Evangelical Leaders and Ecclesiology
Written by Niel Nielson on December 10th, 2007Some of you will be familiar with Michael Lindsay’s recently published Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite. Lindsay is a member of the department of sociology at Rice University, and this book is a thoroughly researched and clearly written account of the ascendancy of evangelicals in the public square—in government, in education, in the arts and media, and in the marketplace.
There is much on which to reflect in Lindsay’s book. His distinction between “populist evangelicalism” and “cosmopolitan evangelicalism”; his description of the personal and somewhat informal networks that bind powerful evangelical leaders together; his accounts of evangelicals’ efforts to gain intellectual respectability in, and to bring Christian principles to bear on every aspect of, the broader culture—these are fascinating and important features of his research and deserve to be understood by evangelicals of all stripes.
My comment here focuses on one aspect of Lindsay’s description of these evangelical leaders: their general disconnection from the local church. According to Lindsay, these leaders “feel distant from their own churches…” and “instead focus on the parachurch sector…” (p. 194). Small groups of peers provide their principal source of spiritual solidarity, and their commitment to such groups and parachurch networks is significantly higher than their commitment to a local congregation—that is, unless it’s a megachurch, where these folks are more likely, according to Lindsay’s observation, to find leadership models consistent with those they’re familiar with outside the church, or a savvy, entrepreneurial senior pastor with whom they can relate more closely than the typical pastor of a smaller congregation.
Often there is a genuine disrespect for such more typical pastors: “Many talked about their pastors being completely removed from the working world they inhabit…And they blame ministers for preaching irrelevant sermons that fail to connect with the challenges faced by business leaders today” (p. 195). Some of these leaders have experienced criticism from pastors, who would preach publicly against second homes or corporate jets without speaking personally with the leaders first.
One example whom Lindsay presents is Bob Buford, founder of Leadership Network. Lindsay says of Buford that he “has little interest in working with pastors of congregations that are of average size and scope, and rather wants to ‘build on the islands of health and strength.’” Buford favors “innovative church leaders whose personal styles resemble those of corporate CEOs.” As Buford put it, “I only deal with people who are receptive to what we’re trying to do” (p. 198).
What interests me—and ought to interest every believer—is the latent ecclesiology here. What exactly is the church, biblically speaking? Why does it exist? What is, and what ought to be, the believer’s relationship to it? What is the role of ordained church leaders, and what is the nature of their authority?
When powerful leaders eschew the local church, for whatever reason, and look to one another for their spiritual support, what is the long-term effect on faith, Christian life, and ministry? Where is spiritual discipline and accountability? With no intention to justify the failure of many ministers to understand and connect with their congregants, I nevertheless would suggest that these leaders may in fact need perspectives other than their own, even perspectives that would challenge their own. When Buford says that he deals only with “people who are receptive to what we’re trying to do,” one wants to ask “What is driving what? Who is being required to dance to whose tune? What resemblance does this bear to biblical descriptions of and instructions to the community of faith?”
In my opinion, there is no greater tragedy for modern evangelicalism than the demise of the church (both universal and local) through the loss of its rightful role and voice for believers and the broader culture. The rampant triumph of individualism and autonomy, according to which, even for people of faith, self is sovereign and fulfillment of one’s own desires and ends is paramount – this triumph means that the church has become just one more instrument for the individual’s personal goals: “It needs to be receptive to what I’m trying to do, or I’ll simply create my own communities to accomplish my ends.”
What a far cry this is from the biblical church, the very body of Christ on earth, through which, by the means of grace given to it, God is pleased to accomplish his sovereign and gracious purpose for his creation! How grateful I am for Covenant’s vital and vibrant connection to the church—to the PCA, to church leaders, to congregations, all of whom we joyfully serve and to whom we are joyfully accountable. Are such connections always easy to manage? Of course not. But we gladly choose such complications and the blessing of working through them over an autonomy that would cut us off from the primary context of God’s manifold and redemptive grace. And we consider it a crucial part of our calling to equip and motivate our students to love and serve the church, with its shortcomings as well as its glories, rather than seek alternate arrangements.
Though with a scornful wonder men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping, their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.‘Mid toil and tribulation, and tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation of peace forevermore;
Till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blest,
And the great church victorious shall be the church at rest.Yet she on earth hath union with God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won;
O happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we,
Like them, the meek and lowly, on high may dwell with thee.
—Samuel J. Stone, 1866
Dr. Nielson…
First let me say thank you for what Covenant College is doing. I’m especially encouraged to see more of academia entering into this collaborative discussion forum we fondly call the blogosphere. I pray you’ll find success in leading yet others from your faculty to share their intellectual resources at the speed of Light.
[Btw, I learned of your blog as we featured a great Chalmers Center article on "Helping The Poor Without Hurting Them, Or Us". Great article.]
And thank you for addressing an essential issue here to be further discussed… Ecclesiology.
Having said that, let me quickly disclaim… I’m neither a pastor nor theologian, but simply an active reader of the Word… with more than a few years sitting under great PCA preaching/teaching.
Could we entice you to post further, on this topic… especially citing bible references for what constitutes the ‘local church’? Especially consider what we’re reading about in the New Testament… ie, the church at Antioch, Jerusalem, Philippi, Rome, (Indianapolis?) etc…. granularly down to the house-to-house level… with no mention of anything like we see here in the U.S. today… ie, ABC Baptist, XYZ Presbyterian and 123 Unitarian. And when the NT hints at any other division of the Church, it is as Paul writes strongly against such divisions.
Btw, in your article, you’ve noted that surely we should not simply go create a new community at every opportunity. Yet there’s a certain irony in the PCA’s very existence, after dividing away from another denomination.
In the article above, you’ve made your case from what some of us might call the stereotypical false-dichotomy between a ‘local church’ (meaning for instance, a PCA church variety) vs. the ‘parachurch’ (often those incited to start a team from various congregations to go do the work of the Church, due to a perceived lack of the ‘local church’ doing it). It brings to mind Jesus’ parable of the two sons… one who (only) talked the talk, and one who (reluctantly but eventually) walked the walk.
I think we’d all agree that we need for the church to be both biblically constructed and at the same time, optimally effective in its mission… the Whole Commission. Some of us might even suggest that the truly-LOCAL body of believers would be the appropriate grouping — not the mega-wannabee varieties we see prevalent today.
Currently, it seems that the ‘local church’ in the U.S. is (largely) neither effective nor well-constructed. Barna Research cites only 4% of American adults as holding a biblical worldview; thus it would be hard to make a convincing case for our collective effectiveness. Further, Dr. Lindsay’s colleague — Dr. Michael Emerson — reports that only 5% of Christian churches in the U.S. would meet the minimal definition of being ‘multicultural’ (which surely we’d agree the New Testament mandates, yes?).
And if you would, please speak to the selection of these ‘elders’ (and thus their ‘authority’)… if in fact, the fractured U.S. church model is not a biblically-representative case study. Considering all the purported ‘local churches’ in our cities, might we be appointing/ordaining way too many elders citywide? And if so, what ‘authority’ do they truly possess? I wonder aloud… What if biblical elders had to meet a higher selection standard city by city… something akin to truly being elders ‘respected at the city gate’?
Lastly, it might be instructive for us to understand what Covenant College is doing specifically to make inroads into resolving this poor appearance & effectiveness of the Church, city by city.
And how might we help?
Btw, we’re collecting some great links on the topic at ModelChurch.org — we’d love to add your insights.
Phew! Thank you for your response. There’s a lot to address here, and I don’t pretend to be an expert or authority on church health/growth. But I’ll offer these brief comments in response to several of your inquiries.
I write as a Presbyterian, which means, among other things, that I believe the Scripture provides a framework for the church, including the oversight of elders in a “local” body. Is the body which Scripture describes a discreet congregation or several congregations in a larger community? I’m not sure, although the presbyterian structure enables oversight at both the truly local and the larger community levels. In any case, in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, the biblical writers outline an organizational order within which they expect believers to live together.
I certainly agree with you about the splintered nature of things in the American church, as well as the ineffectiveness of much of it (although it’s interesting to ask what your standards of effectiveness are). We in the American church need to do a much better job of teaching and leading. But that’s surely not a reason to ignore what the Bible does in fact say about elders and oversight and authority and discipline and the proper ordering of life within the congregation(s). The church as described in the Scripture remains God’s principal means for his purposes. How much better to reform and revive the church, in its biblical beauty and power, rather than opt for other organizational principles! I wonder if the poor appearance and ineffectiveness of the church are the results of ignoring and abandoning the Bible’s teaching, and, therefore, if the flight to other organizational principles will give merely the appearance of effectiveness for a time while in fact steepening the slide. (There are wonderful resources available to aid in this important enterprise of reform and revival: The Embers to Flame ministry, growing out of Harry Reeder’s ministry at Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, and the 9Marks ministry growing out of Mark Dever’s ministry at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.)
The PCA was born out of the need for biblical and missional fidelity, and was established, as well as those wise but fallible founders could do so, on the basis of what the Bible in fact teaches about the nature of the church. To equate the founding of the PCA and its ecclesiology with the parachurch movement is a remarkable leap: Emerson’s account gives no evidence that the loose and informal “networks” which the evangelical leaders he describes are established on the foundations of the authority of elders (e.g. 1 Timothy, Titus), sound biblical worship (e.g. 1 Corinthians), and the kind of congregational connectedness and care that is at the heart of the Scripture’s teaching (e.g. Acts 2). While some local churches and some parachurch organizations may give the impression of a false dichotomy, a dichotomy nevertheless exists in truth, given the Scripture’s instruction. And of course there is a place for parachurch organizations, with particular attention given to creating healthier connections to healthier churches so that all the parts of God’s work on earth would function according to his plan.
As to the selection of elders, I agree entirely with the need for higher standards – which once again leads me to presbyterian ecclesiology, according to which there are biblical standards and expectations which qualified men must meet.
At Covenant our aim is to provide an academically excellent education within the context of the theologically Reformed framework. Ecclesiologically, this means BOTH honoring the Scripture’s clear teaching about the nature and function and order of the church, and our biblical obligation to live under its authority and discipline, AND encouraging and challenging us all to grow churches that are alive in the Word and the gospel, that vibrantly engage community and world, and that faithfully and biblically serve the Lord’s gracious and redemptive purposes for his people and his creation.
A little trivia about Presbyterian splintering: Perhaps our timing for 54 years has been impeccable, but for many folks like me in the PCA and its tributaries, UNION has been our ONLY experience–never splintering. From the Bible Presbyterian Church to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church to the Reformed Presbyterian Church-Evangelical Synod to the PCA, blessed union all the way!