The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity

This post was originally published on Intrepid Lutherans in May of 2012, under the title, Vatican II, the Church Growth Movement, contemporary “Sectarian Worship”, and Indiscriminate Ecumenism: A Brief History and Synopsis of their Relationship

---

Sectarian Worship (also known as “Contemporary” or “Charismatic” Worship) is not just a benign preference that some choose to engage in for strictly personal or otherwise irrelevant and inconsequential reasons, but is always adopted with a purpose in mind. Often, that purpose is to use man's choice of practice as a necessary means of drawing or keeping people within the family of Christ, apart from which, people will unnecessarily spend eternity in Hell and the Church on Earth will shrink and die. This necessity, whether confessed or not, is demonstrated in the rejection of other forms historically associated with confessional Lutheranism, forms which are viewed as old, irrelevant, and thus incapable of drawing a crowd (which is supposedly necessary for worship practice to accomplish, since true Christian worshipers won't come on their own), of keeping its interest for one hour a week (which is also supposedly necessary, since true Christians don't normally have an internal motivation to remain interested in Law & Gospel preaching and the Sacrament for one hour a week), according to the shifting fads and priorities of contemporary pop-culture (which is also supposedly necessary, since true Christians are unable to recognize and appreciate the uniquely cross-cultural and consistent historical practices of the Church Catholic). Thus, also involved in the purpose behind adopting Sectarian Worship, is, as the title of this worship practice implies, to volitionally express a separation and “apart-ness” from the catholicity of the Lutheran Confession, and consequently, whether confessed or not, a togetherness with all those who likewise reject the notion of catholicity, regardless of their confession.

These supposedly evangelical motivations view the Divine Service, not exclusively as the privilege of the passive Believer to be served by His Lord and Saviour in Word and Sacrament, but, eschewing this notion, views the worship assembly as primarily an assembly of unBelievers; they do not view the function of the “Worship Service” solely as a process for focusing the Believer on the centrality of Christ and the Means through which He serves His own (as does the Divine Service), but primarily as a stage upon which is mounted the active foci of the worshiper – musicians and orators – as those foci engage in the age-old task of mass-manipulation and crass salesmanship. And because of the inherent ecumenical nature of these “evangelical motivations,” there is, among those Lutherans who adopt Sectarian Worship forms, a palpable fear of distinguishing Believer from unBeliever in the worship assembly, and worse, of distinguishing orthodox Believers from heterodox – a fear which results in two equally egregious abuses: an invitation to everyone to partake of Christ's Body and Blood (upon the functionally meaningless condition of “private self-examination,” of course), or the elimination of the embarrassing Sacrament from the Service altogether.

Modern Sectarian Worship is a contemporary peculiarity of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which sprung mostly from Arminian and Baptistic influences in mid-20^th Century America oblivious to the the Lutheran and Scriptural teachings of the Church, of Predestination, and of the Means of Grace, and is today being referred to by confessional Lutherans as Functional Arminianism. In fact, the topic of Functional Arminianism (in the context of Predestination, no less) came up relatively recently on Intrepid Lutherans, in a comment to the post Circuit Pastor Visitation. In that comment, I directed readers to a recent and important paper on the topic of Functional Arminianism, stating

“...a very recent paper delivered to the LCMS Indiana District by Rev. Heath Curtis, has finally resurrected this discussion in a fruitful way – of applying Predestination to evangelical practice. Here are the links to his essay, in four parts:
“Part I: Freed from the Shopkeeper's Prison - Election, Evangelism, and Functional Arminianism
“Part II: Bible and Confessional Study on Election and Evangelism
“Part III: What is the Pastor's Job?
“Part IV: How to Run a Lutheran Evangelism Program”

As a choice, the Sectarian Worship of the Church Growth Movement, in distinctly Arminian evangelical fervor,

• vaunts man and his efforts with respect to the Church;
• augments by man's efforts, or entirely eliminates, the Holy Spirit from His own work, and
• thus inherently and unavoidably discards the Means of Grace as insufficient and ultimately superfluous;
• removes Christ and His service to man from the center of the Divine Service, and instead places man, his interests and his entertainment needs at the center, calling it "his service to God" in the Worship Service;
• and blasphemes God by crediting the results of man’s work, outside of and apart from the direct use of the Means of Grace (i.e., bald numeric growth in the visible church), to the Holy Spirit, with statements like, “Such an increase in numbers! Surely, this is the work of the Holy Spirit, alone! Praise God, that He equipped us with the right organizational tools to save all these people!”

It is no accident that the Charismatic Renewal in greater American Protestantism coincided with the rise of Church Growth theories emanating from Fuller Seminary, and it is no accident that the introduction of Church Growth theories emerged from Fuller at the same time this institution was the center of doctrinal controversy – indeed, the epicenter of a veritable crisis in American Christianity.

Fuller Seminary and the Church Growth Movement
Established in 1947 as the flagship theological institution of the burgeoning Evangelical Movement – an ecumenical movement begun in reaction against the separatism of Fundamentalists (viewed as a barrier to spreading the Gospel and to engaging in constructive dialog with errorists) – Fuller Theological Seminary initially stood as a theologically conservative Evangelical bulwark, and progenitor of “the new paradigm” of evangelical methodology. Among pop-church Evangelicals, it is still a widely respected institution. Within a decade of its founding, however, cracks in the foundation of this bulwark began to reveal themselves, and by 1972 they had become chasms, as Fuller went on record officially questioning the veracity of the Scriptures by striking the phrase “...free from all error in the whole and in the part...” from their statement concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. The environment created at Fuller by raging internal struggles over the inerrancy of the Scriptures, coupled with ecumenical predilections under the waving banner of the “new evangelicalism,” provided both the soil and the atmosphere in which the ideas of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) could germinate and flourish.

In 1965, “the father of the church growth movement,” Donald McGavran, became Dean of the Fuller School of World Mission (now the School of Intercultural Studies), moving that department to Fuller from the school at which he had founded it in 1961. Thirty-four years' experience as a missionary in India led him in 1954 to begin developing his own entirely pragmatic notions of “cultural contextualization” for the purpose of “Christianizing whole peoples,” etc. One can immediately see the preoccupation with mass appeal and the inordinate fixation on popular culture that these notions engender, and the displacement of concern over individual souls, along with any sense of catholicity, that result from them – indeed, McGavran, in his Bridges of God repudiated the notion of carrying the Gospel to individuals as counterproductive to true evangelical “Church Growth,” inevitably leading to the acceptance of particularly revolting and unscriptural Church Growth principles, such as “scaffolding”¹. C. Peter Wagner was a disciple of McGavran’s at Fuller, and was later passed the mantle of CGM prophet.

But these were not the only influences at work at Fuller.

Ecumenism and the “Pentecostal Experience”
A primary purpose of the Evangelical Movement, as a reaction against Fundamentalism, was ecumenism, and this Evangelical purpose was seriously supported and engaged at Fuller. Enter “Mr. Pentecost,” David J. du Plessis, who had been active through the 1950’s as an ardent proponent of ecumenism on behalf of the Pentecostals, convinced that the Pentecostal “experience” could serve as an effective ecumenical bridge to non-Pentecostals (namely, the historic mainline denominations) and help bring unity to Christianity worldwide.

That “experience” had its modern genesis partly in the Brethren movements of Europe² in the early/mid-1800's (the left-overs of Scandinavian and German Pietism), but especially in the practices of the Scottish Irvingites with whom John Nelson Darby (Plymouth Brethren) spent much time during their outbreaks of agalliasis (“manifestations of the Holy Spirit,” which, among the Irvingites at that time and place, included practices such as automatic writing, levitation, and communication with the dead³) and whose practice and theology (including the foundations of Dispensationalism) influenced him greatly. Passing from Darby to James H. Brooks and Cyrus I. Scofield in America, his teaching has continued to see development over the years and is still disseminated by Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Bob Jones University and others.

These experiential practices began finding their way to America at about the same time that a charlatan known as Charles Finney exploited the use of these “New Methods,” as they were called, during America's “Second Great Awakening,” fueling the fever of “revivalism” and captivating Christians with the allure of the “Anxious Bench” as a means of saving souls⁴. Widespread use of such practices strengthened the Brethren movements and touched off the Holiness Movements within Methodism (which later developed into [and at Azusa Street, Los Angeles in 1906, was confirmed as] full-blown Pentecostalism). By the mid- to late-1800's, such radical practices defined “American Worship” – and it was precisely these forms that Walther notoriously condemned. Even the Old Norwegian Synod, in the 1916 edition of its Lutheran Hymnary, Junior stated its warning against Sectarian “American Worship” forms:

The songs of childhood should be essentially of the same character as the songs of maturity. The child should therefore learn the easiest and best of the songs he is to sing as a communicant member of the Christian Congregation. Old age delights in the songs learned in childhood. The religious songs learned in children should therefore be worth while. We want childlike songs, but not childish songs. The early songs should be the choicest congregation songs adaptable to his age and capacities. In the same manner as he is taught the rudiments of Christian theology through Luther's “Smaller Catechism” and the chief Bible stories through the “Bible History,” he should also be taught the words and tunes of our most priceless church songs and chorals. It can be done just as easily as teaching him a number of equally difficult and perhaps new songs and tunes which will never be sung in his congregation. It should be done, for a child should be trained up the way he should go (Pr. 22:6)

...The songs of Lutheran children and youth should be essentially from Lutheran sources. The Lutheran Church is especially rich in songs and hymns of sound doctrine, high poetical value and fitting musical setting. They express the teachings and spirit of the Lutheran Church and help one to feel at home in this Church. Of course, there are songs of high merit and sound Biblical doctrine written by Christians in other denominations also, and some of these could and should find a place in a Lutheran song treasury. But the bulk of the songs in a Lutheran song book should be drawn from Lutheran sources. We should teach our children to remain in the Lutheran Church instead of to sing themselves into some Reformed sect.

By engaging in such forms, the Old Norwegian Synod insisted, Lutherans will wind up singing their way out of their own Confession. A sound application of lex orandi, lex credendi.

With widespread criticism against these experiential “American Worship” forms, and, let’s face it, their rather shallow substance, infantile antics, and transparently manipulative purposes, such practices fell out of fashion by the early 1900's (as “contemporary” forms have a habit of doing anyway). Nevertheless, Pentecostals continued to cling to them, and continued to develop them alongside their theology. Accordingly, such worship forms have come to mean much of the following:

• the actions of the worshiper are themselves Means of Grace, or means through which the Holy Spirit supposedly comes to, and works in, the worshiper;
• the Holy Spirit's work in and through the worshiper’s actions is generally regarded as a function of the zeal with which the worshiper engages in them;
• the purpose of these acts is human centered, “to draw near to God in the act of worship,” that He would reciprocate by drawing near to the worshiper and experientially confirm for the worshiper that the Holy Spirit is with him, and that he is therefore accepted and loved by God;
• these acts of “drawing near to God” are really acts of man's yearning, tarrying, and striving, of wrestling with God through worship and prayer with the expectation that He give the blessing of spiritual experience in return;
• the assurance of one's salvation is measured by the magnitude of the blessing which proceeds from successfully wrestling with God – in the experience of God Himself through worship;
• such experience of the Holy Spirit's presence in worship or prayer, or “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” is public confirmation of an individual's “spiritual anointing,” of his salvation and approval before God, and serves as divine qualification and appointment for ministerial authority in the congregation (creating levels of Christians in the congregation based on relative “spirituality”);
• apart from such visible experiences, the individual is naturally prompted to introspection regarding why God does not bless him with His presence (with the usual explanations being sin or doubt, or not really being saved, or even demonic possession), and is looked upon with suspicion by fellow worshipers as one who is not visibly accepted and blessed by God – both factors leading individual worshipers who lack spiritual experiences to guilt and dismay;
• as a result, many of those who have habituated themselves to the “Pentecostal Experience,” also have a keenly developed ability to whip themselves into a frothy lather (to avoid introspection and the suspicion of others, and to vaunt their spirituality in the eyes of others); if they cannot, or do not, or are unable to reach a pinnacle of spiritual euphoria according to their own expectations, or those of their peers, they just blame it on the band for “not doing it right;”
• worship accompaniment must therefore serve the need of the worshipers to have particular spiritual experiences, by manufacturing those experiences for them;
• and these experiences are referred to as “the working of the Holy Spirit,” even though they are little more than the cooperative effort of human worshipers seeking hard after emotional/psychological “spiritual experiences,” and of human entertainers, mounted on stages in classic entertainment-oriented venues, who are skilled at providing those experiences for their audiences;
• thus, the “Pentecostal Experience,” and all of its derivatives (including contemporary “Sectarian Worship”), are the epitome of anthropocentric worship practice, which, as stated above, remove Christ and His service to man from the center of the Divine Service, and instead place man, his interests and his entertainment needs at the center... and blaspheme God by crediting the results of man’s work, outside of and apart from the direct use of the Means of Grace, to the Holy Spirit..

The “Pentecostal Experience,” Vatican II and the Charismatic Renewal
Pentecostalism dwindled over the early decades of the 20^th Century to near insignificance. It was in the throes of this insignificance that David J. du Plessis, the ardently ecumenical Pentecostal, secured a position as Pentecostal Representative to the Second Vatican Council. Following Vatican II came implicit encouragement to Roman Catholics to reach out to Protestants through investigation and even experimentation with worship forms that appeal to them, which eventually led in the 1960’s to the opening of the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal.” The Charismatic Renewal had already begun in some quarters of liberal protestantism, but following the start of the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” it began to rapidly spread among Episcopalians and liberal Lutherans, until finally, beginning in the late 1970’s it spread to Reformed Evangelicalism where it was swiftly incorporated by the Church Growth Movement as a necessary component of the congregation’s corporate experience – specifically, necessary to the salvation of souls, since appealing to unregenerate culture on its own terms, and to individuals directly through means of physical and emotional manipulation (rather than the public use of the Means of Grace, Word and Sacrament), was considered necessary to attract the un-churched from pop-culture, secure their conversion, and increase the membership of the congregation. Hence the connection of “worship style” to so-called “evangelism” – similar to Papistic ritualism which was also considered necessary for salvation, and was the cause of its repudiation by the Reformers.

Fuller Seminary, the Charismatic Renewal and the Church Growth Movement
The incorporation of “Charismatic Worship” as a necessary component of the Church’s practice was immeasurably influenced by the ecumenical and evangelical work of Fuller Seminary. By the mid-1970's du Plessis had an ongoing partnership with Fuller Seminary, as a consultant on ecumenical issues, and by the mid-1980’s, Fuller Seminary had erected the multi-million dollar David J. du Plessis Center for the Study of Christian Spirituality in his honor. It was also about this time, in 1974, that the Quaker, John Wimber, was hired as the founding Director of the Department of Church Growth at the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth. Wimber left that position in 1978, starting what would become the very influential Vinyard Movement. By the mid-1980's C. Peter Wagner was not only the chief exponent of CGM, he was, along with John Wimber, also one of the chief prophets of the Signs and Wonders Movement, inextricably linking CGM with Pentecostalism and Charismaticism.

The notions under which “Sectarian” or “Charismatic Worship” was introduced to the Lutheran Church in the era of the Charismatic Renewal were entirely foreign to her practice. Striving to achieve ecumenical unity through shared experience across denominations, it was also foreign to her Confessions. Clawing for approval by Arminian standards of evangelical necessity, it betrayed her entire body of doctrine. The fact is, the Church Growth Movement and Sectarian/Charismatic Worship, insomuch as they evangelically strive to achieve by man’s own alternative means what the Scriptures say is exclusively the Holy Spirit's work through the Means of Grace, by definition begin with a low view of the Scriptures and the Sacraments, and with a dismissive attitude toward the Holy Spirit’s work through those Means. Insofar as CGM “evangelically” regards such manufactured worship experiences as necessary for the salvation of souls, CGM practices directly serve the synergistic doctrines of Arminianism. The ancient liturgical principle of lex orandi, lex credendi must be respected with regard to these points. Moreover, Church Growth methods along with Sectarian/Charismatic Worship were designed to function cross-denominationally as ecumenical bridges, and whether engaged in with these purposes in mind or not, they are nevertheless understood among those who regularly practice them as ecumenical expressions, and thus, when engaged in by confessional Lutherans, make a mockery of our Confessional unity and voluntary separation from the heterodox.

False practice leads to false thinking, and eventually false belief
It has been said that there are no non-smokers like former smokers. The same can be said of former Evangelicals, particularly those of us who lived through the height of the Charismatic Renewal and nevertheless emerged with an intelligible, articulable Confession – in other words, who miraculously emerged rejecting vapid Evangelicalism, mindless Charismaticism and the Arminian Church Growth theories that have facilitated their proliferation, who have emerged with a clear view wrought from long experience with how false practice induces false thinking and eventually false believing, having watched friends and family lose their faith as a result, and having only been saved ourselves “as though escaping through flames.” Experience. Decades of first-hand experience with false practice and the false belief that follows from it. I’m not about to live through it again, nor am I going to subject my children to it.



------------
Endnotes:

1. According to the purely utilitarian CGM theory of “scaffolding,” the backs and money of established and active members of a congregation exist solely for the use of that organization's “leadership,” on which they are not only free, but ordained by God, to build something new and foreign according to the “vision” God directly reveals to them, regardless of anyone's objections. When those who object, or realize they've simply been used, leave the congregation as a result, their departure is happily accepted by “leadership,” who appeal to a twisted version of God's sovereignty to excuse their gross actions against those entrusted to their spiritual care, by concluding that God, having led such departing members away from the congregation, has merely indicated to them that their work on the “scaffold” of such former members has been exhausted, and that thus the old scaffolding ought to be dismantled, while the focus of their leadership ought to be more fully directed on the new scaffolding that had been erected as work was being accomplished on the old. Hence, the need for interminably new “fads” in the pop-church – these are nothing other than new “scaffolding” to erect on the backs of new or continuingly gullible members, as the usefulness of the old “scaffolding” wanes along with the enthusiasm of increasingly disenfranchised members who realize they've just been used.
   
   In this CGM theory we see prima facia evidence that at its foundation, CGM does not consider that the visible Church exists to minister to Believers, but solely to use Believers in its task to convert entire people-groups. It is myopically fixated on incessant change because people and pop-culture incessantly change, which is also why “congregational leadership” is continuously exhorted to create and re-evaluate “Mission” and “Vision” statements, to frequently engage in “Strategic Planning” to verify the relevance of these statements to continuously shifting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with respect to a single, narrow and immediate objective: bald numeric increase in the organization. Thus, the Church Growth Movement calls upon the congregation to continuously re-invent itself and to this end leverages contemporary leadership theories which exult and glorify the role of a congregation's “leadership class.”
   
   Because the Believer is not the purpose of the congregation's existence and the focus of its ministry, continuous back door losses are an inevitable reality in CGM congregations. The repulsive CGM theory of “scaffolding” was invented to explain and justify it. Because continuous back door losses are an inevitable reality in CGM congregations, continuous numeric growth, or at least continuously driving new people through the church doors, is vital to the existence of the congregation as an organization. Because evangelism is the Biblical process of achieving numeric growth in the congregation, the “Mission” and “Vision” of the congregation must fixate on evangelism as a process of achieving numeric growth. Rather than the Means of Grace, a congregation's “leadership class” is central to the practice of a CGM congregation, and because leaders must have something to lead, the health of the congregation as a visible organization is the focus of the leaders’ vision and of the organization’s effort. In CGM congregations, the congregation as an organization, and the people in that organization, serve the organization’s leadership, rather than the leadership serving the souls entrusted by God to their care.
   
   
2. Gerstner, J. (2000). Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2^nd Edition. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications. pp. 17-59.
   
   
3. Please see following works:
   MacPherson, D. (1980). The Incredible Cover-up: Exposing the Origins of Rapture Theories. Medford, OR: Omega Publishing.
   MacPherson, D. (2000). The Rapture Plot, 2^nd Edition. Simpsonville, SC: Millenium III Publishers.
   
   
4. For more information on the errors of Charles Finney, see the following article written by Michael Horton almost two decaes ago:
   Horton, M. (1995). The Legacy of Charles Finney. Modern Reformation, 4(1), 5-9.

Vatican II, the Church Growth Movement, contemporary “Sectarian Worship”, and Indiscriminate Ecumenism: A Brief History and Synopsis of their Relationship

Sectarian Worship (also known as “Contemporary” or “Charismatic” Worship) is not just a benign preference that some choose to engage in for stricly personal or otherwise irrelevant and inconsequential reasons, but is always adopted with a purpose in mind. Often, that purpose is to use man's choice of practice as a necessary means of drawing or keeping people within the family of Christ, apart from which, people will unnecessarily spend eternity in Hell and the Church on Earth will shrink and die. This necessity, whether confessed or not, is demonstrated in the rejection of other forms historically associated with confessional Lutheranism, forms which are viewed as old, irrelevant, and thus incapable of drawing a crowd (which is supposedly necessary for worship practice to accomplish, since true Christian worshipers won't come on their own), of keeping its interest for one hour a week (which is also supposedly necessary, since true Christians don't normally have an internal motivation to remain interested in Law & Gospel preaching and the Sacrament for one hour a week), according to the shifting fads and priorities of contemporary pop-culture (which is also supposedly necessary, since true Christians are unable to recognize and appreciate the uniquely cross-cultural and consistent historical practices of the Church Catholic). Thus, also involved in the purpose behind adopting Sectarian Worship, is, as the title of this worship practice implies, to volitionally express a separatation and “apart-ness” from the catholicity of the Lutheran Confession, and consequently, whether confessed or not, a togetherness with all those who likewise reject the notion of catholicity, regardless of their confession.

These supposedly evangelical motivations view the Divine Service, not exclusively as the privilege of the passive Believer to be served by His Lord and Saviour in Word and Sacrament, but, eschewing this notion, views the worship assembly as primarily an assembly of unBelievers; they do not view the function of the “Worship Service” solely as a process for focusing the Believer on the centrality of Christ and the Means through which He serves His own (as does the Divine Service), but primarily as a stage upon which is mounted the active foci of the worshiper – musicians and orators – as those foci engage in the age-old task of mass-manipulation and crass salesmanship. And because of the inherent ecumenical nature of these “evangelical motivations,” there is, among those Lutherans who adopt Sectarian Worship forms, a palpable fear of distinguishing Believer from unBeliver in the worship assembly, and worse, of distinguishing orthodox Believers from heterodox – a fear which results in two equally eggregious abuses: an invitation to everyone to partake of Christ's Body and Blood (upon the functionally meaningless condition of “private self-examination,” of course), or the elimination of the embarrassing Sacrament from the Service altogether.

Modern Sectarian Worship is a contemporary peculiarity of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which sprung mostly from Arminian and Baptistic influences in mid-20^th Century America oblivious to the the Lutheran and Scriptural teachings of the Church, of Predestination, and of the Means of Grace, and is today being referred to by confessional Lutherans as Functional Arminianism. In fact, the topic of Functional Arminianism (in the context of Predstination, no less) came up relatively recently on Intrepid Lutherans, in a comment to the post Circuit Pastor Visitation. In that comment, I directed readers to a recent and important paper on the topic of Functional Arminianism, stating

“...a very recent paper delivered to the LCMS Indiana District by Rev. Heath Curtis, has finally resurrected this discussion in a fruitful way – of applying Predestination to evangelical practice. Here are the links to his essay, in four parts:
“Part I: Freed from the Shopkeeper's Prison - Election, Evangelism, and Functional Arminianism
“Part II: Bible and Confessional Study on Election and Evangelism
“Part III: What is the Pastor's Job?
“Part IV: How to Run a Lutheran Evangelism Program”

As a choice, the Sectarian Worship of the Church Growth Movement, in distinctly Arminian evangelical fervor,

• vaunts man and his efforts with respect to the Church;
• augments by man's efforts, or entirely eliminates, the Holy Spirit from His own work, and
• thus inherently and unavoidably discards the Means of Grace as insufficient and ultimately superfluous;
• removes Christ and His service to man from the center of the Divine Service, and instead places man, his interests and his entertainment needs at the center, calling it his service to God in the Worship Service;
• and blasphemes God by crediting the results of man’s work, outside of and apart from the direct use of the Means of Grace (i.e., bald numeric growth in the visible church), to the Holy Spirit, with statements like, “Such an increase in numbers! Surely, this is the work of the Holy Spirit, alone! Praise God, that He equipped us with the right organizational tools to save all these people!”

It is no accident that the Charismatic Renewal in greater American Protestantism coincided with the rise of Church Growth theories emanating from Fuller Seminary, and it is no accident that the introduction of Church Growth theories emerged from Fuller at the same time this institution was the center of doctrinal controversy – indeed, the epicenter of a veritable crisis in American Christianity.

Fuller Seminary and the Church Growth Movement
Established in 1947 as the flagship theological institution of the burgeoning Evangelical Movement – an ecumenical movement begun in reaction against the separatism of Fundamentalists (viewed as a barrier to spreading the Gospel and to engaging in constructive dialog with errorists) – Fuller Theological Seminary initially stood as a theologically conservative Evangelical bulwark, and progenitor of “the new paradigm” of evangelical methodology. Among pop-church Evangelicals, it is still a widely respected institution. Within a decade of its founding, however, cracks in the foundation of this bulwark began to reveal themselves, and by 1972 they had become chasms, as Fuller went on record officially questioning the veracity of the Scriptures by striking the phrase “...free from all error in the whole and in the part...” from their statement concerning the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. The environment created at Fuller by raging internal struggles over the inerrancy of the Scriptures, coupled with ecumenical predilections under the waving banner of the “new evangelicalism,” provided both the soil and the atmosphere in which the ideas of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) could germinate and flourish.

In 1965, “the father of the church growth movement,” Donald McGavran, became Dean of the Fuller School of World Mission (now the School of Intercultural Studies), moving that department to Fuller from the school at which he had founded it in 1961. Thirty-four years' experience as a missionary in India led him in 1954 to begin developing his own entirely pragmatic notions of “cultural contextualization” for the purpose of “Christianizing whole peoples,” etc. One can immediately see the preoccupation with mass appeal and the inordinate fixation on popular culture that these notions engender, and the displacement of concern over individual souls, along with any sense of catholicity, that result from them – indeed, McGavran, in his Bridges of God repudiated the notion of carrying the Gospel to individuals as counterproductive to true evangelical “Church Growth,” inevitably leading to the acceptance of particularly revolting and unscriptural Church Growth principles, such as “scaffolding”¹. C. Peter Wagner was a disciple of McGavran’s at Fuller, and was later passed the mantle of CGM prophet.

But these were not the only influences at work at Fuller.

Ecumenism and the “Pentecostal Experience”
A primary purpose of the Evangelical Movement, as a reaction against Fundamentalism, was ecumenism, and this Evangelical purpose was seriously supported and engaged at Fuller. Enter “Mr. Pentecost,” David J. du Plessis, who had been active through the 1950’s as an ardent proponent of ecumenism on behalf of the Pentecostals, convinced that the Pentecostal “experience” could serve as an effective ecumenical bridge to non-Pentecostals (namely, the historic mainline denominations) and help bring unity to Christianity worldwide.

That “experience” had its modern genesis partly in the Brethren movements of Europe² in the early/mid-1800's (the left-overs of Scandinavian and German Pietism), but especially in the practices of the Scottish Irvingites with whom John Nelson Darby (Plymouth Brethren) spent much time during their outbreaks of agalliasis (“manifestations of the Holy Spirit,” which, among the Irvingites at that time and place, included practices such as automatic writing, levitation, and communication with the dead³) and whose practice and theology (including the foundations of Dispensationalism) influenced him greatly. Passing from Darby to James H. Brooks and Cyrus I. Scofield in America, his teaching has continued to see development over the years and is still disseminated by Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Bob Jones University and others.

These experiential practices began finding their way to America at about the same time that a charlatan known as Charles Finney exploited the use of these “New Methods,” as they were called, during America's “Second Great Awakening,” fueling the fever of “revivalism” and captivating Christians with the allure of the “Anxious Bench” as a means of saving souls⁴. Widespread use of such practices strengthened the Brethren movements and touched off the Holiness Movements within Methodism (which later developed into [and at Azusa Street, Los Angeles in 1906, was confirmed as] full-blown Pentecostalism). By the mid- to late-1800's, such radical practices defined “American Worship” – and it was precisely these forms that Walther notoriously condemned. Even the Old Norwegian Synod, in the 1916 edition of its Lutheran Hymnary, Junior stated it’s warning against Sectarian “American Worship” forms:

The songs of childhood should be essentially of the same character as the songs of maturity. The child should therefore learn the easiest and best of the songs he is to sing as a communicant member of the Christian Congregation. Old age delights in the songs learned in childhood. The religious songs learned in children should therefore be worth while. We want childlike songs, but not childish songs. The early songs should be the choicest congregation songs adaptable to his age and capacities. In the same manner as he is taught the rudiments of Christian theology through Luther's “Smaller Catechism” and the chief Bible stories through the “Bible History,” he should also be taught the words and tunes of our most priceless church songs and chorals. It can be done just as easily as teaching him a number of equally difficult and perhaps new songs and tunes which will never be sung in his congregation. It should be done, for a child should be trained up the way he should go (Pr. 22:6)

...The songs of Lutheran children and youth should be essentially from Lutheran sources. The Lutheran Church is especially rich in songs and hymns of sound doctrine, high poetical value and fitting musical setting. They express the teachings and spirit of the Lutheran Church and help one to feel at home in this Church. Of course, there are songs of high merit and sound Biblical doctrine written by Christians in other denominations also, and some of these could and should find a place in a Lutheran song treasury. But the bulk of the songs in a Lutheran song book should be drawn from Lutheran sources. We should teach our children to remain in the Lutheran Church instead of to sing themselves into some Reformed sect.

By engaging in such forms, the Old Norwegian Synod insisted, Lutherans will wind up singing their way out of their own Confession. A sound application of lex orandi, lex credendi.

With widespread criticism against these experiential “American Worship” forms, and, let’s face it, their rather shallow substance, infantile antics, and transparently manipulative purposes, such practices fell out of fashion by the early 1900's (as “contemporary” forms have a habit of doing anyway). Nevertheless, Pentecostals continued to cling to them, and continued to develop them alongside their theology. Accordingly, such worship forms have come to mean much of the following:

• the actions of the worshiper are themselves Means of Grace, or means through which the Holy Spirit supposedly comes to, and works in, the worshiper;
• the Holy Spirit's work in and through the worshiper’s actions is generally regarded as a function of the zeal with which the worshiper engages in them;
• the purpose of these acts is human centered, “to draw near to God in the act of worship,” that He would reciprocate by drawing near to the worshiper and experientially confirm for the worshiper that the Holy Spirit is with him, and that he is therefore accepted and loved by God;
• these acts of “drawing near to God” are really acts of man's yearning, tarrying, and striving, of wrestling with God through worship and prayer with the expectation that He give the blessing of spiritual experience in return;
• the assurance of one's salvation is measured by the magnitude of the blessing which proceeds from successfully wrestling with God – in the experience of God Himself through worship;
• such experience of the Holy Spirit's presence in worship or prayer, or “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” is public confirmation of an individual's “spiritual anointing,” of his salvation and approval before God, and serves as divine qualification and appointment for ministerial authority in the congregation (creating levels of Christians in the congregation based on relative “spirituality”);
• apart from such visible experiences, the individual is naturally prompted to introspection regarding why God does not bless him with His presence (with the usual explanations being sin or doubt, or not really being saved, or even demonic possession), and is looked upon with suspicion by fellow worshipers as one who is not visibly accepted and blessed by God – both factors leading individual worshipers who lack spiritual experiences to guilt and dismay;
• as a result, many of those who have habituated themselves to the “Pentecostal Experience,” also have a keenly developed ability to whip themselves into a frothy lather (to avoid introspection and the suspicion of others, and to vaunt their spirituality in the eyes of others); if they cannot, or do not, or are unable to reach a pinnacle of spiritual euphoria according to their own expectations, or those of their peers, they just blame it on the band for “not doing it right;”
• worship accompaniment must therefore serve the need of the worshipers to have particular spiritual experiences, by manufacturing those experiences for them;
• and these experiences are referred to as “the working of the Holy Spirit,” even though they are little more than the cooperative effort of human worshipers seeking hard after emotional/psychological “spiritual experiences,” and of human entertainers, mounted on stages in classic entertainment-oriented venues, who are skilled at providing those experiences for their audiences;
• thus, the “Pentecostal Experience,” and all of its derivatives (including contemporary “Sectarian Worship”), are the epitome of anthropocentric worship practice, which, as stated above, remove Christ and His service to man from the center of the Divine Service, and instead place man, his interests and his entertainment needs at the center... and blaspheme God by crediting the results of man’s work, outside of and apart from the direct use of the Means of Grace, to the Holy Spirit..

The “Pentecostal Experience,” Vatican II and the Charismatic Renewal
Pentecostalism dwindled over the early decades of the 20^th Century to near insignificance. It was in the throes of this insignificance that David J. du Plessis, the ardently ecumenical Pentecostal, secured a position as Pentecostal Representative to the Second Vatican Council. Following Vatican II came implicit encouragement to Roman Catholics to reach out to Protestants through investigation and even experimentation with worship forms that appeal to them, which eventually led in the 1960’s to the opening of the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal.” The Charismatic Renewal had already begun in some quarters of liberal protestantism, but following the start of the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal” it began to rapidly spread among Episcopalians and liberal Lutherans, until finally, beginning in the late 1970’s it spread to Reformed Evangelicalism where it was swiftly incorporated by the Church Growth Movement as a necessary component of the congregation’s corporate experience – specifically, necessary to the salvation of souls, since appealing to unregenerate culture on its own terms, and to individuals directly through means of physical and emotional manipulation (rather than the public use of the Means of Grace, Word and Sacrament), was considered necessary to attract the un-churched from pop-culture, secure their conversion, and increase the membership of the congregation. Hence the connection of “worship style” to so-called “evangelism” – similar to Papistic ritualism which was also considered necessary for salvation, and was the cause of its repudiation by the Reformers.

Fuller Seminary, the Charismatic Renewal and the Church Growth Movement
The incorporation of “Charismatic Worship” as a necessary component of the Church’s practice was immeasurably influenced by the ecumenical and evangelical work of Fuller Seminary. By the mid-1970's du Plessis had an ongoing partnership with Fuller Seminary, as a consultant on ecumenical issues, and by the mid-1980’s, Fuller Seminary had erected the multi-million dollar David J. du Plessis Center for the Study of Christian Spirituality in his honor. It was also about this time, in 1974, that the Quaker, John Wimber, was hired as the founding Director of the Department of Church Growth at the Charles E. Fuller Institute of Evangelism and Church Growth. Wimber left that position in 1978, starting what would become the very influential Vinyard Movement. By the mid-1980's C. Peter Wagner was not only the chief exponent of CGM, he was, along with John Wimber, also one of the chief prophets of the Signs and Wonders Movement, inextricably linking CGM with Pentecostalism and Charismaticism.

The notions under which “Sectarian” or “Charismatic Worship” was introduced to the Lutheran Church in the era of the Charismatic Renewal were entirely foreign to her practice. Striving to achieve ecumenical unity through shared experience across denominations, it was also foreign to her Confessions. Clawing for approval by Arminian standards of evangelical necessity, it betrayed her entire body of doctrine. The fact is, the Church Growth Movement and Sectarian/Charismatic Worship, insomuch as they evangelically strive to achieve by man’s own alternative means what the Scriptures say is exclusively the Holy Spirit's work through the Means of Grace, by definition begin with a low view of the Scriptures and the Sacraments, and with a dismissive attitude toward the Holy Spirit’s work through those Means. Insofar as CGM “evangelically” regards such manufactured worship experiences as necessary for the salvation of souls, CGM practices directly serve the synergistic doctrines of Arminianism. The ancient liturgical principle of lex orandi, lex credendi must be respected with regard to these points. Moreover, Church Growth methods along with Sectarian/Charismatic Worship were designed to function cross-denominationally as ecumenical bridges, and whether engaged in with these purposes in mind or not, they are nevertheless understood among those who regularly practice them as ecumenical expressions, and thus make a mockery of our Confessional unity and voluntary separation from the heterodox.

False practice leads to false thinking, and eventually false belief
It has been said that there are no non-smokers like former smokers. The same can be said of former Evangelicals, particularly those of us who lived through the height of the Charismatic Renewal and nevertheless emerged with an intelligible, articulable Confession – in other words, who miraculously emerged rejecting vapid Evangelicalism, mindless Charismaticism and the Arminian Church Growth theories that have facilitated their proliferation, who have emerged with a clear view wrought from long experience with how false practice induces false thinking and eventually false believing, having watched friends and family lose their faith as a result, and having only been saved ourselves “as though escaping through flames.” Experience. Decades of first-hand experience with false practice and the false belief that follows from it. I’m not about to live through it again, nor am I going to subject my children to it.



------------
Endnotes:

1. According to the purely utilitarian CGM theory of “scaffolding,” the backs and money of established and active members of a congregation exist solely for the use of that organization's “leadership,” on which they are not only free, but ordained by God, to build something new and foreign according to the “vision” God directly reveals to them, regardless of anyone's objections. When those who object, or realize they've simply been used, leave the congregation as a result, their departure is happily accepted by “leadership,” who appeal to a twisted version of God's sovereignty to excuse their gross actions against those entrusted to their spiritual care by thus determining that God, having led such departing members away from the congregation, has merely indicated to them that their work on the “scaffold” of such former members has been exhausted, and that thus the old scaffolding ought to be dismantled, while the focus of their leadership ought to be more fully directed on the new scaffolding that had been erected as work was being accomplished on the old.
   
   In this CGM theory we see prima facia evidence that at its foundation, CGM does not consider that the visible Church exists to minister to Believers, but solely to use Believers in its task to convert entire people-groups. It is myopically fixated on incessant change because people and pop-culture incessantly change, which is also why “congregational leadership” is continuously exhorted to create and re-evaluate “Mission” and “Vision” statements, to frequently engage in “Strategic Planning” to verify the relevance of these statements to continuously shifting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with respect to a single, narrow and immediate objective: bald numeric increase in the organization. Thus, the Church Growth Movement calls upon the congregation to continuously re-invent itself and to this end leverages contemporary leadership theories which exult and glorify the role of a congregation's “leadership class.”
   
   Because the Believer is not the purpose of the congregation's existence and the focus of its ministry, continuous back door losses are an inevitable reality in CGM congregations. The repulsive CGM theory of “scaffolding” was invented to explain and justify it. Because continuous back door losses are an inevitable reality in CGM congregations, continuous numeric growth, or at least continuously driving new people through the church doors, is vital to the existence of the congregation as an organization. Because evangelism is the Biblical process of achieving numeric growth in the congregation, the “Mission” and “Vision” of the congregation must fixate on evangelism as a process of achieving numeric growth. Rather than the Means of Grace, a congregation's “leadership class” is central to the practice of a CGM congregation, and because leaders must have something to lead, the health of the congregation as a visible organization is the focus of the leaders’ vision and of the organization’s effort. In CGM congregations, the congregation as an organization, and the people in that organization, serve the organization’s leadership, rather than the leadership serving the souls entrusted by God to their care.
   
   
2. Gerstner, J. (2000). Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2^nd Edition. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications. pp. 17-59.
   
   
3. Please see following works:
   MacPherson, D. (1980). The Incredible Cover-up: Exposing the Origins of Rapture Theories. Medford, OR: Omega Publishing.
   MacPherson, D. (2000). The Rapture Plot, 2^nd Edition. Simpsonville, SC: Millenium III Publishers.
   
   
4. For more information on the errors of Charles Finney, see the following article written by Michael Horton almost two decaes ago:
   Horton, M. (1995). The Legacy of Charles Finney. Modern Reformation, 4(1), 5-9.

Borrowing (Lutheran Hymnody) from Baptists

A Baptist friend of mine recently posted on his Facebook page his concerns over Contemporary Christian Music. It should be noted that my friend is not a casual Baptist, but a fire & brimstone, Creationism street preacher, ask-every-waitress-if-she-knows-whether-she’s-going-to-heaven, KJV-only, variety Baptist.  The resultant exchange of Facebook-thread crossfire between his Baptist friends was useful to observe. Not only did some recognize the folly of the bait-and-switch of making Church more like the World, they concluded (in not so many words) that Doctrine and Practice are indeed intertwined.

Is it okay to borrow that lesson from the Baptists?  Or should we postpone that lesson and try to Lutheranize church theatrics?  (Gee, I wonder why Hoenecke didn't think of using vaudeville acts to pack the pews?)

A curious turn in the discussion was a Baptist quoting the words of Dr. Martin Luther himself to appeal for glorifying hymnody in the Church.  They posted Luther’s first preface to the Wittenberg Hymnal, from A.D. 1524, the text of which follows below for your future reference.  

 
That it is good, and pleasing to God, for us to sing spiritual songs is, I think, a truth whereof no Christian can be ignorant; since not only the example of the prophets and kings of the Old Testament (who praised God with singing and music, poesy and all kinds of stringed instruments) but also the like practice of all Christendom from the beginning, especially in respect to psalms, is well known to every one: yea, St. Paul doth also appoint the same (1 Cor xiv.) and command the Colossians, in the third chapter, to sing spiritual songs and psalms from the heart unto the Lord, that thereby the word of God and Christian doctrine be in every way furthered and practiced.
 
Accordingly, to make a good beginning and to encourage others who can do it better, I have myself, with some others, put together a few hymns, in order to bring into full play the blessed Gospel, which by God’s grace hath again risen: that we may boast, as Moses doth in his song (Exodus xv.) that Christ is become our praise and our song, and that, whether we sing or speak, we may not know anything save Christ our Saviour, as St. Paul saith (1 Cor. ii.).
 
These songs have been set in four parts, for no other reason than because I wished to provide our young people (who both will and ought to be instructed in music and other sciences) with something whereby they might rid themselves of amorous and carnal songs, and in their stead learn something wholesome, and so apply themselves to what is good with pleasure, as becometh the young.
 
Beside this, I am not of opinion that all sciences should be beaten down and made to cease by the Gospel, as some fanatics pretend; but I would fain see all the arts, and music in particular, used in the service of Him who hath given and created them.
 
Therefore I entreat every pious Christian to give a favorable reception to these hymns, and to help forward my undertaking, according as God hath given him more or less ability. The world is, alas, not so mindful and diligent to train and teach our poor youth, but that we ought to be forward in promoting the same. God grant us his grace. Amen.

Choose Terms Carefully When Describing What the Church Does with the Gospel

by Rev. James Strand

St. Athanasius was quick to extend the right hand of fellowship to anyone who used different terms than he did, but still taught God's Word faithfully. I certainly agree with St. Athanasius. And I gladly extend the right hand of fellowship to anyone who uses different terms, but still teaches God's Word faithfully. However, I urge all of us, especially pastors, to be careful that our terms do not confuse our people or give them a wrong idea about what God's Word says.

And so I urge our pastors and people to use such caution when using words like “share” and “reach out” when it comes to what the Church does with the Gospel. Such words were developed in the Evangelical churches and can carry with them the Evangelical idea that it is up to us to find ways to convert people, whether by using God's Word, feelings, personal testimony about what Jesus means to me, getting people fired up for the Lord and even gimmicks.

The words “share” and “reach out” never occur in the Bible when it comes to what the Church does with the Gospel. However, the word “proclaim” (“preach”) occurs nearly 100 times. God calls on pastors to proclaim the Gospel in their pulpits, services and classrooms. He calls on teachers to proclaim the Gospel to their students. He calls on parents to proclaim the Gospel to their children. He calls on Christians to proclaim the Gospel to anyone who asks them about their hope. He calls on the Church to proclaim the Gospel to all creation.¹

If someone who teaches God's Word faithfully uses the words “share” or “reach out” to mean “proclaim,” then their teaching is certainly true and we extend the right hand of fellowship to them. But as we consider these difficult times for true Lutheranism and how the American Evangelical churches are always trying to confuse our people, may we always strive to become more Lutheran instead of less Lutheran. May we carefully choose the terms we use, so we don't inadvertently lead our people to think that personal testimony about what Jesus means to me and feelings, getting fired up for the Lord and gimmicks will convert people.

I urge us as true Lutheran pastors and people to stick to the words the Bible uses like “proclaim” and “preach” and to avoid the Evangelical terms like “share” and “reach out” when we are describing what the Church does with the Gospel.

1. With the false ideas about evangelism that have also filtered into our true Lutheran church from the Evangelical churches, it is important to point out that God does command each individual Christian to: 1) proclaim the Gospel to his or her children (Ephesians 6:4); 2) Give a true answer from Scripture when asked (1 Peter 3:15). However, God never says that every Christian has the same abilities and opportunities to knock on doors, strike up conversations about Jesus at work, etc. Some have this ability and opportunity more and some less. Franz Pieper described the Bible's teaching on evangelism very well with these four points: “1) God gave the Great Commission to the Church; 2) God calls on Servants of the Word to diligently do their duties; 3) God calls on all Christians to discipline fellow believers; 4) God calls on all Christians lead a blameless life before world” (Pieper's Dogmatics, Vol. 3).

Circuit Pastor Visitation

Dear Readers,

Once again, thank you for all the comments thus far in answer to my request.

It has now been suggested that I guide the comments a bit more, and seek to focus them on the main area in which I’m looking for ideas and suggestions – namely, doctrine and practice.

To do so, I believe you need to see and read through the questions in the first interviews I have put together. These have been “field-tested” here among the Pastors in my Circuit for the past seven years. They have been unanimously well-received thus far.

A couple of notes:

- First, you will notice that these interviews are labeled “#1” and “#3.” That is because I intend the interview regarding doctrine and practice to be the second interview in the future.
- #1 is very basic and emphasizes the Pastor’s relationship with his congregation, Circuit, District, and Synod.
- #3 is quite a bit more “personal,” and delves into areas like continuing education, parish work habits, and the Pastor’s marriage and family life. I have moved it to the third interview because I realize that if these are going to used by other Circuit Pastors, it may take a few years to build up an adequate personal relationship with his fellow Pastors and their wives to be able to speak openly and frankly about some of these matters.
- I have shared some of this already-used material with some fellow Circuit Pastors and with various District and Synod leaders over the years. Most have encouraged me to continue working on this project, which might then be of some benefit to church leaders in the future.
- Now, regarding #2, you will notice that I have broken down the categories into six areas. This should give you a good idea of the kinds of questions I’m looking for. However, please feel free to suggest questions in other areas of doctrine and practice.

Also, if you are curious as to the reasoning behind the line of questioning in these interviews, or a certain question in particular, please feel free to ask and I will try to explain my thinking.

Again, thank you for your participation. I look forward to hearing more suggestions from both Pastors and laypeople.

Pastor Spencer


CP Visitation Interview #1

A. Personal Ministry

1. How long have you been at this parish?
2. When, and to where, was your last Call?
3. How would you feel about being placed on a Call List at this time?
4. What do you enjoy most about your ministry?
5. What do you feel is the most difficult part(s) of your ministry?
6. What would be the single biggest help to you in your ministry?
7. What are your long-range plans for your personal ministry?

B. Parish Ministry

1. Should the LORD call you to heaven tonight, would a new Pastor find everything here “in order,” so he could carry on this ministry without interruption or major difficulty?
For example:
- Do you make monthly reports to your congregation; Council, Elders, etc.?
- If so, is a file maintained with copies of all previous reports?
- Do you keep a list of all calls you make on members and prospects?
- Is the membership list current?
- Are the “Vital Statistics” of all members up-to-date?
- Are the records of “Parish Acts,” i.e. Baptisms, Confirmations, Weddings, etc., accurate and up-to-date?
- Is there a list of current Inactive members?
- Is a list of members living out of the area being maintained?
- Are there adequate notes on current difficult member situations?
- Is there is a list of current Prospects?

2. How far ahead do you plan out your worship – monthly; quarterly; semi-annually; annually; other?
3. Does this planning include:
- The Church Year
- Liturgy
- Theme for the day
- Sermon Text & Theme
- Scripture Readings
- Prayers
- Hymns
4. What format do you use for this process?
5. What are some of the positive attributes of the congregation(s) you now serve?
6. What are your major concerns about the congregation(s) you now serve?
7. What are the general long-range plans for this(these) congregation(s)?
8. Any additional comments you would like to make regarding your personal or parish ministry?

C. The Circuit, District, & Synod

1. What do you believe is the single most important duty of your Circuit Pastor and why?
2. What do you believe is the single most important function of the Circuit?
3. What do you like best about our Circuit meetings?
4. What do you like least about our Circuit meetings?
5. In what ways do you think our Circuit meetings could be improved?

The District

6. What, if any, District office(s) do you hold?
7. What do you like most about serving in the District?
8. What do you like least about serving in this District?
9. What, if anything, would you like to see done differently in our District?

The Synod

10. What, if any, Synod office(s) do you hold?
11. What do you believe are the strengths of the Wisconsin Synod?
12. What are her weaknesses as you see it?
13. What would you like to see done differently in the Synod?
14. What are your major expectations or concerns regarding the future of the WELS?
15. Any further questions, comments, concerns, complaints, or suggestions regarding the Circuit, District, or Synod?



CP Visitation Interview #2

Doctrine & Practice

I. Public Ministry, Divine Call

II. Scripture, God, Law, & Sin

III. Repentance, Conversion, Justification, Gospel, Faith & Good Works

IV. Baptism, Lord’s Supper, & Absolution

V. Prayer, Pastoral Acts, & Worship

VI. Last Things




CP Visitation Interview #3

I. Continuing Education (with the Pastor only)

A. Current Events & Information

1. Do you believe it is important for a Pastor to keep himself informed about current events, religious and otherwise, both locally and world-wide? If not, why not?
2. Do you receive and read a daily local newspaper? Print or online? If so, which one(s)? If not, why not?
3. Do you receive and read a daily national newspaper? Print or online? If so, which one(s)? If not, why not?
4. Do you receive and read regularly a regional or national news magazine? Print or online? If so, which one(s)? If not, why not?
5. Do you receive and read regularly a theological magazine? Print or online? If so, which one(s)? If not, why not?
6. Which radio and/or television new & information sources do you make use of, if any? Online?

B. Theological growth and education

1. Do you do your own independent exegesis on your sermon text each week? If not, why not?
2. What are you doing to maintain and improve your proficiency in Hebrew and Greek? Learn and/or improve on Latin & German?
3. Do you believe it is important for a Pastor to read and study the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions, including Luther himself, on a daily basis, independent of and addition to his sermon and Bible class preparation? If not, why not?
4. What part(s) of the Bible are you currently reading for private devotion and meditation?
5. What portion(s) of Scripture are you currently studying, aside from Sermon and Bible study work?
6. What part(s) of the Confessions and/or Luther are you currently reading?
7. What theological books are you currently reading?
8. Do you believe it is important for a Pastor to read deeply in other subjects, such as history, science, philosophy, and the social sciences? If not, why not?
9. What book(s) in these areas are you currently reading?
10. What other programs of continuing education are you currently involved in?

II. The Pastor and His Family (with the Pastor & his Wife)

A. Pastor's work habits (to the Pastor; wife may respond also)

1. Do you try to maintain a regular, organized weekly work schedule? If not, why not?
2. If so, does it include adequate time each week for each of the following?
- Sermon Preparation
- Worship Preparation
- Bible Class Preparation
- Sick & Shut-In Calls
- Private devotion
- Personal Study
- Member Visits
- Outreach Contacts
- Correspondence & Reports
- Church & Pastoral Meetings
- R & R with Family
- Personal R & R
- Exercise

3. Are any of these missing consistently from your work-week, and if so, why, and what might be done about this?
4. How many total hours, on average, do you work each week on ALL areas of ministry; personal, local, district, and synod?
5. Do you get enough rest?
6. Do you feel you have time for recreation, hobbies, etc.?
7. Do you feel you spend enough quality time just with your wife each week?
8. Do you feel you spend enough quality time with your children each week?
9. Do you have any health issues related to your work?
10. What would you like to change about your work routine?

B. Wife's work (to wife; husband may respond also)

1. Do you believe being a Pastor's wife is a calling from God? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe you have a role in your husband's Call, and if so, how?
[Please note: It is assumed that all the wives of our Pastors work very hard to maintain a Christian home. Many of the following questions, therefore, are about "other work" they may do in addition to that of a wife and mother.]
3. Are you employed?
[If no, skip to the Section C]
4. Is your employment due to financial necessity?
5. If not financial, what is the reason for your employment?
6. Do you work from home or outside the home?
7. How many hours do you work at your employment?
8. Do you ever feel that your employment lessens your ability to function well as a wife and mother? If so, how do you deal with these feelings?
9. Do you ever feel that your employment lessens your ability to function well as a Pastor's wife? If so, how do you handle this?
10. If feasible, would you prefer not to be employed? Why or why not?

C. Marriage and Family (to both, and both are asked to respond)

1. Has your marriage relationship suffered due to the work of the ministry?
2. If so, in what ways?
3. How would you describe the spiritual state of your marriage?
4. How would you describe the emotional & physical state of your marriage?
5. What would you like to be better about your marriage?
6. What is your plan to bring about these improvements?
7. How is the Christian faith emphasized, inculcated, and practiced in your family?
8. Are there any health-related issues with you or your family members that might be important relative to future Calls, and if so what are they?
9. Do you believe that you and your family receive the proper and necessary care and support from the congregation?
10. If not, what would you like to see done differently in this regard?

Other comments, questions, or matters for discussion:

Pastors are Watchmen and thus Need also to be Examined

Laypeople – How would like to be able to “quiz” your Pastors?
Pastors – How would you like to be able to “quiz” your brother Pastors?

Well, here’s your chance.

Allow me to explain.

In his Enchiridion, Martin Chemnitz writes,

“A minister of the Word ought not only teach things true and in harmony with the divine Word. But he ought also render his faithfulness to God and the church entrusted to him in this, that he at the same time rightly feed the sheep and hold off the wolf from the sheepfolds, or as Luther says, he should do both, nourish and defend. He ought therefore neither defend nor cover up or paper over false doctrine, but oppose it openly and plainly and warn his flock to beware of it (Ezekiel 13:10; John 10:5; Matthew 7:15; Titus 1:9-11, 13; Acts 20:29, 31). But he is not to stir up all kinds of unnecessary disputes and strifes about words instead of a discourse, and arouse his hearers with untimely clamoring, but only fight against
adversaries in necessary conflicts, without which purity of doctrine cannot be retained. And in these very things let him always have regard to his hearers, as to what is useful and necessary for their edification, so that they might continue in sound doctrine and be able to protect themselves against the ferment of false doctrine.

Let a faithful minister of the Word consider that he has been set by God as a watchman and lookout of the church, so that, when he notices that some of his sheep have gone aside from the way of the righteous and have turned aside into the way of sinners, he be neither a sleeping and blind watchman nor a dumb dog (Isaiah 56:10). Nor ought he provide soft pillows for the impious (Ezekiel 13:18). But let him cry out against sins with a loud voice (Isaiah 58:1). And let him be instant in prayer and exhortations, threats and rebukes in all patience and teaching, both in season and in a spirit of gentleness and also out of season with severe rebukes (Ezekiel 3:17; 33:7; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 2:15; 1 Corinthians 4:21). For through these means God recalls the erring and raises the fallen. Otherwise, if a pastor neglect this, God will require the blood of lost sheep at his hand (Ezekiel 3:18).” (Ministry, Word, and Sacraments – An Enchiridion; Martin Chemnitz, 1593, translated by Luther Poellot, Concordia, 1981)

This being the case, it is imperative that Pastors understand and observe both correct doctrine and practice and also be able to recognize and refute false doctrine and dangerous practice, in their own parish, and that of their neighbors, and of the church body to which they belong.

I have the privilege of serving as a Circuit Pastor in the Wisconsin Synod. As part of my duties I visit the other Pastors of my Circuit on a regular basis. During these visits we talk about the joys, problems, and needs of their ministries and families. We also talk about the successes and struggles of the church at large.

After reading through Chemnitz’ Enchiridion a number of times now over the past thirty years, I have come to the realization that these visits by the Circuit Pastor should also include some kind of “examination.” So, I am working to put together such.

Here’s where I would like the assistance of my fellow Intrepid Lutherans, both those who have signed on with us and those who are simply regular readers. Put yourself in my Circuit Pastor shoes for a few minutes and think about what questions you would like to ask your Pastor or your brother Pastors. The questions should, of course, focus on the basics of confessional Lutheran doctrine, but also – and perhaps especially – concentrate on current false doctrines and practices afflicting Christianity in American, and specific heresies attacking the WELS today. I'm looking for around thirty to forty questions or so; not more than fifty. (Chemnitz has 333 questions!)

Please send in your suggestions by simply commenting on this post. I will be working on this project throughout the summer, so there is no deadline as of yet. My hope is to have this ready for my next round of Circuit Pastor Visitations this fall. I also plan to share this with my District leaders in the hopes that it can become a template for use by other Circuit Pastors in our District and perhaps throughout the synod. Thus, through your suggestions, you will be providing a service to the whole church body.

Thank you in advance for your participation and assistance!

Pastor Spencer

Reflections on the confessional Lutheran "spirit"

Fact: In order to hold membership in the WELS, all pastors, teachers and congregations must subscribe to the Book of Concord of 1580, not insofar as (quatenus), but because (quia) they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God.

From the WELS Constitution:

Article II
CONFESSION OF FAITH
Section 1. The synod accepts the canonical books of the Old and New Testament as the divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God and submits to this Word of God as the only infallible authority in all matters of doctrine, faith, and life.

Section 2. The synod also accepts the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church embodied in the Book of Concord of 1580, not insofar as, but because they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God.

Article III
MEMBERSHIP
Section 3. Membership in the synod shall be restricted to congregations, pastors, and male teachers who agree in doctrine and practice with the confession referenced in Article II.

Fact: Every WELS pastor’s ordination vows include a subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580.

From the Ordination Rite in Christian Worship: Occasional Services:

M: Do you accept the three Ecumenical Creeds – the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian – as faithful testimonies to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and do you reject all the errors which they condemn?

R: I do.

M: Do you believe that the Unaltered Augsburg Confession is a true exposition of the Word of God and a correct presentation of the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and that the other confessions in the Book of Concord are also in agreement with this one scriptural faith: the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Small and Large Catechisms of Martin Luther, the Smalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord?

R: I do.

M: Do you solemnly promise that all your teaching and your administration of the sacraments will conform to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions?

R: I do.

So what do you do when you read through the Lutheran Confessions and wake up to the reality that your church body, while still a great blessing from God and filled with many, many faithful Christians, is looking less and less like the church described in the Book of Concord, in spite of our subscription to the same?

• You rejoice, because you don’t think the Book of Concord is terribly relevant for the world of the 21st Century.


• You mock and ridicule those who have erred.


• You do nothing, pretending that it doesn’t matter, since we’re still “united” on the Scriptures themselves.


• You do nothing, not wanting to interfere in “other people’s business,” pretending you don’t actually belong to a synod.


• You do nothing, because you believe our synod is already too far gone.


• You do nothing, wringing your hands and bemoaning the situation in private conversation, but crippled by fear of the consequences – for yourself or for the synod – if you should take a public stand.


• You do nothing, because while you value the Confessions, you’re afraid of being called (or of actually becoming!) a “Pharisee” or a “Legalist.”


• You try to do something, because you recognize in the Lutheran Confessions the very faith of the apostles and martyrs, and the Church that has grown out of that faith. And you mourn, because you detect a different spirit, a spirit of the age, a secular spirit, a sectarian spirit creeping in and threatening the unity that once existed around the Lutheran Confessions. So, admittedly weak and frail, yet unable and unwilling to yield to this spirit, you try to do something, including much prayer and intense study of the Scriptures and the Confessions; including conversations in private, at pastors’ conferences and at district conventions; including writing letters to circuit pastors, congregations and district presidents; and yes, perhaps even starting up a little blog to highlight areas of concern and create a forum in which clergy and laity alike can openly discover and discuss if, how and where our practices have drifted away from the norm of the Confessions, in order that we might return to walk together under that light.

It’s this final path that many have chosen, including a few of us who, a year ago, started up this website of little consequence called Intrepid Lutherans, a name not intended to boast of what we are, but instead to remind us of what we wish to be.

We do not concede that our efforts have been inflammatory, loveless, unbrotherly, pharisaical or legalistic. We find it almost comical that some (not all!) of our leaders see Intrepid Lutherans as the gravest threat to our synod, and in some cases, the only evil which must be speedily and handily dealt with. And when we are labeled as “Pharisees,” it says much more about the person making the accusation than it does about us. We do admit that our blog is reactionary: it is reacting to this “other spirit” that is blowing in the wind. In any reaction there lies the inherent danger of overreaction, which we are sincerely trying to avoid. Kyrie, eleison!

Where does this “other spirit” manifest itself? It is most clearly evident in worship practice. Why? Because the whole of our theology is present in corporate worship. Every article of doctrine comes into play when the Church is assembled around Word and Sacrament. (The fact that the Church gathers so frequently without the Sacrament is itself evidence of this “other spirit” than the one described in the Confessions.)

It is a “different spirit” that rejects the liturgy of the Church – including the public, weekly celebration of the Sacrament in worship – for being “inhospitable” to unbelievers or “irrelevant” to believers. It is a different spirit that seeks to offer a man-centered, buffet-style worship in order to pander to human preference. “Casual or formal? Traditional or contemporary? Organ or electric guitar? What kind of music can you relate to? How would you like to worship the Lord today? What would be most meaningful (or comfortable or enjoyable) for you?”

The Lutheran Church actually does have a doctrine about worship, and it is not that “it’s all adiaphora.” Are there aspects of corporate worship that are truly matters of adiaphora? Of course. In those cases, Christian love, wisdom and sound judgment must guide our decisions. Are there aspects of corporate worship that are not matters of adiaphora? Of course. The Gospel must be rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered – and that includes maintaining the integrity of the sacramental confession in the Divine Service: that we come together, as the Church, for the purpose of being served by God through the public ministry ("leitourgia" - "liturgy”) of Word and Sacrament. It includes using ceremonies that foster unity, piety, Christian discipline, and reverence. It excludes all frivolity and offense. It excludes the introduction of a secular or sectarian spirit into the Church, no matter how pure one’s motives for introducing them.

Where else is this “other spirit” seen? It’s seen in all the talk about the “effectiveness” of the Means of Grace as if all depended on us presenting the Gospel in a certain way or with the right delivery mechanism. Some have called this a “functional Arminianism.” I think I agree.

It’s seen in those who imagine that the “real” growth of Christians takes place, not in the Divine Service, but in “small group” gatherings during the week.

It’s seen in the fascination with the means, methods and ideas of heterodox churches and teachers, especially those that ascribe free will to man and that deny the necessary and always-effective role of the Means of Grace in conversion, justification and sanctification.

It’s seen in a change in preaching emphasis, away from the sacramental, Gospel-oriented focus that preaches Christ and him crucified for the forgiveness of sins as the goal of the sermon, toward a law-oriented, how-to focus that presents our works (or our good feelings) as the goal of the sermon.

It’s seen in the paradigm shift away from pastor as shepherd of souls and toward pastor as CEO, as well as the shift away from pastor as minister of the Word toward every member as a minister of the Word.

It’s seen in the postmodern redefinition of “Lutheran” to mean “anything that I, as a Lutheran, or that we, as a Lutheran synod, happen to believe or do.”

It’s seen in those who view our Lutheran Fathers as antiquated, irrelevant, tactless and just plain “stuffy,” while others of us have no greater aspiration for our ministry and life than to emulate the likes of Luther and Chemnitz.

It’s seen in the philosophy, “I’m a Christian first, Lutheran second,” while others of us see the relationship as it really is, “I’m a Lutheran because I’m a Christian.”

It’s seen in a misuse of Christian freedom that leads us to change things simply because we can, “and you can’t tell us we can’t.”

It is seen in the bare Biblicism that disregards the history of the Church, that elevates synodical statements above the Confessions, and that effectively relegates the Church Fathers and our Lutheran Confessions to irrelevancy. “You keep your fallible, human-authored Confessions. I have my Bible, and that’s all I need.” This amounts to a functional quatenus (“insofar as it applies to us”) subscription, and is not what the Lutheran Church means by Sola Scriptura. But this “other spirit” plays off the arrogance and the ignorance that dwell in us all, and would happily lead us to introduce novel changes in doctrine and practice, in areas like worship, church and ministry, the roles of men and women, and fellowship, and even in the area of justification.

It is seen in the fact that many no longer subscribe to the Confessions as a description of who we are as Lutherans and Christians: what we believe, what we do and what we reject. To some, it is merely a rule book: what you can and can’t get away with and still call yourself Lutheran. The evangelical spirit of the Confessors is thus lost and replaced by a legalistic spirit, and that which is supposed to serve as our commonly agreed-upon starting point as Lutherans becomes instead a burden that must either be carried, discarded or ignored.

Sigh.

None of this should be construed as a blanket condemnation of our entire synod, nor are we accusing anyone of being an unbeliever or being “possessed” when we speak of this “other spirit,” nor do we suppose than anyone has intentionally embraced it, or that we ourselves are immune to it. On the contrary, all who would be Christians must constantly be on guard against the spirits that do not come from God (cf. 1 John 4).

What solution do we propose? 1) That we all repent of everything, looking in faith to Christ alone for forgiveness for everything, 2) That we all recommit ourselves to study the Scriptures and the Confessions, 3) That we privately, but also openly, publicly and lovingly seek to identify where, individually or collectively, we have imbibed this “other spirit,” and 4) That any pastor, teacher or congregation that still cannot honestly look at every article in the Book of Concord and say, “Yes, that describes me (us). That is exactly what I (we) believe, teach and confess,” do the honest thing and, rather than try to redefine, reshape or change the WELS, simply join or form a church body that does not bind itself so comprehensively to the Book of Concord.

We don’t want to turn back the clock 30 or 100 or 500 years. We want instead to embrace in our time the Lutheranism that is described in the Book of Concord, when the Lutheran Church was not afraid of her own shadow or ashamed of her battered appearance, when Lutherans were comfortable in their own skin (though persecuted, mocked and condemned for it) and content to be both united to the historic, catholic Church and separate from the world, from the papists and from the sects. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who willingly and gladly hold this common confession and would sooner die than relinquish or redefine the name “Lutheran.” Our goal remains the same as it was a year ago: “For true confessional Lutheran unity in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.” Kyrie, eleison!