Book Review - Who Stole My Church?

Gordon MacDonald has nothing to say and no one should bother listening to him or spending any money on his books. The nature of the ongoing affair he had several years ago should disqualify him from leadership in a church or having opinions about churches. He should find a good church that teaches the Bible (something he really never did) and learn in humility and integrity of the kind that would make him realize he should not seek leadership or write books. What is it that makes some men think they have an entitlement to spiritual leadership and earning a living in ministry no matter what? There is forgiveness and personal non leadership ministry after proving oneself again, but he will never be “above reproach” or a “one woman man” again. He and his wife stayed together, but he will always be a man who was sexually involved with two women while both were still living. He is therefore a two woman man for the rest of his life (1 Tim. 3:2).

I know a former pastor, who as a young man served under Gordon MacDonald for several years as staff in ministry, in two churches that Gordon MacDonald pastored. This young man also had an affair and he went off and left his wife and daughters. The effect on his wife and daughters was devastating. One daughter ended up on drugs for a time. I have always thought this tragedy may have been the result of the type of spirituality and attitude exemplified by Gordon MacDonald. By the way, none of this is rumor but was made public and acknowledged some time ago. I read one of Gordon MacDonald’s books many years ago, before the revelation of his ongoing sexual affair. It was memorable as it had almost no scripture or referrals to scripture.

Thoughts on “Who Stole My Church?” by Gordon MacDonald

This is a fictional account of a church in New England that had always been very traditional, but which was led “successfully” to become a “Purpose Driven” style of church. By using fiction, the author is able to steer the story in the direction he decides it should go since the situation and the characters he creates are of his own imagination. One doesn’t doubt the sincerity of his motives, but he definitely has an agenda. Unfortunately, the outcome of such situations is not as rosey as the book implies.

The basic premise is that the church does not belong to any group of people in time; it is cross-generational. The author’s view is that the older generation must always be ready to hand off the ministry to the younger generation without any question about the direction the ministry may be headed. The older generation has had its turn; now it is time to let the younger generation see what it can do with the church. Although the older generation may question the direction or be critical of the younger one, it should generally yield to whatever the younger generation feels is necessary to reach its own generation.

Both generations must come to appreciate the contribution of each other to the ongoing ministry of the church. In the ideal situation, which fiction has created in this book, it happens with considerable success. However, fiction creates a story that is favorable to the viewpoint of the author. In the view of the author, the story turns out well, and they live happily ever after! Actual experience often contradicts this favorable outcome.

The author assumes and projects no infusion of doctrinal difficulty or theological error, a fact which is all too characteristic of the “Purpose Driven” paradigm. It presents in passing both Willow Creek and Saddleback Churches in the most positive manner without grappling with some of the basic flaws of both churches which project themselves as the “model” for all churches in this generation. Recent questions on this blog about compromises to the gospel by some of the well-known Purpose Driven leaders are testimony to this phenomenon.

The author presumes that the only reason for opposing his objective is that people are either spiritually underdeveloped, selfish, ignorant or maybe even unsaved. The fictional account of almost everyone in the Discovery Group coming to agreement with the pastor’s objective is all too idealistic. The fictional pastor seems to be all-wise, ever patient, and never strongly challenged by anyone in the church.

The way the fictional pastor deals with “John,” who finds it impossible to go along, seems wrong. He never seeks him out for discussion; he ignores him; he grieves over him, but he never confronts him or draws him out in an attempt to bring him to his viewpoint. He simply judges “John” to be a stubborn, angry man, and thus unredeemable. All this, despite the fact that they have had a cordial, friendly, helpful relationship over the years. Apparently, this relationship may be sacrificed in order to achieve the pastor’s objective of moving the church in a certain direction.

It seems to me that the name-changing process was done very poorly. They took two years discussing it, but when the church agreed to a plan for implementing it (requiring an 80% majority vote) – a plan decided by the pastor’s group, they refused to abide by their own rules when they failed to obtain the outcome they wanted. The pastor then had to decide whom he wanted to maintain in the membership, and he chose the younger generation over the old. When he sensed this was going to cause division which would lead to separation of some from the congregation, he should have stuck with the constitution of the church which called for a simple majority. Instead, he showed himself a politician, opting to get all he could out of the situation at the expense of the objectors. In the second vote, the name change was approved by 83%. All too often this fictional account is reality.

The account of how the youth group came to adopt a contemporary style of worship after going to the mission field demonstrates a number of things: (1) that these youth had not been prepared in their convictions and beliefs about worship; (2) that the church had not investigated in advance the type of experience their youth would be subjected to on the mission trip; (3) that the church leadership had no clue about how the youth viewed worship in their church; (4) that the church leadership was not fulfilling its role in guiding the spiritual lives of these youth; (5) that the leadership took no responsibility to address what wrong ideas they picked up about worship on the church-sponsored trip; (6) and other matters.

The account of how this church became aware of its responsibility to reach out to others in all walks of life is healthy. Most churches could learn much from this. Meeting people where they are, showing them love and friendship, making them feel comfortable among Christians – these are self-evident qualities that should characterize every church.

Using innovative technology is certainly to be expected in “doing church,”’ It has always happened, and few people in this generation – young or old – have a problem with this. Sound systems, Power Points, projection screens, even some canned, background music done tastefully are all generally accepted equipment that enhance a public service.

This book is interesting, but it is obviously written either with the purpose of encouraging the “Warrenization” of a church or with the purpose of defending a process that leads to it, and maybe both. I don’t find it necessarily useful because it accepts the premise that excising a segment of a congregation in the interest of contemporizing the church is an acceptable modus operandi..

The title “Who Stole My Church” is quite apropos. Allow me to explain.

Gordon was my first pastor as a new Christian in 1980. He preached messages that stirred me and made me want to serve the Lord. He was always patient with me in spite of my many, many flaws. I deeply respected the man. He even baptized me in 1981.

So I was among those who were pretty crushed when he left Grace Chapel in Lexington, MA, and became president of Inter-varsity. But I was far more crushed when the news of his moral failure became known. He had been my example in so many ways. If he could fall, what hope was there for a mere mortal like me? I still wonder that sometimes. The man was truly an evangelical superstar.

After his long standing affair became known and was ended, Gordon was “reinstated” to gospel ministry at a service back at Grace Chapel. The time was late 1986, if memory serves, and I attended. Vernon Grounds of Denver Seminary presided over the service, declaring Gordon now “fit for gospel ministry.” I think it was John MacArthur who preached soon after that on the life-long disqualification of a man who falls into sexual immorality, and who perceptively commented that such a service of “reinstatement” had never occurred in the Church in almost 2000 years. As the Lord led in my life, seven years later I was enrolled at The Master’s Seminary with John MacArthur still preaching the same message of marital fidelity and maintaining a high respect for the office of pastor. I was challenged to my core, and I was comforted, too.

Now, almost twenty years later, I’m back in New England pastoring (for over 10 years here). And I think I can comment, if not with certain wisdom, at least anecdotally, on who stole the church here in New England.As you all may know, actual Bible teaching churches are almost non-existent. Most that do are small and struggling to pay the bills.

But it wasn’t always this way. What happened was in fact what Gordon MacDonald details in his book. He wouldn’t see it this way, but the older generation caved in to the younger, actually hoping to reach the younger generation by ignoring doctrine and changing music. The older saints, instead of teaching the younger generation the glories of Christ and His church, abdicated their Scriptural roles. They succumbed to the whole idea that the younger generation will best be reached by a younger generation. The churches tried to, in a sense, “de-church” themselves by neglecting godly eldership. They handed off leadership to young men (and women) who were in fact touch with the culture of evangelicalism, but rarely with the elements of true saving faith in Christ. As a result, many were brought into churches (in both leadership and membership) without a saving relationship to Christ, but were quite in tune with methodologies and paradigms.

These men and women now search constantly for the next new method and paradigm, leading churches into ever more neglect of the gospel. Their churches tend to be filled with people who show up for worship, get entertained, receive a message on personal achievement and community responsibility, and then leave. Its a strange brew of me-ism and social guilt. The churches that have any size at all have to hire more and more staff due to the non-involvement of the people, scrambling, for example, to find anyone willing to take care of children during church.

So “who stole the church?” In my opinion, Satan, through schemes and trickery, put the older generation in a pickle when, feeling their inadaquacy, they capitulated to pragmatic thinking. They left their first love, and the truth is, this older generation now wanders from church to church, looking for that “old-time religion.” Or, they are miserable, and rarely attend church.

They were assured by men like MacDonald, and the now defunct New England Evangelistic Association, that the younger generation had the same faith, but was just presenting it in a more relevant form. They were assured that the content would remain, and were lulled to sleep by false assurances that while their church would change, its object of worship would remain the same, Christ. But sadly, having traded integrity for relevance, they now find their churches entirely irrelevant to the faith they know is true.

Who stole their church? Nobody. They gave it away. They gave the money to buy the techno stuff and new buildings, and their gray hair was the capital that lent respectability. But their knowledge and seasoned wisdom were deemed passe, and they for the most part believed it.

Men like my old pastor, Gordon MacDonald, were instrumental in doing so. Sadly, they gambled with the church, and lost.

Ted,

I appreciate your history and take on the matter. I am wondering however, do you think that it is possible to place a high priority on doctrine, yet change the music? It seems as if we place the two at odds with each other, when they don’t need to be. Just because a church decides to change the style of music doesn’t mean that they have succumbed to purpose-driven pragmatism, neglecting the gospel.

Ted, thanks for that perspective. I think it’s insightful.

On the other hand, I have seen the “younger people are stealing our church” dynamic unfold where it wasn’t a case of “good solid church moves away from the gospel to purpose driven pragmatism” but simply a case of “church stuck in ways that were never that great to begin with moves toward more biblical ministry.” It’s interesting how similar the tensions can be betweeen generations regardless of what sort of change is actually occurring.

But I think your take on the MacDonald case in particular is probably exactly right.

I appreciate Greg’s review as well and his bringing the book to my attention. Good food for thought. But were I a betting a man, I would wager the farm that Watts—were he on the scene today—would not say anything like that about his hymns. A When I Survey and an I Sing the Mighty Power only come along like a handful of times in a millennium. Great, great stuff, head and shoulders above the bouncy Civil War era or weepy early 20th era “traditional” hymnody many a Baptist church insists on retaining. Personally, I’d trade almost anything written in the 19th century for better “contemporary” alternatives (like some of the stuff from the Townend & Getty collaboration, etc) if not better ancient alternatives.

(What if we “marketed” Christianity for what it is… ancient, demanding, profoundly out of sync with pretty much every culture on the planet?)

[Aaron Blumer] Personally, I’d trade almost anything written in the 19th century for better “contemporary” alternatives (like some of the stuff from the Townend & Getty collaboration, etc) if not better ancient alternatives.

Me too.

Aaron - LOL!

It isn’t even so much that we are ancient, but that we are called to live out the culture of heaven, which confronts the rebellious human heart at exactly the point of rebellion and autonomy. The seeker sensitive movement, and its children, imagine they can have this culture while having a semi-Pelagian view of man. Of course, since semi-Pelagianism already grants autonomy to the human mind, it is already standing on the side of human rebellion. The elders of our churches in New England were no doubt weak in this area.

The capitulation to the next generation isn’t even a tension we have to face if our younger generation has been raised in a heavenly church culture. Doctrine, and its resulting transforming power in the new man, remains true from one generation to the next. Thankfully, we don’t have the pass off our batons to a different generation, but rather the same (in culture).

Joel, nice point.

My testimony leaves me open to the vulnerability that I sound stuck on a particular form of music as necessary to a form of doctrine, but nothing could be further from our practice at Grace Church.

And churches often should change music, as I think Aaron kindly alludes to. Music, in every generation, and of perhaps every genre, is part of common grace, not special revelation.

[Aaron Blumer]

(What if we “marketed” Christianity for what it is… ancient, demanding, profoundly out of sync with pretty much every culture on the planet?)

I’m in. How do we do it?

[Aaron Blumer]

On the other hand, I have seen the “younger people are stealing our church” dynamic unfold where it wasn’t a case of “good solid church moves away from the gospel to purpose driven pragmatism” but simply a case of “church stuck in ways that were never that great to begin with moves toward more biblical ministry.” It’s interesting how similar the tensions can be betweeen generations regardless of what sort of change is actually occurring.

A When I Survey and an I Sing the Mighty Power only come along like a handful of times in a millennium. Great, great stuff, head and shoulders above the bouncy Civil War era or weepy early 20th era “traditional” hymnody many a Baptist church insists on retaining. Personally, I’d trade almost anything written in the 19th century for better “contemporary” alternatives (like some of the stuff from the Townend & Getty collaboration, etc) if not better ancient alternatives.

Dittoes!!!

Ted,

Very Good response. Thanks for the perspective. I have seen fundamental works struggle with change that is legitimate and needed (As you righttly note illustrated by music). Your commentary on the context of New England and this specific approach is very eye-opening. I even appreciate the way you have responded to Gordon. What you seem to be saying (I think) is that (1) There are legitimate changes that churches can and should make (2) The kind of changes that Gordon (and hence is reprented in this book) would allow, go past the helpful changes and actually attack the nature of the Gospel itself. Your comments are helpful because I’m not sure that many readers would get that from the book in question, without the context you have brought to the table - Bravo my friend. Grateful for the warmth of your Gospel ministry in the spiritual freezer we all call “New England!” Wow….may God multiply your ministry there. Shalom and Straight Ahead!

Joel Tetreau

[Bob T.] Gordon MacDonald has nothing to say and no one should bother listening to him or spending any money on his books. The nature of the ongoing affair he had several years ago should disqualify him from leadership in a church or having opinions about churches.

Bob, I have had guys in my churches who had been restored after adulterous affairs years before. And a few occasionally step in for a service who were never restored. Nonetheless, I would hesitate to say that they have “nothing to say”, that “no one should bother listening” or that they were disqualified from “having opinions about churches.”

You raise an important point about the way in which Gordon MacDonald’s restoration to full ministry privilege was handled. I assume the facts as outlined here are not in dispute, including by him. If so, I follow the logic that if he should not have been restored to full ministry privileges according to Scripture, and allowed himself to be restored, that this calls into question his perspective on all of ministry. In an ideal world, church discipline would be handled evenly and Scripturally across the world and include parachurch operations like music and publishing. As such, I even understand you urging that people not spend money on his books.

But even if he should not be in ministry, if he were a member or attender at my church and had an important point to make, it would stand or fall on its own merits.

The book may have something to say that we need to hear. I assume Gordon MacDonald is thoughtful and was repentant. If he is wrong about I Timothy 3 or Titus 1, I sure don’t want him teaching my people about that. But other than that, let’s hear what he has to say to us and filter it through Scripture. If it survives the filtering process, let’s be instructed by it.

I have not read this book, but I do wish to comment on this thread.

As a pastor who has led a church, by their own request, through thoughtful changes to reach a new audience without letting go of the previous one (in this case, the distinction was more city folk/rural folk rather than young and old, though both are true in our church), I have seen both sides. I have felt the pull of allowing changes rather than Scripture to drive the agenda. That is a real danger. But I have also seen a few depart in anger over things that are really matters of perspective and teaching and style rather than substance. It is possible and even necessary to change things from time to time, and it can be done without your church falling over the Relevance Event Horizon into the Black Hole that is Abandonment of Scripture.

But every change made should be grounded in Scripture and carefully explained to the congregation. And the congregation must see and feel the need for it. The idea is a pregnancy, and must be delivered naturally, not by Caesarian Section via Pastoral fiat. But, barring the abuse of change-driven pastorates, or the failure to let change be moderated by Scripture, there are always those whose refusal to let go of the past will drive them away.

One woman left our church because of lack of a dress code on Sunday Mornings. Let me assure you, the issue was NOT modesty, but rather style and formality. While an argument could be made for “dressing up for church”, it certainly would be an unpopular one for this generation. I let her leave. Why? If anything, this was a teaching issue. People should not roll out of bed and come to church in their PJ’s (and from time to time, it can look like a few did). But like giving, discernment, and a host of other issues, it is a teaching and growth issue. Not a code issue. Turning people away at the door due to clothing would have to be reserved for a pretty extreme situation (though I would offer one of the old choir robes to someone in a swimsuit). This poor woman confessed that she just couldn’t focus on worship because she was so upset by the way people were dressed. As such, it was wise of her to move elsewhere. She was the believer who had been around for a few years. She would survive a church change. The new folk who had just trusted Christ needed to stay and grow. In her case, had their been a few others, I would have had a focus group like Gordon MacDonald describes here.

It is my understanding that MacDonald’s restoration to leadership was not unanimous and resulted in a number of people leaving the church when he was placed back in leadership. But back to the thread.

[A. Carpenter]

[Aaron Blumer]

(What if we “marketed” Christianity for what it is… ancient, demanding, profoundly out of sync with pretty much every culture on the planet?)

I’m in. How do we do it?

I don’t know. Some days I’m tempted to run an ad in the paper…. “Consider Christianity. Ancient. Demanding. Completely out of sync with our culture.”

Ted… I get your point, I think. I’m emphasizing “ancient” more as a reaction to the feeling that we need to somehow keep updating it so present and future generations will think it’s a cool new philosophy of life. (“Maybe if we just trick enough people into thinking Christianity is cool, some of them will stick around when they discover it really isn’t?” … doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.)

But I still think there tends to be legitimate generational tension no matter how heavenly the church culture is. One of the reasons is that emphases do need to change because, even though we are not of the world and should not impulsively react to the world, we are supposed to biblically respond to the world. So as our communities shift in their emphases, we need to somewhat in ours.

And then you have all the practical wisdom issues that legitimately change from generation to generation. Do we need to keep having a “prayer meeting” at 7 PM on Wednesdays? Do we need the singing Christmas tree? (to pull an e.g. from the book… I’ve actually never been anywhere where they did that), should the Sunday School offering on the fourth Sunday go to the camp scholarship fund? (Should we even have “Sunday School”). All those kinds of things are applicational and fair game, IMO, but I’m old enough now to know how strong the desire can be to just stick with what’s comfortable and familiar… and concoct “biblical” reasons for doing so.

I pray for wisdom to see what’s really “important and right” to keep vs. what’s just “dear due to having done it that way for so long” (largely because of the comfort that comes from that familiarity.)

[Mike D] But like giving, discernment, and a host of other issues, it is a teaching and growth issue. Not a code issue.

I agree. In some situations a code enhances the teaching. In quite a few it just gets in the way.

Ron,

You are correct. Many folks protested his “restoration.” But even more, they howled when he was brought back to become their pastor again several years later. It was a painful time for many, including some in my own family. Many left and scattered to various churches. Several began churches, such as Hope Christian Church in Winchester, MA.

[Mike Durning]

[Bob T.] Gordon MacDonald has nothing to say and no one should bother listening to him or spending any money on his books. The nature of the ongoing affair he had several years ago should disqualify him from leadership in a church or having opinions about churches.

Bob, I have had guys in my churches who had been restored after adulterous affairs years before. And a few occasionally step in for a service who were never restored. Nonetheless, I would hesitate to say that they have “nothing to say”, that “no one should bother listening” or that they were disqualified from “having opinions about churches.”

You raise an important point about the way in which Gordon MacDonald’s restoration to full ministry privilege was handled. I assume the facts as outlined here are not in dispute, including by him. If so, I follow the logic that if he should not have been restored to full ministry privileges according to Scripture, and allowed himself to be restored, that this calls into question his perspective on all of ministry. In an ideal world, church discipline would be handled evenly and Scripturally across the world and include parachurch operations like music and publishing. As such, I even understand you urging that people not spend money on his books.

But even if he should not be in ministry, if he were a member or attender at my church and had an important point to make, it would stand or fall on its own merits.

The book may have something to say that we need to hear. I assume Gordon MacDonald is thoughtful and was repentant. If he is wrong about I Timothy 3 or Titus 1, I sure don’t want him teaching my people about that. But other than that, let’s hear what he has to say to us and filter it through Scripture. If it survives the filtering process, let’s be instructed by it.

Mike,

You label my comments as extreme. Please note that I also stated there was forgiveness and non leadership ministry available for the repentant. However, it would appear that once one has attained eldership then fails in integrity and morality, there can really be no restoration to leadership. The persons spiritual integrity will always be in question. That person may indeed be restored and have something to say that may be worthwhile. They can be fellowshipped with, listened to in small groups, and may have a personal ministry helping others. However, they should be prohibited from teaching the church as a leader or elder, or in occupying the pulpit. Writing a book is the same as preaching a sermon. Actually, it is claiming worthiness of leadership in the churches at large. It is claiming national leadership. It would appear to me that the truly repentant fallen leader will be beset with such remorse and humility that they will take no steps to act in the capacity of leadership. To realize the true gravity of the situation would lead the fallen leader to refuse such opportunity for the sake of not bringing reproach upon the Lord. Unfortunately, too many fallen leaders seem to feel they have an entitlement to have income from ministry and that they are too indispensable to not be restored to full ministry. Some barely spend any time out of ministry. Some even jump immediately to another church. It does not appear extreme to say that such a person no longer has anything to say to the church or to churches, or to other leaders. In this case this book’s perspective appears to be blinded by a lack of true spiritual or biblical perspective. Also, this is not the first book by MacDonald since his so called restoration. It may appear that the very pursuit of restoration by a fallen elder may indicate that they are not worthy of even human forgiveness on a personal level. They are not truly repentant. They should have sufficient humility as to no longer aspire to the position of overseer (Elder). Such aspiration indicates no repentance. MacDonald’s restoration and eventual return to the church evidently hurt the church and brought grief to some. It also brought doubt on the integrity of the Christian gospel and Christian living. We should reject such efforts to exercise ministry and influence by not listening to their sermons or buying their books. We have had more than one such failure in large church Pastors here in Southern CA. Some are still on Radio and TV. I could name several names but will not except to point out that Hal Lindsey is now on wife number 4. He has a good TV following and people support him through gifts and in buying his books. Take the money away and these guys will go away!

Is this not the proper exercise of Christian love toward both the fallen and those who may be deceived by them?

I am for showing love, fellowship, and full church restoration to the truly repentant. They can attain to a degree of confidence over time. They may have lots to say in a non leadership capacity.

[Bob T.] You label my comments as extreme. Please note that I also stated there was forgiveness and non leadership ministry available for the repentant. However, it would appear that once one has attained eldership then fails in integrity and morality, there can really be no restoration to leadership. The persons spiritual integrity will always be in question. That person may indeed be restored and have something to say that may be worthwhile. They can be fellowshipped with, listened to in small groups, and may have a personal ministry helping others. However, they should be prohibited from teaching the church as a leader or elder, or in occupying the pulpit. Writing a book is the same as preaching a sermon. Actually, it is claiming worthiness of leadership in the churches at large. It is claiming national leadership. It would appear to me that the truly repentant fallen leader will be beset with such remorse and humility that they will take no steps to act in the capacity of leadership. To realize the true gravity of the situation would lead the fallen leader to refuse such opportunity for the sake of not bringing reproach upon the Lord. Unfortunately, too many fallen leaders seem to feel they have an entitlement to have income from ministry and that they are too indispensable to not be restored to full ministry. Some barely spend any time out of ministry. Some even jump immediately to another church. It does not appear extreme to say that such a person no longer has anything to say to the church or to churches, or to other leaders. In this case this book’s perspective appears to be blinded by a lack of true spiritual or biblical perspective. Also, this is not the first book by MacDonald since his so called restoration. It may appear that the very pursuit of restoration by a fallen elder may indicate that they are not worthy of even human forgiveness on a personal level. They are not truly repentant. They should have sufficient humility as to no longer aspire to the position of overseer (Elder). Such aspiration indicates no repentance. MacDonald’s restoration and eventual return to the church evidently hurt the church and brought grief to some. It also brought doubt on the integrity of the Christian gospel and Christian living. We should reject such efforts to exercise ministry and influence by not listening to their sermons or buying their books. We have had more than one such failure in large church Pastors here in Southern CA. Some are still on Radio and TV. I could name several names but will not except to point out that Hal Lindsey is now on wife number 4. He has a good TV following and people support him through gifts and in buying his books. Take the money away and these guys will go away!

Bob, thanks for clarifying. I still think “nothing to say” was too strongly worded, but much of what you say is not only valid, but vital. I myself have seen guys “leave ministry” and yet continue in it in some fashion, particularly in parachurch work. I think it’s that they have no other marketable skills. But it still raises eyebrows and confuses folks as to what is and is not ministry.

I’m not so sure that writing a fictionalized account such as this offends me like an on-going direct ministry despite disqualification would. I’m glad, for instance of the writings of several historical Christian authors who wrote their works after seedy pasts.

Bob, is it possible that this brother has been mislead by others into believing that such restoration is legitimate? Could he not be truly repentant and mistaken?

I’m not saying that this excuses the offense or justifies his restoration. Frankly, any interpretation of I Timothy 3 that I’ve ever heard would leave him disqualified. But I’m just saying that maybe we don’t have basis to call into question his repentance. Delusion is a powerful force.

Comments?

[Aaron Blumer] I don’t know. Some days I’m tempted to run an ad in the paper…. “Consider Christianity. Ancient. Demanding. Completely out of sync with our culture.”

Ted… I get your point, I think. I’m emphasizing “ancient” more as a reaction to the feeling that we need to somehow keep updating it so present and future generations will think it’s a cool new philosophy of life. (“Maybe if we just trick enough people into thinking Christianity is cool, some of them will stick around when they discover it really isn’t?” … doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.)

But I still think there tends to be legitimate generational tension no matter how heavenly the church culture is. One of the reasons is that emphases do need to change because, even though we are not of the world and should not impulsively react to the world, we are supposed to biblically respond to the world. So as our communities shift in their emphases, we need to somewhat in ours.

And then you have all the practical wisdom issues that legitimately change from generation to generation. Do we need to keep having a “prayer meeting” at 7 PM on Wednesdays? Do we need the singing Christmas tree? (to pull an e.g. from the book… I’ve actually never been anywhere where they did that), should the Sunday School offering on the fourth Sunday go to the camp scholarship fund? (Should we even have “Sunday School”). All those kinds of things are applicational and fair game, IMO, but I’m old enough now to know how strong the desire can be to just stick with what’s comfortable and familiar… and concoct “biblical” reasons for doing so.

I pray for wisdom to see what’s really “important and right” to keep vs. what’s just “dear due to having done it that way for so long” (largely because of the comfort that comes from that familiarity.)

Maybe this thread is more discussing the particulars of Sunday services and church practice, but as a very slightly (but much younger looking) :-) past-50 female, generational change in several areas has been an issue that has confounded me and led to much thought for a long time. I was taught my entire life that Christians separated from the world. We didn’t go to movies, we didn’t go to dances, we were very careful about the music we listened to. There was a movie theatre two blocks from my house, but even going to Disney movies was not even considered. It just wasn’t an issue. Christians didn’t go to movies. And I didn’t grow up in a church that was part of the “fundamental” movement as discussed in this forum - Separation from the world in these areas was mainline Christian principle. I remember reading books from prominent Christian presses that included this principle. One stands out in my memory even this many years later - a set of books for teen girls from Moody Press, and I remember well reading how the main character explains to her newly-saved friend why the kids in the church youth group didn’t go to the prom at their high school but had their own banquet instead.

And now we’re supposed to engage culture instead of separate from it. Movies are fine (even though their content is much worse than when I was a teenager), music is anything goes as long as it has some tidbit of Christian principle in it (maybe), and why wouldn’t a high school Christian kid go to the prom?

I really do struggle with these issues, especially while rearing teens. Short of severely limiting their contacts to other teens who believe exactly the same way (and there aren’t many of those - plus, is that really the best way?), I don’t know what the answer is - but I can’t help but wonder if the devil has disguised capitulation as engagement.

Some articulation from the LCMS on the subject:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=837

The church must develop and maintain its own cultural language that reflects the values and structures of the Scriptures and not of the current culture. This church language can only be shaped by a biblical theology which affirms the real presence of Jesus Christ in worship and our belief that this presence binds the culture together as a community. The context that shapes our distinct Lutheran ethos is Scripture, theology, and history. Local circumstance is secondary.

As to permanent disqualification from public ministry, I personally do not see that demanded of in the Scriptures. If a man’s conscience leads him to decline any leadership or role of teacher because of his past, so be it. But the qualifications spoken of in Timothy and Titus I do not believe take the view that of such a man that at no time in his life’s history can it be said, whether pre or post-salvational or whether pre or post-ordinational, that he can never have fallen into this. A good reputation does not demand flawlessness or even take into view one who has never entered into grave error or sin but also includes the persuasion that people can and do recover from such and rebuild.

Often people use the bogus illustration, “Well it’s like a person who has embezzled, I might trust him in other positions but never again as an accountant or one to handle money”. Why not? It might be that there are some cases that if I believe someone to have a persistently immature personality I would trust them with very little but if someone embezzled and recovered from it and re-established their credentials and reputation then yes, I would trust that man or else I wouldn’t trust him with anything. If I think he is still lacking in integrity to account money then for sakes alive he is lacking in integrity for anything. This is like saying, “Yeah I trust Jim but only to not steal food from the food bank, but as to money, he might steal that”. And you would have such a person in some minor role with this view? Does the ludicrousness of this stand out to anyone?

But even more relevant is that as a teacher and Pastor, when a man fails in his marriage, if anything (according to this kind of postulation) he should no longer be qualified to be married! Because it is the martial trust he broke foremost. But as to the Pastorate, he might be disqualified for a period of time from the Pastorate but the view that this is a permanent state and one cannot be rebuilt or personal credentials be re-established, I simply do not see in Scripture.

As much as I like John MacArthur on some things, on this matter I believe his Puritanism has gotten the best of him, but I do believe his intentions are good and though I believe he is wrong I do understand his approach which is based in a desire for a high view. Possibly he imagines that the hermeneutic that leads to considerations that a man can be restored, so to speak, might lower the view of the office but if this is what the Scriptures allow for then we can be sure such a view is still high seeing that it would stem from God’s Word.

[Alex Guggenheim] As to permanent disqualification from public ministry, I personally do not see that demanded of in the Scriptures. If a man’s conscience leads him to decline any leadership or role of teacher because of his past, so be it. But the qualifications spoken of in Timothy and Titus I do not believe take the view that of such a man that at no time in his life’s history can it be said, whether pre or post-salvational or whether pre or post-ordinational, that he can never have fallen into this. A good reputation does not demand flawlessness or even take into view one who has never entered into grave error or sin but also includes the persuasion that people can and do recover from such and rebuild.

I have always understood the passage about “The husband of one wife” to be a statement of character — literally, “a one-woman man”. In a situation where a person has several on-going affairs over the course of years, which are not stopped until he has been caught, how is that a “one-woman man”? What evidence can be given that the lust/wandering eye problem has now ceased? In a world where pornography is ubiquitous and anonymous, it’s a tall enough order to believe that someone fits this qualification, without two adulterous affairs in the past.

Not saying you’re wrong for sure. Just pushing back a little, brother.

[Mike Durning]

I have always understood the passage about “The husband of one wife” to be a statement of character — literally, “a one-woman man”. In a situation where a person has several on-going affairs over the course of years, which are not stopped until he has been caught, how is that a “one-woman man”? What evidence can be given that the lust/wandering eye problem has now ceased? In a world where pornography is ubiquitous and anonymous, it’s a tall enough order to believe that someone fits this qualification, without two adulterous affairs in the past.

Not saying you’re wrong for sure. Just pushing back a little, brother.

First, as I indicated earlier when some issue arises that, at that time, disqualifies a man from office then I certainly agree that the because he cannot meet the criterion or criteria for which he has failed he must resign or be removed . For example, if he is teaching heresy then he must be removed until he repents and corrects his action in an appropriate manner.

But let’s take the case of the serial adulterer or fornicator. Once he is removed in whatever fashion from ministry one might ask, “How can we know he won’t do it again or that the problem has ceased”? Well, the fact is neither for this man or for any man will you ever “know” because such sins are done in secret. There is no man in the ministry about whom you can say you “know” isn’t doing thus and thus. You aren’t with him 24/7. Now there are some men with whom you can be more sure and some maybe less. And if you take the position that with such a man (the former serial adulterer/fornicator) you will never be able to come to a place where enough trust is restored for the kind of confidence necessary for public ministry as in a case like this, well I suppose that is anyone’s right under the principle of human volition but I see no prescription in the Bible that such a man cannot regain trust enough to re-enter ministry. In fact what I do see is that God’s Spirit enabling us to move onward and upward, always able to rebound and move into maturity or return to it.

As to whether or not he is a one-woman man, well if he has repented of his adultery/fornication and has been faithful to his wife and the community observes this faithfulness, at some point you have an obligation to call it like it is, that he is faithful to his wife, hence making him a one-woman man. How long does that take? There is no rule but at some point if an individual cannot admit to a demonstration of change within a former offender of some sort of moral failure then I suggest there might be a problem with the eyes of the one refusing to see what is in front of them.

In the end, as I view it, it is not whether or not you can know his future actions, rather what reparations and restoration has he made (that are of the business of the church meaning some issues are for the relationship of the husband and wife and none of anyone’s business), what efforts and demonstration are there that indicate he has not only acknowledged this but reconstituted himself and his integrity?

Again, some might object, “But he did it before he might do it again”. To which I would say, “Well, apparently when he was doing it he didn’t have any integrity at that time but you were willing to trust him and it seems such a lack of integrity escaped your so-called discerning eye back then. So are you saying you now have greater discernment since these facts have come to light and if so, don’t you think he would too or are you the only recipient of this sudden enlightenment”?

And such things can be measured by wise people who might be those responsible for his re-entry into ministry. I won’t die on this hill but these are my thoughts.

Just got done reading all the reviews to this thread. I haven’t been on SI very much because of time but saw this book review and thought I’d read up on what people thought about it. I got the book off of CBD about a year ago. I didn’t know anything about George Macdonald let alone about an affair of any kind. I honestly just really liked the title and the thesis of the book. So, I thought I’d check it out for myself because I’ve advocated a lot of changes in our church but hopefully more like Aaron was proposing (“church stuck in ways that were never that great to begin with moves toward more biblical ministry.”). So, I’d like to think I read this book without any pre-conceived notions about the author or his intentions (i.e. Purpose driven church?).

So, bottom line, I didn’t agree with all of his conclusions or ministry ideas but did agree that many of the fundamentalist churches that I have been a part of consist mainly of either an older generation or those brought up in the ‘culture’ of fundamentalism. Sure there’s exceptions but I actually didn’t get the impression from the book that it was about the older generation withdrawing and ‘putting up and shutting up’ if you will. That had already happened in this fictional church. The fictional pastor in the book was seeking to engage the older generation and trying to get them re-involved in the church rather than withdrawing. Not trying to recapture the way it used to be, but working with the new generation. This they did and had the opportunity to mentor a young man named “Ben” who got saved as a result of the older generation and others reaching out to him.

So here’s what resonated to me, especially in our area. We’re seeing a whole generation of churches that are filled with young people, not a lot of old people and our fundamental churches slowly just fading into oblivion. Why? I think the problem is at least addressed in this book, even if not completely answered. Ok, how to articulate this…my problem with these young churches and even the kind represented in the book is not that they’ve gone “modern” with new music, smaller pulpit (if any), casual dress, etc. My problem is that they’re going secular and watering down the Gospel. They’ve got lots of ideas and energy, even some real good ideas…but not a lot of wisdom. Switch to our fundamentalist churches. Lots of wisdom, lots of experience, lots of tradition, but not a lot of ideas or energy. Churches in our area are very quickly becoming generational and the older generation is going to lose, but the younger ones will too because they didn’t have the older there to help temper their ideas and energy with wisdom. Whose fault is it? Both. But the problem is that the older generation has basically told a younger generation that they aren’t allowed to have ideas, different ways of doing things, etc because if you’re doctrinally pure, you’re going to preach from a massive pulpit, dress in a suit, and sing hymns. “If you want to be a part of our church, you have to do it my way. Why? It’s MY church. I worked hard for years and years to make this church exactly how I want it to be and you better not change it a bit!” And we wonder why young people are leaving? An older generation HAS to work with the younger one - the responsibility falls to the ones who are most mature - not just saying, “here, it’s yours!” like they’re doing in so many churches, but rather working with the younger generation to share their wisdom and to mentor them while still giving them the freedom to have their enthusiasm and without squashing their creativity. So, which is better? Lots of wisdom with no energy and just “surviving” until the church closes its doors, or lots of energy, ideas, and service going on without a lot of wisdom? I’d advocate both but it MUST take work from both generations.

Book wise, I think the fictional pastor was seeing the disconnect and was very concerned that the older generation was just slipping away quietly while the new generation just did whatever they wanted, so he tried to get them back involved. But frankly, ministry will never be like the glory days (50’s - 80’s) again in fundamentalism. While not advocating doctrinal change, etc. what I’m saying is that the danger of doing nothing for Christ out of fear of ‘compromise’ is even greater than the danger of going liberal. We need to change…but change towards a more Biblical ministry. I liked your comment Aaron.

Got to go. Late for an appointment. More later maybe.

[Alex Guggenheim] But let’s take the case of the serial adulterer or fornicator. Once he is removed in whatever fashion from ministry one might ask, “How can we know he won’t do it again or that the problem has ceased”? Well, the fact is neither for this man or for any man will you ever “know” because such sins are done in secret. There is no man in the ministry about whom you can say you “know” isn’t doing thus and thus. You aren’t with him 24/7. Now there are some men with whom you can be more sure and some maybe less. And if you take the position that with such a man (the former serial adulterer/fornicator) you will never be able to come to a place where enough trust is restored for the kind of confidence necessary for public ministry as in a case like this, well I suppose that is anyone’s right under the principle of human volition but I see no prescription in the Bible that such a man cannot regain trust enough to re-enter ministry. In fact what I do see is that God’s Spirit enabling us to move onward and upward, always able to rebound and move into maturity or return to it.

As to whether or not he is a one-woman man, well if he has repented of his adultery/fornication and has been faithful to his wife and the community observes this faithfulness, at some point you have an obligation to call it like it is, that he is faithful to his wife, hence making him a one-woman man. How long does that take? There is no rule but at some point if an individual cannot admit to a demonstration of change within a former offender of some sort of moral failure then I suggest there might be a problem with the eyes of the one refusing to see what is in front of them.

In the end, as I view it, it is not whether or not you can know his future actions, rather what reparations and restoration has he made (that are of the business of the church meaning some issues are for the relationship of the husband and wife and none of anyone’s business), what efforts and demonstration are there that indicate he has not only acknowledged this but reconstituted himself and his integrity?

@Alex,

If a man cheats on his wife is he still ‘blameless’?

@All -

I think it’s time to split off some of this into a new thread on “pastoral restoration”, so I’ve started [URL=http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-can-should-fallen-pastors-be-restor…] one[/URL] for that discussion.

[Joseph Leavell]…my problem with these young churches and even the kind represented in the book is not that they’ve gone “modern” with new music, smaller pulpit (if any), casual dress, etc. My problem is that they’re going secular and watering down the Gospel. They’ve got lots of ideas and energy, even some real good ideas…but not a lot of wisdom. Switch to our fundamentalist churches. Lots of wisdom, lots of experience, lots of tradition, but not a lot of ideas or energy. Churches in our area are very quickly becoming generational and the older generation is going to lose, but the younger ones will too because they didn’t have the older there to help temper their ideas and energy with wisdom.

I think there’s alot of insight there. I’ve gotten the impression in some of these conflicts that it was more about the young wanting “freshness” than wanting do ditch traditions per se or abandon sound doctrine, but if the older generation shakes the dust off their feet, the younger ones end up discarding important traditions and/or doctrine due, in part, to the disconnect w/the older ones.

…and the older ones lose the influence of the younger ones’ energy and zeal.

As Joseph pointed out, it really is a lose-lose.

So to the degree the book emphasizes maintaining that connection across generations, it sounds like a helpful emphasis.

Thanks for your comment Aaron.

Perhaps this is the stuff for a different thread, but is there a solution to this lose-lose situation? Traditional service/contemporary service? Seems like an attempt at a solution but it doesn’t seem like the right solution - still makes it so the generations aren’t worshipping or interacting with each other and is still “ME” centered. Maintain in hopes that a younger generation will ‘see the light’? Not likely with that frame of mind. I know there’s no quick solution, but what do you think is a start? Or maybe this isn’t a concern at all. To me, this is a primary reason for the death of fundamentalism as a movement. Personally, I think it’s a massive deal that if not resolved will mean the eventual close of a lot of solid churches, but I may be the only one here. Just curious as to your thoughts.

[Joseph Leavel] still “ME” centered.

Maybe if we stopped singing songs that are man-centered and focused on lyrics that are God-centered no matter what era those songs were written during, we would find that believers of all ages would delight in the music!

I heard the following lyrics at an office I walked past recently.

“He saw the best in me when everyone else around could only see the worst in me”

This will not be a Sunday morning special at our church anytime in the near future.

http://www.yoursonglyrics.com/the-best-in-me-marvin-sapp/ Here are the rest of the lyrics

That’s truly the question of the decade… or century!

But I like the spirit of ‘JohnBrian’s response… a focus on the eternal things (by all generations) has to be helpful!

As a concept, it seems to me that the older generation and the younger one should try to meet half way on some things. And the younger one should be more patient with the pace of change. These are still just concepts, but maybe useful. If a particular change the younger generation wants to bring in has a solid, biblical rationale, it should be possible to teach it to the whole church—including the older ones. If it doesn’t have that sort of rationale, it’s probably just not worth making the change.

But if the real power is in the gospel (and the sound doctrine that extends from it), why is it so important to have newer music or more comfortable dress, etc.? How is the gospel’s power limited by keeping the status quo in the “probably not necessary but harmless traditions” department? That’s one I haven’t been able to grasp as I interact w/younger gospel-loving guys who want lots of other changes. I can’t see how the gospel emphasis relates to the “other changes.” (So I’m in the “older guys” point of view now!)

On the other hand, the younger ones will tend to argue along the lines of “If the gospel is the key, why do we need dressing up and old hymns, etc?”

So what this reveals is that each generation has a different starting point and expects a different “burden of proof’ from the other. And I think there is a set of optional practices that are kind of neutral that each wants to see.

Now I don’t happen to believe that using old hymns is a neutral question (it has to do in part with continuity with the Body, which extends thousands of years into the past… and connecting w/that past is pretty important), but I do believe exclusive use of old hymns is neutral and I definitely believe the “neutral as far as we can really tell” category exists. We can ignore for the moment what’s in that category.

So picture a pile of “church practices” on a table (I visualize multicolored wooden blocks with things like “passing the plate” and “ties” and “Wednesday prayer meeting” on them).

The Young Leaders come to one side of the table and the Older Leaders to the other. The YLs want the OLs to explain why they have to keep what’s on the table. The OL’s want the YL’s to explain why they have to give up what’s on the table. Let’s assume everything on the table is truly neutral (which is really hard to determine, but a separate problem). What should happen?

This discussion is far beyond the scope of anything I can solve, but I’ll do the best to at least give my perspective on a few things here.

First, I really think that JohnBrian hit it on the head in several ways. I remember when my dad was in the pastorate in the early 90s and being told by the ‘experts’ that you need to get rid of your piano and organ and get a band. Our church didn’t but still continued to grow, see people saved and discipled, and the church grew from 30 to 150 in four years! At least 20-25 of those were new believers who became members (if memory serves me right)! How could this happen without a band? It’s because “updating” does nothing to guarantee that people will or will not respond to the work of the Holy Spirit. Church with organs - is God simply waiting for you to get rid of it because He simply can’t work while the organ remains? No! Churches without organs - is God now free to change people’s lives because since the organ is gone the Holy Spirit can come back? Come on, that’s just a ridiculous notion! A lot of these churches that went ‘modern’ did so in order to attract a demagraphic rather than because it was the right, God honoring thing to do. It’s still “ME” centered worship - it’s just a different “ME.” Instead of the older generation’s “ME” it’s the younger generation’s “ME.” I don’t believe that ANY “ME” centered worship (either traditional ME or contemporary ME) is God honoring! The answer I believe is that we ALL need to get the focus off of ourselves, onto Scripture, and ask, “What does Christ desire His church to do/be/look like today?” That point was brought out in “Who Stole My Church?”. The answer? It’s not your church to steal. If it is your church then it needs to be taken from you and given back to Christ! I honestly hate it when I hear, “I prefer the hymns.” I think, “That’s it? That’s the best reason you have to have hymns at the church? What if I ‘prefered’ Christian rap?” What music and style we have on Sunday has got to be grounded in something a bit deeper than “I like it so I want it so if it goes away I’m leaving” whether it be a traditional OR contemporary model. Why? Because it’s not about my preferences but what best honors Christ! Biblical unity from multiple generations HAS to be because all parties are focused on the fact that the church belongs to Christ and we worship Him and Him alone. In some ways, fingers could be pointed to both generations and said of those where it’s just not happening because the focus is not on Christ but rather on what “I prefer” or “I grew up with” or what “I’m comfortable with”, or even “I like newer music”, “I hate formality”, “I don’t like organ music”, etc. What is the common denominator? I.

As for answering your (Aaron’s) question of those who are young who understand that the power is in the Gospel, “why is it so important to have newer music or more comfortable dress, etc.? How is the gospel’s power limited by keeping the status quo in the “probably not necessary but harmless traditions” department?” I guess I would answer that by saying, why don’t we use Polish Christian Polka music (if there is such a thing) or Mexican Christian music (I know that exists) in our worship? Why don’t we dress in togas when we go to church? The obvious answer is that it’s just not our culture. I think that’s where the YL are coming from, in some regards to the ministry model of the Ols - it’s just a different culture. Beyond that, there are Scriptural objections in issues like “why dress up for church” when pride and gauging spirituality on dress is so prevelant. Humility and sincerity in dressing consistently 7 days a week is a legitimate Biblical case to be made for engaging in the issue - not just one of culture. But, the question could be reversed by asking, “why is it so important to have older music and more formal dress, etc? How is the gospel’s power limited by removing the status quo and removing the ‘probably not necessary but harmless traditions’? If that is all they are, should then why is there such militancy in not giving them up? If some of these things are so small, why do we have worship WARS? I mean…wars? That word is not reserved for trivial matters. To me at least, it seems as if the OLs are not striving to defend the Gospel but rather defending a bygone culture with which they’re trying to recapture some of the “glory days” of fundmentalism when God really worked. I mean, since God blessed it then, the 20’s - 70’s way of fundamentalist ministry is THE tried and true way of doing ministry. So we must do battle royal to make sure we don’t change or God will no longer bless and we will no longer be honoring Him.

Regarding the hymns, you’ll actually find a resurgence of YLs (including myself) who would agree with you. I’m hoping to sell more of my fellow “YF’s” on the importance of updating the hymns, Getty type music, and even Tomlin type music that seeks to put God in the center rather than man. That’s why you’re finding people taking the hymns and either updating their style or giving them new music. On the new Casting Crowns CD (not endorsing everything Casting Crowns - just using it as an example) they updated the hymn “One Day” by giving it new music. I happen to find it very respectful and beautiful and now have a hard time singing the old version. For a lot of the YLs, it’s not the words to hymns that are bothersome, it’s the “carosel” type tunes (like the original “One Day” tune) that we simply can’t relate to and frankly find cheesy. Yet there are many, like How Great Thou Art, The Love of God, Victory in Jesus, etc. that are still being sung even in many contemporary styles of churches, which is good to see. So, I agree with you. :-)

One thought to consider about sitting down at the table and discussing the issues that makes this whole thing more difficult is that YLs know that there are a lot of churches that they can go to where these issues aren’t even discussed anymore. I would guess it would be kind of like going to a KJV only church and discussing the issues all over again. Why would I do that when I can just go to another church where it’s not an issue anymore? I think that’s why a lot of YF’s are leaving fundamentalism is because they know they can just leave for churches that these things just aren’t issues anymore and where their ideas are respected and already implemented. Why then sit down and discuss these things with churches that you’ll have to fight for years to make any progress when you can go in and hit the ground running? Plus, if a YL goes into a church and desires to change it away from a tradition based ministry to a Biblical based ministry, he’s usually accused of trying to take the church liberal or worse. I mean, not passing the plate? Not having a Wed. night service? Not preaching from a pulpit? Not dressing in a suit? How liberal! So, why even put yourself through that?

One last thought is that being told for years that their opinions don’t matter, and then all of a sudden out of seemingly nowhere pastors (who are starting to recognize that their churches are dying and that they need young blood or they’ll eventually close) start dialoguing with a younger generation, it may come across as too little too late and almost disingenuous. Would these discussions be happening if the OL felt like they didn’t need the YLs and they could retain their models of ministry or is this discussion only taking place out of practical necessity? If it is simply because OL’s have discovered that they have not invested in the next generation but have rather assumed their values on the next generation, then my guess is that the YLs will be much less likely to sit at the table for a discussion. But if the OL’s are willing to dialogue because they have been mistaken to militanty hold to a culture rather than the Gospel and desire to dialogue on what is it that in 2010 best honors Christ in our churches and what is the most effective way to minister to the needs of the people and share the Gospel, then my hope is that a younger generation will be much more likely to engage.

If an older generation invests into the lives of a younger generation, they are much more likely to be listened to, respected, and ministered to when the younger generation is in leadership. To me, the rejection and abandonment of the traditions from the younger generation, separation of a younger generation from the older generation, and the death of fundamentalism speakes volumes to the lack of ongoing investment and passing down the mantle of ministry and trust from one generation to another. We’ve always been told we’re just one generation from extinction. Fundamentalism is experiencing that very thing. Personally, I’m thankful for godly parents who invested in my life who I can continue to dialogue with on these issues and discussions knowing that I am respected and will be given Biblical answers without being considered “liberal” because they know my heart. Thanks Mom and Dad! Love ya! :-) It certainly makes me much more respectful to the preferences and culture of my parents and their generation and desire to work within their culture out of respect for them because I know that they invested in me and loved me, even when I didn’t bring anything to the table but stinky diapers. :-)

You said a mouthful there!

And a whole lot that resonates with me… for whatever that’s worth.

There’s an interesting difference that your post brought to my attention, though. A difference between the thought process of the YLs vs. the OLs. They are not completely symmetrical. When I described the two groups sitting on opposite sides of a table w/all the “options” in the middle and each asking opposite questions (OLs: why should we give this up? and YLs: why should we keep this?), I overlooked a factor.

(No doubt, several… but one jumped out at me). From what I have observed the two tend to task their questions for different reasons, to a degree. The YLs are usually asking “Why do we need to keep this if it doesn’t enhance gospel ministry?” Whereas the OLs are quite often asking “Why do we need to give this up if it has been an appropriate way of honoring God for many generations?” Now, they are often not correct in their perception that “this” has been going on for many generations, but it is often the question, especially in the “worship wars.”

What I’m getting at is that often the YLs are looking at “How can we make changes to win the lost better?” While the OLs are often thinking more in terms of “What is proper for worshiping God?” They are different questions.

But your post shows, Joseph, that this is “proper worship” question is very important to you as well and I find that very encouraging.

I’m just saying that many times I’ve seen a perceived tension between the evangelistic goal and the proper worship goal. Some have minimized (or even discarded) the whole question of what qualities should characterize the worship God’s people render to Him because they are far, far more concerned about reaching unbelievers with the message of the gospel.

In reality, there is no tension at all. Worship is for God’s people. Evangelism is for unbelievers. Both are components of the ultimate purpose of bringing glory to God.

I’ll admit that we try to mix worship and evangelism simultaneously at times at our church (have an outreach that is worship focused). But it’s a bit of an odd ball thing, when you think about it. Reaching people “out there” is one thing. Bowing before God together “in here” (as in, the place of worship) is another thing… and worship has relatively little value for the lost.

And though preaching the gospel (in the narrow sense of the three or four ideas that constitute that message) is very edifying for believers, it is like the hub of the wheel and they need all the spokes and rubber of the “whole counsel of God,”.. which, again, is pretty useless to the unregenerate.

So I think part of the answer to the generational transition problems is coming to a shared understanding of purposes and means. Then I think the cultural questions do tend to find their place… at least, more often than when the purposes and means issues are not worked out.

[Aaron Blumer] There’s an interesting difference that your post brought to my attention, though. A difference between the thought process of the YLs vs. the OLs. They are not completely symmetrical. When I described the two groups sitting on opposite sides of a table w/all the “options” in the middle and each asking opposite questions (OLs: why should we give this up? and YLs: why should we keep this?), I overlooked a factor.

(No doubt, several… but one jumped out at me). From what I have observed the two tend to task their questions for different reasons, to a degree. The YLs are usually asking “Why do we need to keep this if it doesn’t enhance gospel ministry?” Whereas the OLs are quite often asking “Why do we need to give this up if it has been an appropriate way of honoring God for many generations?” Now, they are often not correct in their perception that “this” has been going on for many generations, but it is often the question, especially in the “worship wars.”

What I’m getting at is that often the YLs are looking at “How can we make changes to win the lost better?” While the OLs are often thinking more in terms of “What is proper for worshiping God?” They are different questions.

Hmmm…this may be true at times, but not always. Some OLs say, “How can we win the lost without an altar-call invitation?” Or “revival meetings?” Or “a bus ministry?”

Yeah, I’m generalizing. Probably over-generalizing. The valid part is probably just that there is an important axis along which views about change tend to conflict… the evangelization purpose vs. exaltation purpose axis? But I believe that in the long run, we evangelize better when we exalt better. (Though I can’t say that in my own church experience I’ve seen that in visible results!.. but maybe it’s because we aren’t really “exalting better.”)

Hey Aaron, thanks for your response! Sorry that my answer was so lengthy. It’s something that I’ve been pondering for quite some time as a result of reading, “Who Stole My Church” and it’s by and large the conclusion I’ve come to regarding generational transition. I’ve not been able to get back on SI for a response because my wife and I are in the process of moving. I’m in the process of moving and heading back to school to pursue a counseling degree, so my priorities haven’t been on blogging.

Interestingly, the book discusses the difference in perspective from one generation to the other when it talks about music. The people simply didn’t “get” each other’s music (i.e. the older generation’s desire to cling to the older songs and the younger generation’s desire to sing new songs) and so they just lobbed insults at each other. The pastor was able to have them all sit down (which you can tell this was fiction because something like that would be very difficult to do) and have each of them explain their perspective. Both of them came to a mutual understanding, learned why the issue was important to the other, and the church changed as a result to incorporate more of the hymns because the younger generation never knew 1) why they were so important to the older generation, and 2) why they were so theologically sound (they couldn’t get past the music aspect to appreciate the poetic words). Their whole frame of mind was different in approaching the subject which I think you picked up on in your post. Honestly, there are people who can be wrong on both sides of the issue and people who can be right on both sides of the issue - I beleive it’s always wrong when you start from “I prefer” or “I want” rather than the glory of God.

One other thought is that while historically this issue has been wrongly a “seeker sensitive” issue, I think that thought doesn’t completely encompass the scope of the issue and I’ve seen several churches and movements that are coming back to the understanding that music isn’t about evangelism but rather about the believers worshiping their God. But at this point, it’s not just the unsaved people who don’t get hymns or older music, there’s a lot of younger Christians that don’t get them either. As an illustration, when I switched from the KJV to the NKJV the primary reason I did so was because I was taking the “thee’s” and “thou’s” out when I shared the Gospel and the NKJV saved me a lot of headache (I suppose I was being seeker sensitive to the langauge barrier). But then I found that a newer translation wasn’t just helpful for reaching the lost, it was helpful for my own understanding of Scripture and I began to understand passages that had never clicked with me - just because I didn’t get the archaic language. Not that I couldn’t do research and learn it, the KJV just wasn’t my language and didn’t resonate with me. I think you’re seening that dynamic in worship as well in that perhaps contemporary music started out in order to reach the lost, but now Christians have realized that music in their own language and culture has been helpful for their own walks witih God because they understand it and connect with it because it’s in their language both musically and poetically.

I say all that because the “worship war” isn’t just about reaching the lost anymore, but rather a younger generation worshipping God in their own language and culture. Churches who incorporate contemporary music aren’t necessarily doing so to be a seeker sensitive church. They may be doing so because they’re trying to incorporate music that the younger generationof Christians in their church understand and relate to. I think that also applies to the version used at the pulpit, the music, as well as the whole atmosphere of the church. I’m not advocating throwing out all the old traditions here. I’ve got a problem with that not because the traditions should be sacred cows, but because it alienates a whole generation - an older one. The result is that it ends up leaving churches that God has been working in for decades to shrivel up and die with people wondering why they can’t get young people in anymore and other churches where a white head of hair is rare. But give it 40 years, and this current generation doesn’t invest in the next, you’ll see churches like “Mars Hill” and “Northpoint” etc. wondering why they can’t get young people anymore. My contention is that each generation needs to be multilingual and multicultural in their worship, with the younger generation understanding the language and culture of their heritage as well as their own and the older generation reaching into the lives of the younger providing wisdom and balance. It’s a dynamic that not many churches these days are striving to incorporate and I believe it stems in “ME” centered worship on all fronts and results in churches with not a lot of depth.