. Local Churches MUST understand.
Churces should endeavor to relate to each other as the disciples (post-resurrection & pentecost). Unity, not harming each other, working to bless each other. Off course there will be disagreements. Yet, we must work to ensure that our relationships (across movements) show the same type of integrity as the Gospel. It begins with Leaders.
I could say more both good & bad. However, it would be best for me to finish my Sunday sermon.
Post new comment