Below is my response to Ed Stetzer's article "The Problem With Arrogant Pastors" on Church Leaders website churchleaders.com on (3/8/13).
There are two points here I must take issue with. The first is point #1, the "elitest mentality" problem. There certainly is an ego problem here, but Stetzer misses the point of what that is. The ego problem here is not so much in the elitest mentality of looking down on other churches for not doing it "your way", but that you have the arrogance to have a "your way" to begin with.
This approach is the unbiblical "church growth" approach to ministry. The "church growth" philosophy overemphasizes human agency and reduces God's role in church ministry to that of a mere footnote. Never mind that Jesus said "I'll build My church". There's not much interest in that and there's not much room for Christ where self-sufficiency, self-fulfillment and self-importance characterize the role of the pastor. Rather than the faithful proclaimation of the gospel, this pastor sees that it is his job to be "successful" at "growing a church".
As a result, a "what works" pragmatism is adopted in preference to the godly standards set forth in scripture. The "foolishness of preaching" has been replaced by the foolishness of worldly entertainment and endless "new" methodologies and paradigms. The pastor who "refuses to use anything the "big church" down the road is using" - "even when members are leaving" ought to be commended for his faithfulness in refusing "to change methods or adapt to the (secular, ungodly) changing culture around him. The pastor who does things the "right way" is the one who is doing things God's way.
"Never mind that Jesus said "I'll build My church". There's not much interest in that and there's not much room for Christ where self-sufficiency, self-fulfillment and self-importance characterize the role of the pastor."
The second point I take issue with is #3, the "exclusionary attitude". This may have been a more valid point 30 or 40 years ago when ecumenism wasn't as problematic. It's a good point if the main differences are Calvinism v. Arminianism, full immersion baptism v. "sprinkling", or what Bible translation is used, etc. The sad fact today though is that the gap between churches has widened significantly and our differences are no mere trifle.
The differences we face today are major matters of faith and orthodoxy. Many churches no longer remain within orthodoxy and espouse heretical teachings. Because of this, being ecumenical today has by and large become the equivalence of being interfaith.
The Bible admonishes us to "have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness" as "what fellowship does light have with darkness?" We cannot legitimize such "ministries" by partnering with them for some supposed "greater good" of our community. To do so would be recognizition and endorsement and would undermine the ministry of churches that remain faithful.
*NOTE*: The above article was submitted as a response in the comments to Ed Stetzer's article on churchleaders.com, but was rejected by that website's moderator.
There are two points here I must take issue with. The first is point #1, the "elitest mentality" problem. There certainly is an ego problem here, but Stetzer misses the point of what that is. The ego problem here is not so much in the elitest mentality of looking down on other churches for not doing it "your way", but that you have the arrogance to have a "your way" to begin with.
This approach is the unbiblical "church growth" approach to ministry. The "church growth" philosophy overemphasizes human agency and reduces God's role in church ministry to that of a mere footnote. Never mind that Jesus said "I'll build My church". There's not much interest in that and there's not much room for Christ where self-sufficiency, self-fulfillment and self-importance characterize the role of the pastor. Rather than the faithful proclaimation of the gospel, this pastor sees that it is his job to be "successful" at "growing a church".
As a result, a "what works" pragmatism is adopted in preference to the godly standards set forth in scripture. The "foolishness of preaching" has been replaced by the foolishness of worldly entertainment and endless "new" methodologies and paradigms. The pastor who "refuses to use anything the "big church" down the road is using" - "even when members are leaving" ought to be commended for his faithfulness in refusing "to change methods or adapt to the (secular, ungodly) changing culture around him. The pastor who does things the "right way" is the one who is doing things God's way.
"Never mind that Jesus said "I'll build My church". There's not much interest in that and there's not much room for Christ where self-sufficiency, self-fulfillment and self-importance characterize the role of the pastor."
The second point I take issue with is #3, the "exclusionary attitude". This may have been a more valid point 30 or 40 years ago when ecumenism wasn't as problematic. It's a good point if the main differences are Calvinism v. Arminianism, full immersion baptism v. "sprinkling", or what Bible translation is used, etc. The sad fact today though is that the gap between churches has widened significantly and our differences are no mere trifle.
The differences we face today are major matters of faith and orthodoxy. Many churches no longer remain within orthodoxy and espouse heretical teachings. Because of this, being ecumenical today has by and large become the equivalence of being interfaith.
The Bible admonishes us to "have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness" as "what fellowship does light have with darkness?" We cannot legitimize such "ministries" by partnering with them for some supposed "greater good" of our community. To do so would be recognizition and endorsement and would undermine the ministry of churches that remain faithful.
*NOTE*: The above article was submitted as a response in the comments to Ed Stetzer's article on churchleaders.com, but was rejected by that website's moderator.