A New Kind of Church: Should We Be Concerned?
by Aubrey Malphurs

I suspect that you as pastors and church leaders won’t be surprised when I say that the new-model churches aren’t without their critics, mostly from those who make up the ranks of established, traditional churches. That’s to be expected, as change comes hard for established, tradition-minded people. However, they also consist of people within and outside new paradigm churches themselves. And some critics are well-known Bible teachers and pastors with a national reputation. Some have come down very hard on the new models and even challenge their orthodoxy. It’s imperative that we as leaders pay attention to what they’re saying as no one is above error. None of us must be so protective of our churches that we overlook false teaching of any kind. To do so is to violate Scripture. Also, there are numerous warnings throughout the Scriptures against false teachers who promote and practice false teaching.

My goal in the following is twofold: First, I want to address the concept of Christians policing their own ranks. Who is responsible for detecting error in our churches, and how might they accomplish this? Second, what are the arguments being used by those who attempt to police the church ranks for us - especially those who are most suspicious and critical of the new church models? My goal is merely to categorize and present their arguments, not go into any great detail. I simply want you to be aware of what some are saying. I provide more information in chapters 4-9 of my book A New Kind of Church (Baker Books, 2007).

Who Should Address Error?

Churches Must Address Error

The first question is, Who is responsible to address error in the church? The answer is the body of Christ. In other words, Christians must police their own. I suspect that most of us as pastors see a need for and accept such a practice. Yet it makes some very uncomfortable. It goes against their grain. It seems like we’re receiving enough criticism from non-Christians, so what’s the sense of adding to it? Aren’t we merely providing them with more ammunition against us? And isn’t there enough conflict in our churches already?

The important question is, What do the Scriptures say about this, and how might we go about it?  As we will see below, this is biblical. But I’m not advocating that we form some kind of Christian Thought Police that assumes a “big brother is watching you” approach. George Orwell’s book 1984 has come and gone, and we don’t need to create a Christian version of it. However, a number of New Testament books address errors that had crept into the early churches, and the obvious implication is that they were to deal with them. In the same way church history is replete with the church taking responsibility to address false teaching as exemplified by the various church councils.

New Testament Teaching

 I could fill this book with examples from the Old Testament of prophets and others who spoke out against error and the practice of error. I could likely do the same with the New Testament. Instead, I will focus your attention on a few key passages that provide the following seven principles that address false teaching. It is clear from the following that the church is responsible not only to identify error but to deal with it.

to Timothy, “command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer . . .   .” (1 Tim. 1:3)  And he even names some of them such as Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18) who taught that the resurrection had already occurred and Alexander the metalworker who generally opposed Paul’s teaching (2 Tim. 4:14-15).

5.  Leaders are to watch themselves so that they don’t teach false doctrine. In 1 Timothy 4:16, Paul writes to Timothy: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (1 Tim. 4:16)          

6.  Leaders are to take great pains to make sure that they, themselves, handle Scripture accurately and correctly. Paul exhorts Timothy, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15)

7. Leaders (elders) must firmly hold to sound biblical teaching and use it to encourage the church and refute false teaching. (Titus 1:9)

Church Councils

On a number of occasions, churches have come together to address and deal with false teaching. This not only happened in the first century, but the following reflects what the church did in the following centuries to address error. I will briefly mention five of them.

1. The Jerusalem Council (AD 49 or 50). The first council of churches met in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. Apparently the church at Jerusalem hosted the conference that dealt with the clarity of the gospel. Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel to the Gentiles, many of whom came to faith (vv. 3-4, 7-9). Certain Jews who belonged to the party of the Pharisees were most concerned about this and argued that these Gentiles must be circumcised and taught to obey the law of Moses to be saved (vv. 1, 5). Ultimately these Jews, Paul, Barnabas, and others traveled to Jerusalem to settle this matter. The final verdict is that salvation is by grace through faith and doesn’t involve keeping the law.

2. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325). The next council of churches met the city of  Nicaea. The debate was over the deity of Christ. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was created by God the Father, making him a lesser deity (a view that’s held and taught by present-day Jehovah’s Witnesses). The final decision of this council affirmed the full deity of the Savior, declaring that he was fully God.

3. The Council of Constantinople (AD 381). This council met in the city of Constantinople. It affirmed the decision at Nicaea regarding Christ’s deity. It also affirmed the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, declaring that he was coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son.

4. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431). This council met in Ephesus to address Nestorius’s teaching that emphasized the human nature of Christ. It proclaimed that Christ had two natures (human and divine) in one divine person.

5. The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). This council met in the city of Chalcedon.  Eutyches was teaching that Christ had only one nature - the divine nature. Chalcedon affirmed the Christological teaching that he had two natures (one divine and one human) in one person with one essence. 

The primary biblical-theological concerns of these councils was the clarity of the gospel, Christology or biblical teaching on Christ, and to some degree the Trinity as it relates specifically to Christ and the Holy Spirit. Here we discover that false teaching will always be with us and that it’s the responsibility of the church in general and its leaders in particular to address it. The church must be alert for false teaching, challenge it, explore it, and condemn it.

But that is not enough in itself. The church must also clarify what Scripture teaches. I sense among some in the emergent church movement that they feel a need to go back and reexamine what we believe is the historic, orthodox faith. In response, I believe that we must understand from church history that such re-examination has happened repeatedly throughout the ages as there were many other councils. I don’t believe that it hurts for us to re-examine what we believe. Some “buy in” without really thinking carefully about what they’re getting. Re-examining the core doctrines of the faith can help us sharpen our thinking and better understand what we believe and why. However, the faith as we now have it has been carefully examined, re-examined, and debated over the last two thousand years.  Rest assured that we will not come up with any correction to the historic, orthodox teachings of the faith as we now have it. If someone does, then I believe that it will be false teaching, and the church is responsible to address and expose it.

How to Address Error

Scripture is very clear that the church in general and we as pastors and leaders in particular are to address error among the people, in a sense, to police the ranks. Next the question becomes, How might we accomplish this? The answer is to turn to Scripture where we’ll find that the answer is Scripture. Our core text is 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul instructs Timothy, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

I want to make several observations on this passage. First, Paul is teaching that the Bible is inspired. Charles Ryrie defines inspiration as, “God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs.” (A Survey of Bible Doctrine, p. 38.) Thus, the Bible contains God’s truth and is the final standard by which we evaluate the church’s teaching. Second, note the various uses for the Bible in regard to truth: teaching truth, rebuking those who teach false truth, correcting false truth, and training those in truth. And third, Paul says that the purpose of all this is to equip the church for good works. Divine truth is critical to what we do in and outside the church. We must know the truth of God’s word to properly apply it.

So how do we practically apply God’s word to address doctrinal error? The church in general and pastoral leaders in particular need a biblical-theological grid or sieve that consists of several filters through which they run any and all teaching that claims to be of God. I believe that such a grid is how the church in the first century and the times that followed determined truth from error. It’s not new. In a letter to Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon who was considered the theologian of the Reformation, gave us such a biblical-theological grid. But what does it look like? From this grid I’ve developed one that consists of three filters.

Filter 1: The Essentials of the Faith

The first filter consists of the essentials of the faith. These essentials are the propositional truths that are both clearly taught in the Bible and are necessary for one to be considered orthodox. One who is orthodox conforms to the Christian faith as hammered out and represented in the creeds of the early church (see the five councils above). These essentials are the central tenets of the evangelical belief system. Because they’re at the core of the gospel, there’s no room to flex or wiggle. They draw a doctrinal line in the sand between what is orthodox and unorthodox. Should someone in the church reject any of these views, his or her version of Christianity isn’t orthodox. He or she has fallen outside the faith. 

There are five essentials: the Bible is the inspired word of God; there is only one true God as three coequal and coeternal persons (namely the Trinity); the deity and substitutionary atonement of Christ that provides salvation by faith apart from baptism or man's works; the bodily resurrection of Christ; and his physical return to earth.

 

Filter #1: The Essentials of the Faith

  

We must pursue unity with those who agree with us on these essentials. Paul addresses the church’s unity in Ephesians 4:3-16 and commands his church, “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (v. 3). In verse 13 he teaches that this unity in the faith is a sign of the church’s spiritual maturity. This is a relational, not an organizational unity based on a common orthodox faith (Eph. 4:3; Jn. 17:20-23).  Christ commands fellow disciples to love one another (Jn. 13:34-35; 15:12-14).  Practically we're willing to relate to one another in various ways:  citywide evangelistic crusades, theological societies, and other opportunities.

However, the essentials are exclusive as well as inclusive.  They include people of like mind, but exclude people who don't agree on these key points. Examples of the latter are those of a theologically liberal persuasion, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and all who reject in some way the essentials.

         

Filter 2: The Nonessentials

The nonessentials are views we hold that may be based on the Scriptures, tradition, or both.  The nonessentials aren't as clear biblically, and that's why evangelicals disagree on them.  However, the reality is that often one group's nonessentials may be another's faith essentials.  Regardless, all are convinced that their view is correct and fully supported by the Bible. Unlike the essentials, agreement on the nonessentials doesn't affect one's orthodoxy, salvation, or standing before Christ. The key word here is liberty. There is room to flex.

What are some nonessentials?  The following are examples that have proved to be nonessentials that may affect the church's ministries and organization.

1. Church government (polity). Polity addresses where power should be in the church and who makes the major decisions that impact the church. Most churches hold one of three views: the Episcopal form where power is invested in the hands of a bishop outside the local church; the Presbyterian form where power is found in a governing board within the church; the congregational form where the congregation has the power of decision making. 

2. Mode of baptism.  Most who baptize believe in immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. 

3. The Lord's Supper.  The issue is whether the elements convey grace to the recipients.  The positions range from an emphatic yes to an equally emphatic no. 

4. The role of women in the church.  The positions range from full participation including ordination and the senior pastor’s office to little or no participation at all. 

5. Spiritual gifts.  The positions range from the belief that no gifts are present today to the belief that all the gifts are for today. 

6. When the church meets.  Some argue that it must be on Sunday morning or night, while others argue that any day is permissible. This has been an issue for those churches that are seeker-oriented.

7. Church practices. The concerns what the church does when it meets.  Some argue, for example, that it must serve communion every time it meets or that it must teach the Scriptures.  Others feel these aren't necessary every time.

 

Filter 2: Some Nonessentials of the Faith

                                               

         

What should our response be as leaders to others regarding the faith nonessentials?

In the essentials, we're to pursue unity and love.  The faith essentials distinguish between those who’re within and outside the orthodox faith. We must agree on the essentials or we can't minister together in any way, but we still treat one another with respect as fellow human beings. 

However, in the nonessentials we're to pursue Christian liberty.  Liberty says that it's okay to take a firm position on these issues, but that we're in the realm of interpretive tradition. Though we believe Scripture best supports our view, other intelligent, godly evangelicals firmly hold to differing views for what seem to be good reasons and are still within the orthodox faith.

Christian liberty says we must be willing to grant others these distinctions and still hold one another in high regard. Preserving the “unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:13) means treating others who differ with us on the nonessentials with kindness and compassion (Jn. 13:34-35; 15:12-14, 17). We must not falsely judge or malign them (Rom. 14:9-13). We must also recoil at thinking or claiming that we're the faithful remnant, namely, the only ones with the truth, while all others are wrong and should be condemned.  Instead, we choose to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. We must remember this as we look at the conduct of some who attack the new model churches.

I don’t believe that I would deny membership in my church to a brother or sister in Christ who differ over the nonessentials unless their belief was disruptive. However, I might deny them a teaching position or a place on a governing board. Much depends on the particular nonessential and their fervency over the same.

 Filter 3: In All Things Love

The final filter addresses both the essentials and nonessentials. It argues that in both we treat others with love (Melanchthon used the term charity). We’re to love those believers who differ on the nonessentials (John 13:34-35; 15:12-14, 17), and following Christ’s example, we’re to love those who differ on the essentials (Jn 3:16, Rom. 5:8). The latter doesn’t mean that we are to love what they do or teach, but we are to love them as fellow human beings made in the image of God. That doesn’t mean that we don’t address false teaching or ignore sinful behavior. We can love the individual but hate his or her sin. This was the Savior’s attitude toward lost people (“world”) in John 3:16.

I have two gay friends who are my neighbors. Yes, I said “friends.” You must understand that I grew up homophobic in a community in the South that didn’t tolerate homosexuality. God has helped me to work through my homophobia, and I can say that my wife and I love these two men. However, we neither love nor condone their lifestyle, and they know this. Regardless, God has used our love for them to deeply impact them for the Savior. While many homosexuals are defensive of the lifestyle, one of these men has admitted to me that his lifestyle is wrong. I don’t think this would have happened had I rejected or castigated him.

The fact that we are to treat others with love leads next to an important principle and practice that specifically relates to fellow believers. You’ll find the principle in Matthew 18:15-20. In verse 15, the Savior teaches, “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.”  I see several issues here. First, this would seem to apply primarily to those within the same local church. However, I don’t think that anyone would challenge the wisdom of two brothers who belong to different churches getting together to discuss their differences. There seems to be clear precedent for this in Galatians 2:1-10 and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Second, Jesus commands the offended brother in the Matthew passage to be proactive and approach the offending brother. I suspect this reflects the Savior’s practical insight into people. How many times has an offending party come to you over an issue? Likely never.

Third, this is a private meeting. Again this reflects Jesus’ wisdom. Whenever we believe someone has wronged us and possibly sinned against us, we are to go to that person before making it public. The reason is obvious - we might be wrong. What if we go public too soon and our information isn’t correct? We risk needlessly and sinfully ruining the other’s reputation. This has been the fruit of some critics' attacks on others. Jesus continues in verses 16-18 to address what you should do if the offending party will not listen and address the issue.

An example of how this works is found in Galatians 2:1-10. Peter understood that the gospel had come to the Gentiles, and they could be saved by faith in Christ alone. Thus, he as a Jewish believer would fellowship with the Gentile believers. However, when certain men from James came, he disowned the Gentile believers for fear of those who added the requirement of circumcision to the gospel. Since Peter was a pillar and leader in the church, others wrongly followed his example. When Paul saw this, he personally reproached Peter face-to-face over this issue. Note that he did so in front of those Peter led astray (v. 14). He included the larger group because they were all involved in this sham. By bringing them together, he was able to correct the issue with all the participants present.

 

In summary, a way to capture and express this grid with its three filters is the following statement based on Melanchthon’s teaching: “In the essentials, unity; in the nonessentials, liberty; in all things, love.”

 

The concepts of the essentials and nonessentials raise several applicational questions for the church in general and pastoral leaders in particular.

 

·  Where do we draw lines and erect fences, if at all?    

                            

·  Do we let our views on the non-essentials separate us?  If so, how much, or to what degree?                                           

 

·  Can we do anything together at all?  If so, what can we do and to what extent? Can we meet together in fellowship or cooperate in some joint ministry ventures?

                                               

Here’s another vital question: Are our nonessentials important enough that we want to do any of the following?

 

          · deny someone membership in the church

 

          ·  exclude a member from speaking or teaching at church

 

          ·  keep a member off a church board

 

          ·  challenge or fire a pastor or staff person

 

          · take action that risks dividing or splitting the church

 

          ·  leave a church

 

          · include nonessentials in a doctrinal statement

 

          · form a new denomination or ministry organization

 

 

What the Critics are Saying

It is safe to say by way of introduction that we would be most naïve to believe that some of the following criticisms aren’t true of some of those who are developing new-model churches. However, it’s equally naïve to believe, as many critics imply, that the criticisms are all true of all of these new models. Not only is it naïve, but this sort of claim runs into a logical problem or thinking error known as the sweeping generalization - where we sweep everyone under the same carpet!

 

Those who are detractors and critics of the new church models mount a number of arguments against them and the changes they’ve brought to how we do church. I collected most from personal letters, one-on-one conversations, anti-seeker web sites and some books and articles. As I studied them, I found that many are similar and fall under certain categories. Thus, rather than attempt to list all the arguments and risk much overlap, I’ve organized them into six categories. I’ll present them below with some explanation to help clarify the position. However, I’ll not respond here to the arguments. I address them in general in chapters 4 and following in A New Kind of Church and more specifically in chapter 9 of the same where I give the pros and cons of each argument.

 

1.  The proclamation of Scripture. This first category addresses the general teaching and preaching of God’s word. Critics argue that the new models in general and the seeker church in particular minimize and downplay the proclamation of God’s word. For example, they say the preaching is topical, not expositional. Also, the sermons are more “feel good,” practical messages that soft sell Christianity.

 

2. The focus of Sunday morning worship. The second category addresses what new-paradigm churches do in their services on Sunday mornings. The critics argue that Sunday morning services in these churches wrongfully focus on the unsaved, not the saved. Sunday morning should be a time of edification for the church, not evangelism for the lost. What they mean is that corporate worship that usually or normally takes place on Sunday mornings is for believers, not unbelievers. Sunday morning worship in the new models is high-tech, slick entertainment that caters to the crowds, not the committed people of God.

 

3. The church and evangelism. The criticism concerns the church’s purpose for evangelism and the message of the gospel. Critics argue that the new-paradigm churches soft-pedal the gospel to keep people in the pews. They do preach a gospel message, but it is so compromised that it fails in its primary purpose to move people out of the fallen world and into the kingdom of God.

 

4. The church’s means or methodology for ministry. The focus here is on how the new churches are doing ministry. Some would say this addresses their philosophy of ministry. The critics argue that the church must not use secular means, such as marketing, in its attempts to reach people both saved and lost. The church is taking its cues from the world, using entertainment and marketing devices, such as film clips, skits, comedy, pyrotechnics, light shows and overindulgence in music.  An example would be the seeker church methodology that they claim takes a poll of lost people, finds out what they want in religion, and then makes an all-out effort in the church to provide what they want.

 

5. The motives for the church’s ministry. The critics challenge why the new model churches do what they do. Much of what the new churches are doing is drawing in numbers to fill the pews. They soft-pedal the gospel to keep people in the pews. They seek to appeal to the desires of the unregenerate person- a direct appeal to the flesh.

 

6. The church’s goal for ministry in general. The new-model church’s goal is to bring in lots of people, keep them interested in the church, and to get them to come back next week.

 

Aubrey Malphurs is the president of The Malphurs Group , a church consulting and training service that specializes in leadership and strategic thinking and acting, and serves as a professor at Dallas Seminary. He is also the author of numerous books and articles on church growth and leadership.