The recent events in Arkansas force me to comment further on the apparent non-existence of a functional ecclesiology in today’s evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Generally, that is. There are exceptions, one that I will identify.
I don’t know that “local church” amounts to an adequate ecclesiology to deal with the human condition and relationships in the body of Christ. Too much of this modern, liberal sense of independence leaves leaders unaccountable. A few, though, will make their pastors accountable to the board. But even then the pastor may have sway over the constituency of those to whom he is accountable.
Those groups who are more loosely associated often call themselves fellowships. They depend upon peer pressure and we all know how well that works with hidden sin.
Some denominations have the facility for discipline. On the weaker side of discipline we saw the failure of the AG discipline of Jimmy Swaggart. They let him run footloose for the celebrity but were unable to rein him in when the need was finally unavoidable. On the positive side I observed the Mennonite Brethren leadership step in and deal firmly with a serious pastoral issue. All the details were pretty hush, but the actions were effective.
Anyone who has observed pastoral misconduct has also seen the abuse of authority. Strong and unquestionable authority provides a cover for affairs, for pornography, for fiscal abuses, and any other sin (or crime) of convenience. Let’s not forget Rome’s propensity to hide its abusers.
So I think there is good reason to question the existence of ecclesiology. Sure, there is an universal church, the body, but is there really much of a functional church? All said, the inadequacy of our practical ecclesiology out to be self-evident. It barely exists. If we are to avoid problems like this, perhaps we ought to take our ecclesiology to where it ought to be. Or are we willing to let Arkansas repeat itself in our churches?
December 12th, 2009 | 2:15 pm | #1
Wow — no comments yet.
Collin: what if it’s obvious that structure never, in the history of the world, has stopped the sinful heart of man from rearing its ugly head?
December 12th, 2009 | 2:36 pm | #2
Isn’t there a difference between prevention and remediation?
December 12th, 2009 | 3:42 pm | #3
Of course the church cannot change the human heart. But some of the shoddy pastor requirements contribute to the problem.
Got a problem with porn? Child porn? Just add an internet filter. Yup. That will solve all our problems. No need for anyone to watch the person. After all, he said he knew that God called him.
What makes a person called? Why aren’t churches discerning, calling, and sending, instead of waiting for people to have that feeling or whatever it is that drives them? Have they no sense?
December 12th, 2009 | 4:00 pm | #4
Frank,
You wonder why no comments yet? Sometimes I wonder if evangelical theology has become too contemplative, or, for lack of a better word, freudian. Practical theology is what the deacons and elders and ss teachers do — it seems not to be for the academics among us.
December 12th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #5
Collin, maybe the whole professional clergy system itself that places an inordinate amount of authority and sway in the hands of one or a few men is at the root of the problem. We place pastors on a pedestal and then act chagrined when they fail because it turns out that in spite of a seminary degree they are sinners like the rest of us.
December 12th, 2009 | 5:49 pm | #6
You’ve just expanded my man-crush on you, Collin. In a totally holy and chaste way.
December 12th, 2009 | 9:04 pm | #7
” . . . perhaps we ought to take our ecclesiology to where it ought to be.” And where would that be? Could you explain?
December 12th, 2009 | 9:44 pm | #8
William,
1. One that is practical,
2. One that is broad in scope, and
3. (to use that over-used software term) Robust.
December 12th, 2009 | 10:01 pm | #9
Frank,
What can I say, but
Ewwwww
December 14th, 2009 | 12:09 am | #10
Your post uncovers what is, IMHO, the one huge problem in evangelicalism—lack of authority. The doctrine of “sola scriptura” as held by most evangelicals is simply insufficient to provide an adequate authority for the kind of “discipline” that has been viewed classically as one of the three marks of the one, true, catholic, and apostolic church. “The church,” as most free church evangelicals know it today, is nothing more than an autonomous, voluntary association of individuals who choose to meet together because they share similar preferences. Once disagreement arises, over legitimate issues or not, the “answer” is further schism and the start of a new “franchise.” There’s a whole family tree of these kinds of assemblies in the area where I live, and it has led me to become totally disenchanted with the whole enterprise.
December 14th, 2009 | 12:23 am | #11
Of course, in the case of the Arkansas problem you initially referred to, we also have to realize that there will always be scandals in the church, sin will never be completed weeded out until the judgment, and even the most respected leaders may fall. The problem in a church like the one in the story is that there is now no real system in place to address the situation with any kind of full and adequate response. Such a system does not always work (can you say Roman Catholic priest problems?), but at least there is a system and the possibility of reform within that system. When you have the kind of independent, autocratic leaders evangelicals and fundamentalists flock to, all you can do is look for another one and hope he will do better.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact