The Work of God and the Work of the Church
I just finished a rather insightful and interesting (though somewhat needlessly lengthy) book called, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church by Peter Schmiechen. Schmiechen outlined ten theories of atonement under four different purposes of God. He concludes his work showing how different theories of atonement and their subsequent modes of transmission (how the atonement is applied) shape the church. For example, and this is part Schmiechen and part me, Schmiechen lists John Wesley's theory of atonement as what he calls "wondrous love." The love of God is the rubric for considering all of God's work in Christ. (Schmiechen also shows how Wesley has other elements of atonement, as well.) The application of the atonement is emphasized by growth in grace and the development of perfected love in the believer. As a result, the shape of the church from Wesley's consideration would be centered around deep discipleship and both public and private acts of love.
If Schmiechen is correct and theories of atonement form ecclesiology, then what theory of atonement is driving the ecclesiology of the church growth movement? Across denominational lines, those influenced by Willow and Saddleback look fairly similar. What is the work of God that drives the church to work in this manner? I am open to thoughtful answers because I can't quite put my finger on it. Thoughts?
If Schmiechen is correct and theories of atonement form ecclesiology, then what theory of atonement is driving the ecclesiology of the church growth movement? Across denominational lines, those influenced by Willow and Saddleback look fairly similar. What is the work of God that drives the church to work in this manner? I am open to thoughtful answers because I can't quite put my finger on it. Thoughts?
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:42 PM
11 Comments:
Wormwood: "Screwtape, how can we best prevent the church from being missional and wholistic?"
Screwtape: "My dear Wormwood, we simply get them to focus all their energy on bringing people into the church building and 'discpling' them there. It works out many advantages for us: 1) The impersonal nature, and how the individual gets almost lost in it, leading to 2) The false sense of community---like giving vinegar for those who are thirsty for the true living water of Christ--I love it! and 3) All of their financial resources go to putting on a show that attracts---and this show usually doesn't highlight our Enemy [Jesus] rather, it glorifies themselves <---which is an easy target to denomolish. "
Wormwood: "Ah Screwtape---genius! It IS convenient that they spend money to highlight themselves and not directly our Enemy, because our Enemy is very powerful, but they don't even know that! And yes, the pseudo-community thing--brilliant, I must say. We can work with the resulting disillusionment in so many ways. And the best part? They will have no money left to experience the reiforcing means of grace that is service and fellowship with the poor, and they will become so twisted thinking they are out-reaching when really they are in-reaching.
Screwtape: Yes Wormwood. You are a true anti-Kingdom visionary. This is why I highered you on as our new consultant.
Wow, it takes alot of guts to pour out that sort of ignorant judgement on another part of the kingdom. Especially without offering a more effective alternative.
sorry Aj. Maybe you're right.
I think that God works through the Church Growth movement (obviously), but that it doesn't seem to be very incarnational... And most people come to know God through the Incarnation, and I just don't see/hear a lot of the larger churches worrying focusing on that. But perhaps I don't get out much. I am sorry if I offended you. I love the Church. That is why I wrote this.
Sometimes we can define God only apophatically--by what he "is not"---it's hard to offer up a solid solution sometimes. Even in the OT, God defined himself by saying "I am holy" and "I am just" but it wasn't until the Incarnation that we were truly given a positive-real-sold definition of who God is. We know what God is like by looking at Jesus. If the church is the Bride of Christ, than we should see what the church should be like by looking at Jesus too.
Jesus went out of his building, he fellowshipped with his neighbors, and underdogs. He went to picnics, parties, etc. Again, I didn't mean to be offensive, just critical. What's wrong with criticism?
p.s. I think some of these groups that are making efforts to live in "intentional community" are probably a better alternative. I just wish they didn't downplay the importance of the Church Universal in the process.
p.p.s. Aj, I don't think you know me very well, so you don't know my heart when I typed the above words, but as far as I know it was not about bitterness, or gripe. Just sadness.
aj: perhaps your remark, "Wow, it takes alot of guts to pour out that sort of ignorant judgement on another part of the kingdom. Especially without offering a more effective alternative," would have been an appropriate remark for a recent disparaging comment made about hte theological praxis of 2/3s of the world's Christian community. and without your own critique, the "ignorance" of jo's comment remains to be seen. it might be there, but we don't know that from your post.
oh, and let me add another quote, just for fun: "one of my favorite things about the internet is that you can be relentlessly inflammatory." who said that??? ;)
jo: the question i am after, which i don't think you hit on with your creative post, was what theory of atonement is driving megachurch thinking?
all church models have strengths and faults--oftentimes as they live out their passions and neglect those things which aren't their passions. if Schmiechen is right and atonement thinking drives church models, and if church models live out their passion strongly, what passions are driving the megachurch and what atonement thinking undergirds it? thoughts, jo?
Ah yes, I realized I didn't answer the Q.
Well, I suppose it would be a "God as righteous Judge" model wherein the primary meaning of salvation [by way of emphasis in praxis--not necessarily written out doctrine or worship songs] ends up being:
"The main purpose of the Incarnation was for Jesus to take away the guilt of our sin before a righteous God so that our souls can be redeemed and our lives now connected to an eschatological future in heaven, and a life of verbally worshipping God and verbally/intellectually understanding more and more about God here on earth until we get there. and, we should bring as many souls with us as possible."
This is gonna be long, but lest anyone assume that I only like to criticize without a vision for what should/could be:
I think what is lacking in this Judgement model of atonement is an emphasis on the the redemption of the imageo dei, the restoration of relationship not only with God, but also with the family of God--and with our neighbor, that salvation encompasses more than just the individual repentence, but also encompasses for example: social/emotional healing, growing in personhood (becomeing MORE fully human--true human, like Jesus, not less), caring for others in tangible ways--because the heart of God's salvific Act was to restore ALL OF CREATION back unto Himself in pure loving relationship: This means that God's Act of salvation was for the restoration and healing of everyone and everything-- For the damaged eco-system, for the homeless drug-dealers, for the beligerent, for the enemies of state, for the sick and lame, for the hungry, for the tortured, for the forgotten people in forgotten places, for the birds, for the endangered species, for health of the mountains, etc. And, since God Incarnate is no longer here physically as he was before, it is our responsibility to be his hands and feet (as the Body) to help communicate --largely through action-- the vastness of salvation to everyone we meet and to help restore everything around us as much as possible (recycle, etc). Everyone and Everything becomes valuable and important because Salvation was for Every living one and Every living thing. After the guilt of sin has been washed away, there is so much yet to become!This is true at-One-ment with the Trinity.
Also, I think in this latter view, it is more understood that the Kingdom of God does not reside in a church building, but in our hearts and acts, and the hearts of humans longing after the goodness of God everywhere through all time. I think in this Father-love model of Atonement it is more understood that Christian ministry is not a crusade for souls in heaven (or in our church buildings), but a way of doing life together and learning to care and value eachother as God values us---community for all, open hospitality to the stranger, equality, justice, advocacy, etc.
I guess all of the above is the reason why I am not overly-keen on church growth emphasis--it's too easy to get twisted up into a binary vision of salvation rather than a multivalent vision.
I'm done now. sorry--ya'll touched a Kingdom passion nerve...
Hi Jo, I wasn't trying to give a stern rebuke, just trying to be inflammatory. I think it's part of how a mouthy kid like me copes with the diplomatic requirements of local church ministry. I don't think ill of you and although I don't know you well I certainly don't question your love for Christ or his church. I also didn't mean ignorant in the popular sense (farting in public) I more meant it in the without adequate information sense as in it's hard to paint every church over x number of attenders with the same brush. I think Mega churches are very incarnational, especially given the context most of them live in. I think the mega church has been a very effective model for reaching middle and upper-class baby-boomers among others. To my knowledge, he classic mega church - Willow Creek also does all of the things you mentioned as incarnational as well as ministering to the mentally handicapped, single moms living in poverty, disadvantaged communities and churches, and the list goes on. The biggest problem with the mega church model is not what they do but what other people choose to emphasize about what they do. If what they were famous for was all they did they would be a pretty sad set up indeed. The more I learn about a church like Willow the more I like what I see and the more I realize that the flashy seeker services and the large campus are just the sprinkles on the icing on the cake. I also think the leading ones suffer from their immatators. I think alot of the complaints about transfer growth are more valid in the immatators then in the leaders.
As far as offering a more effective alternative goes i don't think there is a more effective alternative for reaching the type of people most mega churches reach. I think the most effective church model for making believers is very tied to the culture of the people you are reaching and that the question A best model for church is on faulty ground to start with.
As for the theory of the atonement that drives mega churches – if accept the notion that Bill Hybels is the pope of the Mega Church movement (which I’m not sure is the same as the church growth movement – Bill would prefer the term “prevailing” over Mega) and assume he has the power to speak ex-cathedra then it’s what he said at the Leadership Summit. AP Summerized it as “a mixture of satisfaction and penal substitution theories”. I have no idea how that walks itself out but that’s Hybles stated theory of the atonement.
great point, aj, on hybels' own words. i did think about that and believe part of the individualism jo mentioned shone through in his words. i remember one aspect of the talk that i'd be more htan willing to reconsider if my memory is not serving me properly as being that one shouldn't take the "hit" that's coming. something like that.
Ah, well, Aj, i'm a little relieved, I must say. As for thinking that megachurches are incarnational---you may be right. I have only had experiences in 2 larger churches (one 1100 attenders for six years, and the other with around 600 attenders for six months) and both were located in the suburbs. The smaller of the two was able to be the most incarnational, imo. I have visited Willow Creek once, and have never been to saddleback. I have considered your response, but I still think that these churches that want to be like Willow and Saddleback end up losing their incarnational Christ-vision somehow. Especially if they are suburban churches in wealthy economic areas of the country. So I guess I agree most with what this part of what you said: "The biggest problems with megachurch model is not what they do but what other people choose to emphasize about what they do."
You have reminded me, rightly, that I don't know everything there is to know about what Megachurches actually do, and that I shouldn't paint them all the same color, but I am still leery of them somehow. I like the earthiness of grassroots church--sorta reminds me of a manger scene. But that's just the Don Miller-esque spirituality and Pocahontas forrest hippie in me. Perhaps I am not one made for Kingdom-living in the suburbs is all. You are correct in saying that there is no correct church model that each must fit with it's surrounding populational needs, in some respects. But, I still think that the individual get's lost in the mega church, and that in the church growth movement, people are far more likely to become a number rather than growing in personhood. I'm a pessimist by nature though, and maybe I'm just seeing through grey-colored glasses.
As for atonement theories, AP, I'm curious as to your speculation of how penal satisfaction/substution can be tied to the actual praxis of our suburban churches of moderate size. Can you paint the picture?
AP, you were so right about Potok. There was much packed into that little read.
AP - I would definitely agree that it seems most mega churches have a individualistic view of salvation but I think that is more a function of their evangelical-ness not their size. It's a market they definitely don't have a corner on.
Jo - I'm no expert on mega churches, the only two I think I can even speak intelligently on are Willow and, to a lesser extent, Northpoint. I hear lot’s of stories about people how people feel really loved and part of a community at Willow. Again, I think they often get judged on their cheap imitations. I think that there is a lot to be said for how Mega Churches adapt to their culture. Based on your comments so far it’s not your culture or the model of church you best connect with and it’s not mine either. We have an easy time being sympathetic to a model of church that doesn’t suit us but that reaches the poor, or immigrants, or visible minorities, or people in the developing world. The problem is it’s darn hard for us to work up sympathy for six figure making, 2 Lexus driving, cottage going, 5 bedroom house owning, multiple degree earning, self focusing, comfortable white people. However if you have ever tried seriously to reach those kind of people you have to respect how effective Willow Creek has been. The hard part is figuring out when you cross the line from being culturally relevant (if the guy is worried about his soul and not his neighbors then talk to him about his soul first) to perpetuating a cycle.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home