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.