By now I’m sure most of us have seen this amusing and satirical look at megachurch worship (and I’m curious what it says about me that four or five different people have sent me the link independently of one another. Apparently I’m known as a bit of a dabbler in mockery and farce).
As a minister in a Reformed church, I find the clip to be funny, but in an almost painful sort of way (kind of like how U2’s The Edge described his reaction after seeing Spinal Tap for the first time: “I didn’t laugh, I wept”). The reason for this mixed response is that the kind of philosophy of ministry caricatured in the video, though silly to many of us, is actually very attractive to plenty of serious churchgoers out there (and you Reformed pastors who are reading this, don’t kid yourselves into thinking that your people are immune to the allure of such a spectacle, because trust me, they’re not). Let’s be honest, a solidly confessional Reformed church doesn’t have, like, nine different reasons why people might love it, it’s got two or three, tops. If people are there for the wrong reasons, then, it’s only a matter of time before the lack of a drum set or children’s church will send some good families packing.
Aye, but herein lies the rub. . . .
You see, as much as a Reformed pastor may want to respond to the draw of such dog-and-pony-show fellowships with a high and mighty proclamation that these places are little more than pagan temples with no business commandeering the word “church” at all, I’m not so sure we can really pull off this kind of sanctimony with much legitimacy. As Keith Mathison has written in his excellent book The Shape of Sola Scriptura:
“The first observation we must make is that if sola scriptura is true then some form of a ‘branch theory’ of the visible church is a necessary corollary—not as an expression of the ideal, but as a description of the reality.”What Mathison is getting at is the idea that, unless we are willing to concede defeat and admit that something like apostolic succession is a necessary condition for safeguarding visible unity (which no Protestant will ever do), then we must admit that the visible church, like a very old tree, has branched out over the course of her history, with various (and often contradictory) local congregations and denominations each proclaiming their own unique gospel and following their own unique philosophy of ministry. The frustrating-but-unavoidable result of our present situation is that, at the end of the day, there’s not a whole lot that a minister or session can do to dissuade people from exploring the megachurch option. Sure, we can preach the gospel and administer the sacraments in the context of a rich and robust Reformed liturgy, and then hope and pray that our people will develop a taste and love for the truth (and there’s a lot to be said for doing this, although it’s not 100% foolproof). But if people decide to leave, we cannot command them to stay or even, if we’re really hardcore, excommunicate them from the visible church (since it’s kind of hard to kick someone out of “[the entirety of] all those throughout the world that profess the true religion”). We can admonish, we can entreat, we can even rebuke. But what we can’t do (although every faithful Reformed shepherd wishes with all his heart he could) is issue a definitive, authoritative, “that-settles-it” proclamation binding the heart and conscience of the wayward sheep to remain in the communion of what we consider to be a properly-ordered, true church.
Hence the messy and often teeth-less nature of the ordained ministry in an already/not yet, semi-realized eschatological context. Even so, come, Lord Jesus, and make visible the unity of your Church.
The comments feature seems to be disabled or something. Hopefully it'll correct itself.
ReplyDeleteAmen, Pastor Stellman! This post is straightforward, to-the-point, and addresses the issue at hand.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that our human desire for entertainment and to 'shut off our brains on the weekend' contribute to the popularity of this sort of church methodology vs. the ordinary means offered by many Reformed churches?
What Mathison is getting at is the idea that, unless we are willing to concede defeat and admit that something like apostolic succession is a necessary condition for safeguarding visible unity (which no Protestant will ever do), then we must admit that the visible church, like a very old tree, has branched out over the course of her history, with various (and often contradictory) local congregations and denominations each proclaiming their own unique gospel and following their own unique philosophy of ministry
ReplyDeleteJohn Bugay will be right on your case, if you're not careful, no more of this flirting with this Roman succession crap.
Yeah, that's definitely part of it.
ReplyDeleteReformed, ordinary-means churches just have the odds way stacked against us. With very few exceptions, we are one of the only options out there that refuse to just bow to people's felt-needs, and that inevitably limits the amount of (humanly understood) success we can realistically expect.
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteJohn Bugay will be right on your case, if you're not careful, no more of this flirting with this Roman succession crap.
He's already on my case over at Green Baggins, so what have I got to lose?
Plus, if you read what I wrote I made it clear that accepting the idea of apostolic succession is "conceding defeat" and something that "no Protestant will ever do."
But if people want to find here some excuse to criticize me, it won't be the first time, or the last, I'm sure.
"here’s not a whole lot that a minister or session can do to dissuade people from exploring the megachurch option. "
ReplyDeleteYou want them to understand why you way is better? Do (at least) one basic thing: tell them, explicitly, why you-all do the things you do, the way you do them.
I grew up in the (mainline) Presbyterian church, and spent a decade and a half in a CRC. I can't recall ever hearing anything about an explicit theology of worship, until I encountered talk of the RPW on the Internet a few years back. The forms were there, but it was tradition, not (that I could tell) informed an deliberate.
ONe also might argue, with some validity, that the proliferation of multiple "branches" each with some truth but not all serves multiple practical purposes, including driving us to the acceptance of the "already/not yet" tension. Also, to those adhering to and simultaneously pursuing reformation truth and practice, it helps to remind us that no branch is the entire tree, and no human Elder can legitimately claim apostolic, vicarious, total authority.
ReplyDeleteThere is a true Vicar of Christ on Earth: the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and we ignore Him and His teaching to our peril.
Jerry
Lee,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your counter point, but, first, I’d be willing to bet that having explicitly taught folks as you suggest is already assumed in the original point.
Second, having said that, I think the point may be that we can’t actually control people the way we’d naturally like to, which is something that comes with the territory of a robust Protestantism. Thoroughly catechized children (and adults) still can renounce the faith. But even sound teaching is no guarantee against anything.
Third, good as it is, sometimes explicit teaching isn’t as powerful as implicit teaching. If one was reared with something like the RPW (read: solidly Reformed worship) that seems to me to go even further than coming across talk of the RPW on the interwebs or a few classes, etc. That’s because worship is both a result and a perpetuation of a theology; it’s why Calvin, in The Necessity of Reforming the Church, ranked correct worship even before “those [doctrines] in which the salvation of men are comprehended.” This isn’t to excuse inherited tradition unbolstered by teaching, but it to say not to sell too short even an unbolstered tradition. Often I think we Reformed, in our unfortunate intellectualism, have an unbalanced favor for explicit teaching and forget the immensely powerful value of the implicit, the routine, inherited and unspoken.
Jason, I'm surprised you took this post in this direction -- ecumenicity. I think your point about the painfulness of the video is spot on. But the polity point here is troubling. I don't know the PCA's book of discipline, but in the OPC we have different categories for letting members go or admitting them to membership. Those going into churches of like faith and practice are handles one way. Those who don't, get different treatment.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't mean that a different citation in session minutes makes any difference to the rest of the world. No press releases accompany church membership developments. But the rules governing fellowship and ecumenicity do matter in the way we treat people who leave our churches, based on whether that church is more or less Reformed.
In other words, over here in the OPC we don't just shrug when someone goes to a megachurch. We say this: "Members may be removed when they desire to be dismissed to a church of which the session cannot approve as a church of like faith and practice. If it appears to the session that the spiritual interests of the members will be advanced by their uniting with such a church, it shall grant them certificates of standing, and, upon being informed that they have joined such a church, shall remove their names from the roll and record the circumstances in its minutes."
DGH,
ReplyDeleteAnd with all due respect, in fairness to Jason, the group receiving the letter from the OPC would not give it the least bit of credibility just as the OPC would not give the least bit of credibility to a Saddleback or Willowcreek writing a letter of membership.
DGH,
ReplyDelete"Members may be removed when they desire to be dismissed to a church of which the session cannot approve as a church of like faith and practice. If it appears to the session that the spiritual interests of the members will be advanced by their uniting with such a church, it shall grant them certificates of standing, and, upon being informed that they have joined such a church, shall remove their names from the roll and record the circumstances in its minutes."
Is there a typo here? Because this doesn't seem very tenacious or more Reformed than what I am complaining about. By my reading, it just says "If someone wants to go to a megachurch, we'll let them go to one." Am I reading it wrongly?
And of course, even if I'm not misreading the citation, the PCA simply isn't as Reformed as the OPC. Sure, we are on paper, but we are anything but consistent with ourselves (being cultural movers and shakers makes confessionalism hard, you see). So if you were to join our ranks, you'd probably by as frustrated as I am due to our limpd***-ness.
Gotta go minister....
Tom, like I said, no press releases from such action.
ReplyDeleteJason, but the point is that Presbyterian churches don't just treat this as if it's okay. If someone transfers to a Reformed church, their new church gets a letter saying they are in good standing. They are never removed from a Reformed church's roles. If they go to a non-Reformed church, their new church only gets a letter that they were in good standing.
Where the rubber hits the road is when such a person wants to come back home from the megachurch to the Reformed church. They need to reaffirm their faith. They may not simply transfer their membership. So session gets a chance to re-examine them.
Again, you might say "woopy!" So some reformed churches make distinctions and process their papers differently. But that is the point. Jason's post suggested there was not anything a Presbyterian church could do. When in fact we do do something. The other church may not be impressed. But they aren't impressed with word and sacrament either. It's not about impressing them. It's about how we treat the cases Jason posted about.
DGH,
ReplyDeleteBut the OPC still accepts the baptisms of all these kinds of churches, I assume? Are there
"Protestant" churches whose baptisms you all do not accept?
I am asking because I just finished re-reading Dabneys's critique of "The System of Alexander Campbell," and at the end he says that the 1871 General Assembly refused to recognize any Campbellite society, i.e. as I read it that they were not true churches at all.
I am just wondering if and when that changed, as we just transferred in members from a Christian church (well, and then baptized their children). But we examine everyone who comes for membership, even from other Reformed churches b/c sadly we cannot trust that they can articulate the Gospel even then. We want to hear it from their own lips. Of course, we adjust the exam to the applicants background...
Anyway, if you or Jason have thoughts on whether to just accept independent churches as churches or not, or actually baptize "transfers," I would appreciate it. I think if someone came from a true Campbellite church which *insisted* that immersion was necessary for salvation, I would consider that not a true church at all, not just a badly mistaken church. Thoughts?
Chris H.
OK, Darryl, I see the point of your citation of the OPC Book of Order now.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong, it's not like we do nothing in these cases. We make it perfectly clear that such decisions are spiritually harmful, and we may even let the congregation know that so-and-so has left against the recommendation of the session that they vowed to submit to.
But I guess I just wish there were something that could be done with more authority, something that couldn't so easily be scoffed at and dismissed, but that would need to be taken seriously.
We can admonish, we can entreat, we can even rebuke. But what we can’t do (although every faithful Reformed shepherd wishes with all his heart he could) is issue a definitive, authoritative, “that-settles-it” proclamation binding the heart and conscience of the wayward sheep to remain in the communion of what we consider to be a properly-ordered, true church.
ReplyDeleteI have been seeking my place and theology within christianity for years. I have always been attracted to the reformed faith for its commitment to God's sovereignty but other elements such as ecclesiology confused me to no end, and I feared I was leaving the evangelical non-denominationalism I was so accustomed to.
Every time I started visiting a reformed church I would be lured away to other theological traditions, butmainly back to the parking lot of non-denominationalism. I even started attending Jason's church for a few weeks a year ago when I was lured away again.
When I told Jason I was going to leave his church he was very gracious but very firm and as a godly pastor told me to "settle down" for my sake and the sake of my family. That always bugged me, not because Jason was wrong but because he was right. But it took a year of being in a local megachurch for me to get over my embarrassment and seek to go back with a "that settles it" mentality and embrace the reformed faith.
I really appreciate the pastoral concern that reformed churches are willing to exercise for the good of their flock, without a people pleasing mentality. The reformed faith is so much more than the five points and a quais acceptance of covenant theology, it embraces it's ecclesiology and the wisdom and structures of it's tradition.
The last year I spent in the a local non-denominational church was torture. It was lowest common denominator philosophies which seemed to try and stay somewhat relevant to the culture and still try and be faithful to the text. The extremes within that philosophy go from Mars Hill extremes to baptist non denoms who try and have hip but bland and shallow worship and teaching, with just enough bible to justify their marketing so the people do not out and out leave. And of course it's couched as non-denom but its really just a baptistic dispensational church with mediocre teaching, little or no sacraments and discipline.
Finally this morning during worship at this local non-denom community church I peaked out. Each song was filled with "I's and me's" and declared how "perfectly they loved God with all their hearts", etc, blah blah blah. The worship leader was bobbing his head back and forth like a complete goof(I'd like to say more but I will restrain..)flipping his arm in the air like a Pete Townshend wannaby(except he couldnt master the single chord he repetitively strummed at). He had a super spiritual grin and angst combo look going on like he was trying to digest something, but also wanting to convey he was really experiencing some deep communion in the sanctum sanctorem.. Well with two songs into the first set as I like to call it, after applause from the audience(ahem)after the first song I looked at my wife and mother and said "I CANT DO THIS ANYMORE, I JUST CANT HANDLE IT!" "I accepting all of reformed theology even if I cant figure it all out" and I walked out, never to return again. I am going to go back to the reformed faith and embrace all of it even if it goes against my american individualistic non-denom training.
I covet all your prayers that I stay put with a "that settles it mentality" Jason talked about. Thanks for all the great blog posts I've profited from on this site. I have made a few in the past Iam not proud of having too much heat and I apologize for it. Again when reformed elders see their members going into bad theology it is beneficial to warn and admonish in love. At least in my case.
Thank you Jason. Blessings.
Michial,
ReplyDeleteNice to see you post comments again. You were missed.
--brian