On Change in the Church
I’ve just finished reading The Fire and the Staff by Rev. Klemet Preus. It’s an outstanding examination of the relationship between doctrine and practice. Rev. Preus lays things out in a very cogent, witty, and easy to read way, both in assessing where Lutheranism has fallen away from orthodoxy, and in showing how that orthodoxy can be reclaimed by coming “back to the ways that have characterized Lutheranism and much of Christendom for centuries.”
It’s a great book — Get it. Read it. Now. 
Of particular note, at least for the purposes of this posting, is the focus of Chapter 12 - The Fire Stoked: Change in the Church - i.e., change. The meat of this chapter is encapsulated in the five fundamental principles of change in the church, as outlined by Luther in his Invocavit Sermons of March 9-16, 1522. These sermons were given by Luther upon his return to Wittenberg from his post-Diet of Worms safekeeping at the Wartburg Castle. This return to Wittenberg was necessitated by the radical, and almost anarchical, change set off and encouraged by Carlstadt. The city council of Wittenberg beseechingly invited Luther back to speak to this wave of change, which Luther accepted despite the misgivings of Duke Frederick of Saxony, Luther’s elector and protector.
In these eight sermons, Luther gives us a bold blueprint for approaching churchly change from a Gospel, theology-of-the-cross, -based perspective. He did not fan the flames of radical, anti-Romanist change. Rather, he laid out these five fundamental principals:
- Change must be required by the Gospel.
- The Word, not force, should effect change.
- If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.
- Don’t let yourself get pushed around.
- Always yield to the weak.
Now, I’m not going to go into an in-depth discussion of these fundamentals, at least in this posting. I hope to do so over the coming days, but I’ve got to be honest and admit that I might not get to it as quickly as I might like…
These five fundamentals, however, are quite deserving of great consideration. I must admit that, even after reading Rev. Preus’s wonderful explanations, I have have had trouble with these principles, especially #2 & #4. And I probably will continue to have trouble in the future. I’m impatient, and more than a little too confident in my own abilities.
Rev. Preus, however, has done me a great service in that his book has helped me understand where some of my weaknesses lie, and what I need to ask God to help me out with. It’s nothing the Bible doesn’t tell me, mind you, but I can be a bit thick sometimes. In any event, it certainly helps to have a framework upon which to base Scriptural studies.
There’s a lot more I’d like to say about all of this, but I think I’ll cut it short for now, and leave the rest for future posts…
-ghp
Baneful Numbers
I must admit that I find it quite comforting when I come across a posting in the blogosphere that closely hews to my own take on things. It’s nice to know that one is not alone, particularly when dealing with things/trends that are hurtful to the church.
Pastor Alms, over at incarnatus est, has made just such a posting, regarding the unfortunate obsession with numbers suffered by our sinful flesh. I share his hatred of numbers as the be-all & end-all of “judging success” — as well as his lapses into doing that very thing which we know is wrongheaded & counterproductive.
And you don’t have to be a pastor to head on over there, read the posting, & contemplate what it means. Thank God for the gracious gift of His Son, the cross, and the forgiveness that was purchased for us there — for it is that good news, and that Balm of Gilead, that provides such supreme & rock-solid comfort for the times when we’ve been convicted (if not outright crushed) by the Law.
-ghp
Franchising God
In today’s Chicago Tribune, I read a particularly disquieting article about what seems to be an emerging trend — franchising churches!
The article (to which I link here, with full attribution to the Chicago Tribune, so hopefully they won’t sic their lawyers on me, as I think this reasonably falls within the Fair Use gray area…) talks about this latest trend in the neo-evangelical/Methobapticostal/nondenominational circles, which has been labeled “multi-site churches.” It seems that as they expand to “satellite” locations, these churches are feeling the need to keep control of their “brand” & the brand experience, so as to ensure proper brand loyalty.
Willow Creek pastor Jim Tomberlin (who was hired away from a Colorado Megachurch to oversee Willow Creek’s “mult-isite” expansion program) states, When Starbucks opens up a Starbucks, people expect it to be Starbucks, not a mom-and-pop coffee shop. There’s a lot of meaning in the Willow brand.
I find these next three quotes to be quite ironic…
Jim Hilmer, a Florida marketing consultant and a former executive for Blockbuster and the the Leo Burnett ad agency, is impressed by the trend. “I think it’s very inventive for the church world,” he said. “Most churches are pretty staid and tradition-bound.”
In the business world, they call this kind of thing franchising. In evangelicalism, it’s known as the multi-site church, and it is a growing trend with a similar aim: providing consistent quality and service wherever you go.”
“We all do the same message, but it will sound and feel a little different at each location just because of the multicultural aspect,” said New Life pastor Mark Jobe.
So, I guess it’s ok, if not downright imperative, to have a consistent branding and “experiential” message, so long as it’s packaged, innovative, and new/different every week. But it’s bad, “staid,” “tradition-bound,” and legalistic if that consistency is extended from week to week, as when we use the historic liturgy in the Divine Service.
Ohhhhh, I see…
FEH!!!
Please, come Lord Jesus, and spare me from any more of this scheiss!
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
