It gets confusing when we lose track of the very definitions of the words we repetitively use: “Church.”

Define our terms. What is “Church?” Scripturally, the Church is the Body of believers. How confusing can it be? If you are a believer, you are a member of the Church. If you are a member of the Church, don’t fail to assemble together, as is the habit of some, to encourage each other and stimulate each other to love and good deeds. If an unbeliever stumbles in, is invited in, shows up–great! What we say, sing, do, in the Church assembly–if Spirit-Led–will not be confusing to the welcomed wanderer.

My sense is the “churches” get warped and distorted when led by “confusion” about what “the Church” means and is.

Thank you, again. I love the fact that you test all against Scripture! Thank you for your faithfulness to that and I assure you it is my one and only standard. If I communicated anything other than that, I failed miserably in my response.

I believe you and I are in total agreement on the point of Scriptural authority. Perhaps the only place we might find disagreement is how we apply certain principles. For instance, I agree with you on the following point you made (in principle):

Unbelievers are certainly WELCOME in the in-house ASSEMBLY (1Cor 14.23), but they are NOT who the ASSEMBLY is FOR.
When we build THE IN-HOUSE ASSEMBLY around and for the UNBELIEVER, we cannot HELP but to decrease the GOAL of the assembly, ie., the encouragement ad stimulation to love and good deeds of the CHURCH (believers.)

I am not in favor of seeker-sensitive churches (building the assembly around unbelievers), which is basically what you described, but I do believe in seeker-sensible churches (communicating the truth to the believers in such a way that unbelievers understand and generally feel welcome in the assembly). I don’t believe it must be an either/or scenario. In that, then, I only disagree with your conclusion while completely agreeing with your premise.

Anyway, again, I appreciate your perspective and consider it iron sharpening iron as I read MacDonald’s book reflectively, keeping your points on the forefront as I am sure there will be some things about it I disagree with (rarely is there a book that I find I agree with on all points, but hope I can find truth in there, as well). I would encourage anyone who might read these comments of ours to take note of the need to read any work outside of Scripture with great caution.

I will be sure to return to this subject and point out those areas in which I would join in your cautions. Blessings!

dp

You are a dear love for begging for the most humility and grace possible. For that, thank you and keep preaching!

Read the book.

We will chat.
No seminarian here, just a failure trying to test all against Scripture. Is there an alternative? You make me think there is.

ricky b

I first want to say thank you for your thoughtful review of the book. I am very appreciative of your adherence to and desire to follow Scripture. I am with you on that 100%. I think you perhaps might be a bit extremist in your position, which is fine, but it tends to demonize those who don’t agree with us methodologically. It makes you come across as someone with a big chip on his shoulder and that is probably, in reality, not a completely accurate impression. Nevertheless, that is the general tone one gets.

I think that is what we’re talking here, too: methodology. Scripture is full of principles, but it rarely goes into prescription…exactly HOW we fulfill the biblical mandates. In answering that question, it is necessary to prayerfully consider the practical nature of carrying out the Great Commission we’ve been given.

I don’t know where you are right now in service (and most certainly don’t want to make assumptions), yet everything you talked about sounds theoretical or textbook and, based on your attitude, would guess you are a second or third year seminarian. If so, God bless you in your work. If not, it at least speaks to what you sound like in your analysis. I have to say, like him or not, MacDonald is talking real world stuff. His characters may be fictional, but I assure you, they’re in our churches and we need to know how to deal with them with love and compassion, yet realistically and certainty. No, he’s not perfect, but listening to someone who has been in the pastorate for over thirty years is not a bad place to start.

Do we need to cautiously analyze what has been said in the book? Certainly, as we should with all books other than Scripture that we read. Do we need to weigh everything against Scripture? Most assuredly. Does he have an “angle” or certain perspective on the solution? Who doesn’t? That’s why he and all others who do so write books.

On another point, you clearly don’t like emergent. I have to say, neither do I. I believe their theology is way off the charts which very often leads to bad methodology. However, methodology does not dictate theology. If you have looked at Mars Hill and made a judgment based on how they do things and determined they are emergent, I must respectfully submit to you that you don’t know emergent. Mars Hill might be edgy in methodology, but they are most certainly not emergent in theology.

In the end, I would ask you to please consider your position with a tad more grace and realize that ministry isn’t as tidy and easy as it seemed during the seminary days. MANY people absolutely believe exactly what MacDonald’s title claims and to think otherwise simply demonstrates that individual is either in a very different situation than many of us who are in old churches trying to become relevant to the world in which we live (which me must do or we die) or are still in college or seminary and simply haven’t experienced it yet.

Nothing wrong with idealism (and I don’t intend for this to have a condescending tone to it, though I realize it very well may), but I realized that my theoretical views during my second year in seminary changed drastically once I had to start actually applying it to real life in real ministry. Now I’m an idealistic realist if there is such an animal. I adhere very closely to conservative theology, but understand that the church is called to be a mission organism and, to do that, I have to seek many creative ways to reach the lost.

Many seminary students or people who have spent little time in the field still hold a very ivory-tower approach, minus any hint of humility, which somehow gives them a carte blanche freedom to criticize and tear down rather than being about the job of building up and encouraging. My prayer, therefore, is that you look at your views with a smidge more grace and humility, understanding that none of us has it exactly right and, as a result, we will continue to understand how little we actually know, which is why we have such a need for a savior…to redeem our souls as well as our misguided minds. Praise be to God who gives grace to the weak such as I.

God bless you in your ministry, wherever God has and will lead you.

dp

Our thinking must be Biblical and clear if we are to be a part of God’s continued blessing.
My issues with MacDonald’s book are (currently) the following.

First, the book is a novel. The characters are made up, directed and speaks words of MacDonald’s choosing. He obviously has written a book to MOVE us from point A to point B. The question is why move to B? What of real substance does he (through his fictional characters) offer?

Not only is his title misleading, but so are the issues he focuses on. Is it about music? Preaching style? Time of day for worship? No. By focusing on these tertiary topics, he perpetuates and allows the agenda to be framed by the misguided crowd.

What are the OVERARCHING issues which bring us BACK TO THE WORD, JESUS’ COMPLETE ATONING SACRIFICE and GRACE?

For example, on pages 73-74 he offers a rare direct glimpse at one of HIS desires (“move from point A to point B”) for the church:
“…A lot of evangelism is going to be done quietly, almost unnoticed.”

Is this the Biblical model?

He continues, “Here’s a key word: belonging…”
The second paragraph on page 74 wraps up his thought, illuminating an error in the church, “There’s very little belonging in most churches until you believe.”

Biblically, when does one BELONG to the church?
He confuses (as we too often do):
a) the distinction between THE CHURCH (made up of BELIEVERS) which is to ASSEMBLE together, for the edification of the BODY, for encouragement of THE BODY, to stimulate THE BODY to love and good deeds (Heb. 10.24-25, of course.)
and,
b) the EXTERNAL MISSION of THE BODY to reach OUT to UNBELIEVERS. (Matt. 28.18-20)

Unbelievers are certainly WELCOME in the in-house ASSEMBLY (1Cor 14.23), but they are NOT who the ASSEMBLY is FOR.
When we build THE IN-HOUSE ASSEMBLY around and for the UNBELIEVER, we cannot HELP but to decrease the GOAL of the assembly, ie., the encouragement ad stimulation to love and good deeds of the CHURCH (believers.)

This “Belong and THEN believe” is a mantra of the Emergents.
He (purposely?) confuses the church buildings with the Church body, after already preaching to us how WRONG this is to do.
(pp. 28-29, etc.)

This is the core of my doubt about the MacDonald “message.”

Now that the red flags are up, I’m ultra cautious and (perhaps overly) critical.

Page 64: “You’re an idiot if you think people can be converted to Christ in the space of fifteen minutes” or something like “at a Billy Graham rally.” Nevermind the Bible is full of just such examples.

On page 65: Is the problem of ineffective evangelism REALLY as HE says, that “people have been trying to convert people the old way.”
I ask “could it be that Christians haven’t tried much evangelizing at all?” Is that at least a possibility?

Page 75: He sets forth the concept that we should design our church worship experience around the unbeliever, the “outsider.”

On page 91, he assumes that ‘division’ is the key evil we must overcome.
Doesn’t doctrine divide? Is division automatically an evil?

On page 93, “hundreds of men knew every word to every [Beatles] song and, with no inhibitions sang loudly…” at a religious mens’ conference.
So what’s the point? Should we be led by majority or the Word? We should sing beatles’ songs at church to make everyone feel better?
If hundreds of men “SINNED,” with no inhibitions … should we do that as well? It’s horrible logic.

On page 142: He says, It’s wrong to have a [church] name if people view the name as “angry and judgemental.”
There goes the word “Christian” from our church names! Oops, and we have to eliminate the word “church.” By this logic, “Christian” must be dropped from our names.

p. 146: I practically tossed my cookies when I read this shameless plug for the two biggest Emergent churches in America:
“Names like Mars Hill seem to suggest a church that wants to be known for thoughtful fellowship.” When a typical, non-believer reads “Mars Hill”, what might you expect would leap to their mind, first, second, third? Would “a church that wants to be known for thoughtful fellowship” be the first thing? How about planets? An observatory? maybe a few would even KNOW of the Greek reference. And of those that might, would they be prone to categorize that space and time as “thoughtful fellowship?” Perhaps as Philosophical debate, or serious argumentation, etc. Nonsense! Only a hard-core Bible reader would catch that connection. It in no way would make a non-believer leap to the conclusion, “Mars Hill?! Now THERE’s a church that wants to be known for thoughtful fellowship!”

…
[An elderly lady who read the book appreciated how MacDonald “understood her feelings.”]

MacDonald “understands” [your] feelings–and that goes a long way to subdue your fears.
BUT, his empathy is meant to persuade you to GET OUT OF THE WAY.

No matter the technique, the goal is the same.

“The ends justify the means.” ?

In the end, the church is changing, you are “holding-up” this radical change, “I feel your pain,” now get out of the way.”

His premise might even be true.
BUT, it on the basis of WHAT SCRIPTURE?

I plead:
Encourage and stimulate the whole Church (capital C,)
so that they (we) may then
GO out into the whole world and
“Preach Christ crucified.”

…that the external manifestation of our internal faith be of truth and light.
“The main thing is to keep our focus on the main thing.”

___________________________________________________________________________

We pay particular attention to a NOVEL, which tends to be more effective in convincing us to move “from point A to point B” by use of an emotional lever. But beware, no narrative is NEUTRAL in character. MacDonald is SURELY motivating us to some change. I thought it pathetic that the character who disagreed, while he offered lousy or little support for his disagreement, was later found to have been a fake christian all along (pp 166-167)!!! What is MacDonald saying here?!

Aside from the original scripture referring to Christ and His disciples metaphor of the destroyed temple, was was little scripture to support either side of the arguments. It was simply up to one (minority) opinion over a majority one.

The real bomb MacDonald dropped came between pp. 175-193:

“Early adopters of all change are the real Christians:” You’ll be in good company with the likes of Peter, Gideon, Caleb, Joshua, Stephen…” But if not, then you’re a “Laggard” like Thomas, the doubter. (pp. 175-177)
“Laggards have their eyes glued to the past.” Oh! Chronological snobbery. Nothing old, or from the past could be true, or good, or useful!
And continuing on (p 178), he simply (and with great ease) calls anyone over 70 a Laggard, like Judas Iscariot, or Jonah (p 193).

Wow.

I felt the book was very manipulative, misleading and self-refuting.

😉

I appreciate you, Sir.
God bless you in your work.
MacDonald’s book as a guide in this process? No.
The Bible? Cool.

ricky