Lay People, Please Understand the Church Growth Movement

The doctrinal struggles of the 1970s within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod were simple to understand compared to the strife that occupies us today.

I remember explaining the '70 situation to groups of lay people by laying out two differing views of the Bible. One group believed the Bible to the inspired and inerrant Word of God. The other group took the Bible as the inspired, but erroneous in some places, a mixture of the Word of God and the word of men.

One could say that the conservatives, like Lutherans before them, accepted the Creation of the universe in six days, the reality of Satan in the Edenic serpent, the historicity of the worldwide flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the Messianic prophecies, the miracles of Christ, etc. We were able to point out that the Seminex crowd had people in it that denied or were wishy washy on one or more of these doctrines of the Bible. The lay people could easily understand that one group was Lutheran and the other was different.

It was pretty much black and white.

The problems that we face these days are a lot harder to understand, and, I must admit, a lot harder to explain in the short, sweet way we did in the Battle for the Bible. We do not face the clear-cut Bible believer/Bible doubter distinction we had then. There are a lot of people wanting to spread misiformation among the lay people, and they seem to be willing to listen and follow.

Those who seek to share the information of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions are called "old fashioned," "afraid of the future," "status quo worshippers," "Romanists," "fundamentalists" and worse. There are very few "traditionalists" or "Lutheran Fundamentalists" among the "confessionals," as the "conservatives" are known, critics these days. These do not want to slavishly follow Page 5 and 15, or DS I or DS II, as the opponents in this battle often declare. But neither do they want to incorporate some rites or ceremonies into the worship of the church that come from sources that are doctrinally foreign (altar calls, testimonies, performance music, open communion) to the Lutheran Church or are untested through theological consideration and debate.

Some good questions to ask are: "Is this a good thing to do, or is it just something "nice" they do in XYZ church? Does it teach or enhance the Gospel, or does it seek to build up unchristian self-esteem or have some other self-centerd goal? Does it have roots in the Bible, or does it come from our modern culture? Is it what sinners need, or is it what sinners want? (There is a big difference!) Is it what God offers, or is it what the world offers? Is it the "easy" way, or God's way of the cross?

All this is complicated by a misunderstanding of the words of the Augsburg Confession, Article VII. "Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites and ceremonies, instituted by men should be everywhere alike." Many today have read this as permission to do anything they like and to change all the "rites and ceremonies" of the church.

I remember the first time I came across this attitude in its full-blown form was at the confirmation of my niece in the Panhandle. There was no liturgy to speak of, the pastor kept wandering around whispering directions to everyone (It appeared that he had not planned the service, but was just "winging it."), there were no hymns from a Lutheran hymnal (The choir sang a wonderful Bach chorale that seemed very out of place in this non-denominational setting.), no questions of the confirmands (they all read an essay about the church - only two of the dozen had anything but a Roman Catholic view of the church, though the pastor boasted about how wonderful the papers were) and no vows of faithfulness. (I spoke to one of the children's parents after the service and mentioned that they didn't have vows. He replied that he had not noticed that, but that as an Elder, he would ask the pastor. I later heard that the pastor replied something like: "Promises, schmomises. They don't mean them anyway." But the Elders insisted that the next Sunday the confirmands make their vows. After we got to my niece's home, I asked how their instructions were done in the Christian Day School. She said that the pastor was often late, and they only got through the Lord's Prayer, but that he said they would learn about the Lord's Supper after they were confirmed.)

This experience made a deep impression on me for several reasons. First, this was a fast growing congregation. Second, the pastor was a Circuit Counselor. Third, the pastor did not even have the Christian courtesy to answer my polite letter of concern. Fourth, the District President, responding to the copy I sent him, defended this pastor as a leading light in the District. And lastly, this non-liturgical service had gone hand in hand with a "who cares about doctrine" attitude on the part of the pastor.

As time has gone by I have seen this attitude repeatedly. Many of those who write about "church growth methods" appear to regard Christian doctrine as secondary to the sociological and psychological principles that cause people to come to church. We see this in the easing of standards of Adult instruction classes. I worry if the 26 class hours I require is enough to really expose inquirers to sufficient Christian truth to prepare them for the Sacrament and church membership, but I have people come to me who say they became a Lutheran over the weekend at an 8 hour seminar at a fast growing Austin church. "Is that so?" It takes pastors who come from the ELCA two years of study with our seminary profs to become LCMS, but these wizards can make a Methabapticostal into a Lutheran in eight hours. "I don't think so!"

We also see this "doctrine is secondary" notion in the use of grape juice as an option in holy communion (not to mention the use of the individual cups); a loose communion policy; the use of personal testimonies; the placing of the choir in a performance position in the sanctuary; performance solos; choice of non-doctrinal, emotional music; "fun" youth programs and Sunday Schools; emphasis on the pastor as the reason for all that happens in the church (if attendance or offerings go down, it is the pastor's fault, since he is the CEO) and any number of other unLutheran attitudes. Can you begin to understand that the practices of church growth are grounded in doctrine, or lack of it? It is not that we are only adopting Protestant methods of accepting members who have little knowledge of what a Lutheran believes, but that with these methods we are actually adopting the doctrine of the general Protestant by default.

For those who are into the current methods of "church growth" to claim that they hold firmly to Lutheran doctrine is impossible. Lutheran's expect that the teachings of Christ and the Gospel will always be first in their concern for people's salvation. We teach the truth so people will know who Christ is and what He did to make them acceptable for heaven. We do not believe that inspiring, entertaining, thrilling and stimulating them in our congregational gatherings is sufficient to make Christians out of them. They need, and we all need, to be taught, the truth of God (doctrine) in liturgy, hymnody, Word and Sacrament to be "thoroughly equipped" as a Christian.

Doctrine, teaching the Truth of God, is primary, not secondary in the church's mission.

"Human traditions, that is, rites and ceremonies, instituted by men" are not holy in themselves, but the ones that we have used throughout the various times and cultures the church has existed have served to teach people about God. They are doctrinal statements largely taken from the Bible. Understand this, Lay people. Your worship practices teach doctrine. Do they teach the Biblical doctrines of God or the sociological and psychological doctrines of men? If you are honest and faithful, you will not be a party to adopting foreign and non-Lutheran worship practices and the doctrines of men that come along with them, even if all your neighboring churches do.