# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S204 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 204 THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS To help develop that “keen sense of balance” in our Synod, FSCC offers practical and positive guidelines for wrestling with the question of “When to Follow the Culture and When to Counter the Culture.” Our churches will surely benefit by giving this section careful study. In a series of paragraphs, FSCC draws some impor- tant distinctions: Cultural Technology Theological Community Dynamics Worship Communication Preaching Technology Then comes an important section directly addressing ‘‘Lutheran Evangelism in American Culture.” The conclusion provides sev- eral practical questions, suggestions, and recommendations aimed at stimulating members of the LCMS to “Tell the Good News about Jesus!” Overall, FSCC presents a clear and powerful expla- nation of the evangelistic approach God has promised to use—and clearly contrasts this with the CGM’s more recent alternatives. The CTCR draws short of fully affirming FSCC. Shying away from direct criticism at certain points in its endeavor to employ mild language, the Commission’s self-imposed restraint occasion- ally produced expressions serving primarily to arouse suspicion. On page 10, for example, the Commission worries at one point that “such a way of ‘framing’ the issue might give some the impression that ...” Hypothetical possibilities create doubt through implica- tion while failing to identify any real shortcoming in the actual words of the document. Similar hand-wringing could sabotage any CTCR document just as easily, sapping its legitimacy. Honest and forthright criticism should bring problems to the surface and chal- lenge them directly. The CTCR’s own approach to pursuing balance makes use of deliberately nuanced terminology: “the church needs to guard against” a list of obligatory cautions and reminders in one para- graph, countered by another marked off with the words “at the same time.” Eight times this dialectical device is used to give back with the other hand much of what was taken away in the first. Will this truly bring clarity to the reader seeking to discern which Church Growth methods could prove appropriate for use, and which are fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel and Scrip- tures, or will it leave the reader more confused? To use another metaphor, this repeated exhaling and inhaling seems more likely to have a rather dizzying effect. Logically, the CTCR’s approach bears a remarkable resemblance to Hegel’s analytical method of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis.” One might summarize the CTCR’s Review along these lines: Thesis: The CTCR documents ECG, TSM, and SG tend to permit the utilization of any “appropriate” presuppositions, prin- ciples, techniques, methodologies, and resources of the Church Growth Movement to pursue measurable growth of the church as a human institution. Antithesis: FSCC demonstrates that the CGM derives more from popular culture and human reason than from Scripture, and therefore many (perhaps most) of its presuppositions, principles, techniques, methodologies, and resources are fundamentally hostile to the biblical theology of Luther. It follows that allow- ing the liberal usage of Church Growth methods in our midst is similar to permitting yeast to infect the unleavened bread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Synthesis: The CTCR’s Review of FSCC recommends that we heed the warnings contained therein, yet “at the same time” permit “careful” experimentation and even enthusiastic adop- tion of “appropriate” CG principles, presuppositions, resources, and methods—as long as these don’t contradict our Lutheran theology. In the end, it does seem fair to say that FSCC posts a sign marked “Bridge Out Ahead” regarding much of the Church Growth Movement. Even as it echoes many of the warnings in FSCC, the CTCR’s Review seems aimed at removing this sign from the road and replacing it with one marked “Proceed with Caution.” Note well these statements from the CTCR’s Review: e FSCC gives considerably less attention to the possibility of making proper use of certain emphases and insights of the Church Growth Movement in the service of God’s mission while at the same time re- jecting any and all assumptions that would call into question the suf- ficiency of Scripture and the adequacy and efficacy of the means of grace (p. 21). e While lack of numerical growth is not necessarily a sign of a lack of faithfulness to God’s mission mandate, it certainly may be such a sign. FSCC’s legitimate warnings against trying to “measure” the growth of God’s church on the basis of numbers might be strength- ened if accompanied by more frequent and fervent warnings against the all-too-common sins (also present in the LCMS) of laxity and in- difference to God’s mission (p. 7).° Consider the flip side of the CTCR’s caution: “While the pres- ence of numerical growth is not necessarily a sign of a lack of faith- fulness to the clear proclamation of God’s saving truth, it certainly may be such a sign,” and it seems no less true. It’s hardly fair for the CTCR to implicate FSCC for indifference and laxity in mis- sionary zeal when in fact it says: “Calling into question certain fea- tures of the Church Growth Movement should by no means lessen our church’s commitment to evangelize the lost” (p. 448). In sev- eral other places FSCC emphasizes the freedom and necessity of living out Christ’s Commission without needing thereby to employ Church Growth methods. It is apparent that the CTCR’s own documents counsel less cau- tion towards the Church Growth Movement than does FSCC, which leads the CTCR to propose a fundamentally more permis- sive outlook toward CGM presuppositions, methodologies, and re- sources. “The dose determines the poison” is a familiar expression to pharmacists and physicians—evidently the CTCR believes that Church Growth methods and resources may be safe for regular ex- posure and consumption when taken in measured doses and ad- ministered by LCMS pastors and other synodical leaders. Yet FSCC provides guidelines for discernment not found in the CTCR’s own documents. Beyond the counting noted above and “soil-testing” addressed below, the CTCR details no other specific CGM principles, presuppositions, methods, and resources that should be endorsed and embraced. Rather, it explicitly affirms FSCC cautions about those that are inappropriate. FSCC remains therefore an essential resource for LCMS pastors and laity to con- sult as they seek to determine what is appropriate and what is not. One egregious statement ultimately compelled this author to publicly express his dissent. On page 12, the Commission’s Re- view states of the church: It should not hesitate to use all appropriate tools and meth- ods to identify and seek out individuals and groups who, like the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12), appear to be especially receptive to the truths of God’s Word (cf. ECG, pp. 38-39). This statement improperly references and misapplies the CTCR’s own document Evangelism and Church Growth. The ref- erenced segment actually says: Church Growth materials commonly suggest that a congre- gation may find it helpful to conduct “soil-testing” research to discover which communities are most receptive to the Gospel and thus offer greatest potential. Some claim that it is not un- common to discover that whole families become receptive in times of crisis such as the death of a loved one, the birth of a child, a divorce, a period of illness, or loss of employment. As we have noted above, Church Growth theorists have developed what has come to be known as the Resistance-Receptivity Axis, which is intended to reveal where individual prospects are on a scale indicating the degree of their openness to the Gospel. Is such “soil-testing” research in accord with Scripture? While we may recognize that some individuals appear to be more interested in church membership than others, there is no scriptural warrant for the claim that it is possible by systematic research to list on a graduated scale the degree to which a person may be open to the Gospel. Moreover, this becomes no more than a subjective judgment on the part of the pastor and the con- gregation, since it is impossible to evaluate with certainty the spiritual condition of another human being (1 Cor. 2:11). In gen- eral, it is superficial and misleading to purport to diagnose the “health” of the church independently of the divinely given means of grace, on the basis of externals such as degrees of ac- tivism, efficiency, or apparent success or failure.