Keys for Ministry Stability and Progress (Part 2)
In the previous post we introduced the following:
Ministries need unity in vision, mission, philosophy, and doctrine for the work of the ministry to flourish without being impeded by the turmoil that comes from a mixed multitude of people who fundamentally disagree on any one of these four categories.
In this post we’ll pick back up with the importance of philosophical unity and conclude with the importance of doctrinal unity.
Philosophy
How should the church carry out its mission?
The church should be known for its holiness. That is, the church (and Christians and other Christian institutions) must have a philosophy that directs the practice of its people (while carrying out the mission) toward distinctness from a godless world system. This must apply to both personal piety and the public square (socio-political or cultural engagement). Leaders cannot have the attitude that all that matters is doctrinal fidelity while practice can remain wide open for a broad spectrum of practices. This has led to the mixed multitude that has frayed institutions by all the infighting. The solution was not to ignore or minimize philosophy in order to “remain unified” but to unite people together on a clear philosophical approach.
What are the options?
–Christ of Culture: this approach is marked by blatantly copying, co-opting (syncretism), and consuming worldliness—this worldliness begins in the heart but manifests itself in concrete ways: lifestyles, conversation, values, identification…
–Christ Transforming Culture: this approach is marked by some critique of culture (while often consuming it anyways, rarely if ever willing to condemn anything); although it claims to redeem the godless culture, more often than not the godless culture transforms the people who promote this approach. Why? This approach is marked by a strategy that must accommodate and appease the culture in order to gain influence. It is marked by a thirst to be well-thought of by a watching world to gain the world’s respect (on the world’s terms) for being intellectually astute. It is marked by distancing itself from the embarrassment of those consistent conservatives who confront and condemn the culture as worldly and antithetical to Christ. In its efforts for cultural renewal the bar must be lowered to optimistically project that progress is being made when the culture is actually waxing worse and worse.
–Christ and Culture in Paradox: this approach is marked by a confrontation of culture that is fundamentally at odds with God and His ways. This approach is known by antithesis to a godless world system that aligns with the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:1-3) as opposed to God’s kingdom that should mark its kingdom citizens as transformed by the light of righteousness (Col. 1:12-13). This approach allows for engagement with culture but also requires a bold stand that unashamedly stands in distinction from that which is unholy.
–Christ Against Culture: this approach is marked by condemnation not only of most all of culture as a whole but also condemnation of most all involvement with culture. It is marked by a perfectionistic view of sanctification (higher life pietism) that leads to a pharisaical legalistic isolationism from the world (with lots of inconsistencies since that isolationism is not actually possible). In fact, sin raises its ugly head even in a pietistic realm because sin is in all our hearts.
Certainly, a cultural philosophy of antithesis best represents the biblical data fully harmonized. Since culture is group behavior based on worldview beliefs and values, culture must be critiqued accordingly. And some elements of culture are perversions that can only be confronted and condemned; they cannot be redeemed. Other aspects of culture need to be purified and reoriented to God’s creational order as faithful believers live in light of redemption. But a utopian renewal will not finally, perfectly, and lastingly occur until Christ returns. These realities support antithesis to the culture (rather than transformationalism). Thus, this philosophy leads to a mission focused on the gospel and eternity (not in a pious withdrawal but to guide one’s engagement with the culture).
Another major factor that will affect philosophy (in addition to a position on culture) is a position on sanctification. Legalism and license (free grace theology) will misdirect. Progressive sanctification must be rightly understood: sanctification must flow out of the regenerating work of the Spirit who internalizes the intent of the law (not abrogating the law). That new life that must be worked out practically leading to holiness (see the argument in the book of James, esp. 1:19-2:26). A truncated gospel that emphasizes justification to the neglect of regeneration and sanctification that flows from that regeneration will lead to license (even if one theoretically holds to a correct view of sanctification—it must be emphasized and rightly harmonized with one’s theology of justification).
And this leads to the final category: the importance of doctrine.
Doctrine
What beliefs must guard the church from operating according to error?
The fundamental foundation that grounds and undergirds the philosophy, mission, and vision must be solid doctrine. Doctrine defines. It helps one determine the level of relationships that would be appropriate.
–Primary Doctrine: that which verifies that a person is a true believer because he does not knowingly reject something that is fundamental to the truth of the saving gospel (examples include the inerrancy of the Bible, the vicarious penal atonement, the virgin birth, miracles, the deity of Christ…). Primary doctrine could also relate to things that, whether intended or not, fundamentally undermine the above examples—especially after someone has been confronted and persists in inconsistency—the only reason why the person may be considered a Christian is that thankfully the person is inconsistent with what should logically follow to undermine the fundamentals (one example would include compromise with evolution). This determines whether your relationship is evangelistic or whether personal Christian fellowship can be granted. It also determines how much confidence you can grant in extending Christian fellowship.
–Secondary Doctrine: such important doctrinal differences that fundamentally affect the categorical teaching/framework of biblical interpretation or the mission and practice of the church (examples include covenant versus dispensational theology, perfectionistic sanctification versus progressive sanctification; baptism by immersion versus infant sprinkling…). What happens if there are disagreements over secondary doctrine? Believers may operate on a broad-based level in Bible conferences, liberal arts education, and other broad parachurch ways if they have general theological and philosophical agreement that rallies them around a common cause despite secondary differences. However, local churches (and probably many missions agencies, seminaries, Bible colleges) would find cooperation difficult because secondary differences make it difficult to consistently carry out teaching and practice that does not violate the conscience.
–Tertiary Doctrine: teachings that are specific enough (not categorical or a whole framework) and unclear enough that Christians who agree on primary and secondary doctrinal frameworks can disagree and still operate generally consistently in a local church (examples include disagreements over who wrote the book of Hebrews or whether OT believers were permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit…). These issues should not divide a church.
–Personal Opinions: human traditions or opinions that are so detached from biblical commands or implications by clear biblical principles have no place in dividing people (examples might be very specific policies related to socio-political causes or economics, using essential oils or not, analysis of historical events…). Certainly, a biblical worldview can provide some broad-based conclusions and maybe even some specific conclusions about these things. But too often, a person can be guilty of projecting opinions onto things to make them out to be definitively one thing when in fact someone can argue other interpretations or point out other factors. The bottom line is that one cannot provide a definitive, authoritative, revelatory critique and then conflate their own opinions with biblical authority on every detail; such an attempt leads to cultism reflective of true arrogance. There will always be those who are specialists in a field that may indeed know more than those who are not, but they must be wary of pride. Sometimes the common sense of the common man does indeed overthrow the “wisdom” of the elites who presume too much about their own knowledge.
The goal should be to find unity around primary and secondary doctrines and to be wary of disunity due to tertiary doctrines and personal opinions. Danger arises from those who dismiss the importance of primary doctrines (separation from false teachers or disobedient brethren) or even secondary doctrines (limiting some partnerships in some endeavors). Dangers also arise from those who insist on absolutizing their own personal opinions or tertiary doctrine, foisting it on others and demanding they conform.
Engaging in Doing the Work of the Ministry
Once you have a leadership that clearly enunciates the vision, mission, philosophy, and doctrine that binds people together in a common unified cause that is approached in a common unified way, then a movement will flourish and move forward in accomplishing its mission with healthy unity. Unrest will be removed as everyone works together.
But it takes a lot of work to clearly enunciate all the details of a truly unified vision, mission, philosophy, and doctrine. And it also divides people, making a local church or movement smaller. Many would rather gloss over or generalize things to keep their institutions or movements bigger because of all kinds of pragmatic reasons (including keeping their jobs). But is the conflict and compromise worth it? In the end, people think that they’ll accomplish more for God with a minimalistic approach that allows for a broad tent. But God most often works through the small and the weak things of this world. A smaller, more efficient unified group should be preferred over a conflicted and compromised large group. Just as plants must be pruned to grow healthy, so also institutions need to go through a pruning process. Otherwise, in the long run, the institutions that were left untended will shrivel and die. Those who claim the pruning is killing the institution are actually the ones killing them by refusing to cut out that which is unhealthy.
However, if you attempt to bring about a smaller more genuinely unified group for a more efficient and God-honoring separated ministry, you will be accused of being arrogant and divisive.
In the next series of posts, we’ll walk through James 1:19-4:12 to evaluate the accusations against externalism, legalism, and divisiveness as well as to caution ourselves to go about this endeavor with a truly wise, humble, and peace-keeping manner.
—
Resources:
This post’s scope did not allow for a fuller biblical defense of the presuppositions and conclusions regarding church mission, philosophy, and doctrine (particularly progressive sanctification). Therefore, the following resources that have shaped those assumptions will have to suffice.
The Mission of the Church:
Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What is the Mission of the Church? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011).
Christ and Culture:
Mid-Ametica Conference on Preaching at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (2008)
https://dbts.edu/macp-resources-2008/
Specifically, Dr. Snoeberger’s presentation “Notes Toward a Definition of Culture”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sp3wNeT8sUopa-NwhfFr6PHE3EO2qQCA/view?usp=drive_open
Specifically, Dr. Snoeberger’s presentation “A Review of D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AI9oIhy8RPOD0w0kq7ii1_c3d_drxxcC/view?usp=drive_open
Dr. Snoeberger’s journal article: “D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited: A Reflection and Response” DBSJ 13 (2008), 93-107.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NcyClnXuoNFdwxw7Grr2aPLr_d1Mx76C/view
Dr. Snoeberger’s journal article: “Noetic Sin, Neutrality, and Contextualization: How Culture Receives the Gospel” DBSJ 9 (2004), 345-378.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HtCJh2SOeRcleR4Xgc4DSRiuy-xBVcuP/view
Scott Aniol, By the Waters of Babylon: Worship in a Post-Christian Culture (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015).
Progressive Sanctification:
MACP at DBTS (2014)
https://dbts.edu/macp-resources-2014/
Specifically Dr. Snoeberger’s presentation “Is Sanctification a Part of the Gospel for which We are Together?”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EafMR-4il6qaiWEO1aNDN6Nh_l2aYy2J/view?usp=drive_open
E3 Pastors Conference at DBTS: Dr. Snoeberger’s presentation “Definitive Sanctification as a Safeguard Against Unbiblical Models of Progressive Sanctification”
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aj7QlnMBDkIw93swPP3KAUpHAJ9_
Layton Talbert, “The Sanctification Spiral” BJU Seminary blog Feb. 5, 2019
https://seminary.bju.edu/theology-in-3d/the-sanctificational-spiral/
Helpful books:
An Infinite Journey by Andrew Davis
The Mortification of Sin by John Owen
The Hole in our Holiness by Kevin DeYoung
Set Apart by R. Kent Hughes
Love not the World by Randy Leedy
Kevin Collins has served as a junior high youth leader in Michigan, a missionary in Singapore, a Christian School teacher in Utah, and a Bible writer for the BJU Press. He currently works for American Church Group of South Carolina.
Photo by Carl Cerstrand on Unsplash