LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 411

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS-—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 41]

re-emphasized, re-learned and re-applied from time to time, espe-
cially in changing contexts and circumstances. Thus, as ECG says:

The emphasis which Church Growth has placed on the role of lay
persons has been a valuable contribution to the mission outreach of the
church, Church Growth has reminded us that the laity also have a sig-
nificant role to perform in the work of Christ’s kingdom. It has stressed
the importance of training the members of the church to be more able
communicators of the Gospel and witnesses for Christ. (ECG, 42)

ECG goes on to say:

However, as Lutheran congregations use missiological principles
which assume and focus on the role of the laity, they must be cautious
lest they lose sight of the Biblical truth that the office of the ministry is
a divine institution. This office should not be confused with “ministry”
in a general sense, which belongs to all Christians. The pastor must,
therefore, not become merely an organizer, a manager whose time is
spent largely in coordinating the efforts of the congregation as the mem-
bers witness for Christ ... he will not lose sight of the fact that he has
been called to carry out the distinctive functions of the pastoral office,
that is, to preach the Word, to administer the Sacraments, to remit and
retain sins. (ECG, 42-43)

, God’s Mission Is Urgent

In 2001 Res. 1-02 the Synod in convention—on behalf of the
LCMS as a whole—confesses and Jaments that “an indifference to
Christ’s Word and work continues to hinder our ability to tell the
Good News about Jesus,” and it implores ““God’s forgiveness for
our failure to give the Gospel the precedence that it deserves.” This
confession is particularly sobering in view of Scripture’s repeated
reminders that the end of all things is at hand: “He who is coming
will come and will not delay” (Hebrews 10:37). “The love of Christ
constrains us to intensify our mission efforts as we see the end
drawing nearer, and as we see more and more people living and
dying without true knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ” (7SM, 29).

As it carries out God’s mission, therefore, the church must
guard against all human and sinful distractions, disputes, divisions,
or diversions that Satan attempts to use to keep God’s church from
doing what God has called it to do. It must guard against sinful
pride in past and present “accomplishments” and against faithless
despair over apparent failures and weaknesses, both of which mil-
itate against the character and calling of God’s militant church in
the last days. Rather—as F SCC clearly and strongly emphasizes—
the church should take comfort in the sure knowledge that the mis-
sion is the Lord’s: mission begins, continues and culminates in the
heart and hands of God. “Although [God] has entrusted it to us, he
continues to guide and direct it, sustains it with his presence and
promises, and empowers it by providing the divine means through
which the mission accomplishes its divine purposes” (TSM, 29-30).

At the same time, the church needs to take seriously, in these
last days, the fact that God has indeed “entrusted His mission to
us,” and it needs to examine constantly and truthfully its zeal for
and faithfulness to his call to make disciples of all nations. FSCC
acknowledges that “God has truly blessed The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod,” citing its “2.5 million members in more than
6,000 congregations” (448). ECG cites some more sobering statis-
tics: A “serious decline in membership growth and an increase in
“back-door losses’ over the past [5 years”; “25% of the congrega-
tions of the synod do not gain a single adult from the outside each
year, and another 12% gain only one”; “only 58% percent of the
infants we baptized are ever confirmed,” resulting in a “loss of
25,000 to 30,000 children annually” (ECG, 6).

While we certainly need to trust completely at all times that
God is truly guiding and empowering the church’s mission efforts,
we also need guard against allowing such “trust” to degenerate into
a sinful resignation to the “inevitability” of numerical decline in
today’s church, or into a sinful justification for our lack of zeal for,
dedication to, and creative efforts on behalf of God’s mission. The
stated “goal and objective of Church Growth is the salvation of the
lost ...: “How can we most effectively reach the lost in the many

cultures of this earth and integrate them into the work of the
church?’ ” (ECG, 26). While confessional Lutherans may dis-
agree—sometimes seriously—with some of methods and presup-
positions proposed by some church growth proponents, they should
be able to agree about the urgency and importance of this “goal and
objective” of reaching the lost for Christ by means of God’s means
of grace, to be willing to take full responsibility for their own fail-
ures and shortcomings in pursuing this God-pleasing goal, and to
make use of as many helpful and valid insights and resources as
possible—whatever their source—in theologically responsible
ways for the sake of God’s urgent and all-important mission.

Conclusion

While commending the goal and certain emphases of the
Church Growth Movement, FSCC voices two serious and founda-
tional concerns. It says, first of all:

Some emphases of the Church Growth Movement have highlighted
the importance of mission work and a desire for healthy growth. There
is certainly nothing wrong with common sense suggestions that might
make a church more accessible and relational—the need for visibility,
adequate parking space and facilities, ways of making a congregation
more welcoming to new members, and the like. Such ideas are helpful.
The problems with the Church Growth Movement have to do with the
assumption that God’s Word is not sufficient, that it needs to be sup-
plemented with “contemporary social and behavioral sciences.” (442)

It says, secondly:

The goal of many Church Growth proponents, 1o win souls for
Christ through the Gospel, is a worthy one. [ronically, many of the
Church growth techniques work instead to undermine the Gospel.
Church Growth principles have roots in American revivalism, which
suggests that people have within them the tree will 1o “make a decision
for Jesus.” This implies that gaining new Christians is a human work-—
a matter of rhetorical and emotional manipulation ... rather than the
work of God. (443)

As noted throughout this review, FSCC contains many helpful
wamings and cautions related to this twofold concem, and for this
it is to be commended. The Commission recommends that FSCC
be read and studied. It also recommends that the CTCR report
Evangelism and Church Growth be read and studied, noting that
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
rejecting any and all assumptions that would call into question the
sufficiency of Scripture and the adequacy and efficacy of the means
of grace.
ECG says:

Church Growth principles have been described as universal truths.
That is, they are in a general way acceptable to al! Christians. Exami-
nation of these missiological principles reveals that some of them are
indeed Biblical principles which have been used in Christian churches,
including The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, for many years. Oth-
ers are new and have their origin in sociology, anthropology, and psy-
chology, but they too have been found to be useful, also by numerous
congregations in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Still other
principles have caused some concem in Lutheran circles chiefly because
they are perceived as coming into conflict with Scriptural teaching, es-
pecially with the doctrine of the means of grace. (ECG, 36)

ECG goes on to suggest that

.-. aS We attempt to evaluate Church Growth principles, two impor-
tant questions need to be kept in mind: Do these missiological principles
reflect a theology which is non-Scriptural to the point that their appli-
cation in Lutheran congregations is unacceptable? Or, can they be mod-
ified so that they are consistent with Lutheran theological presupposi-
tions, providing new missiological techniques acceptable to Lutheran
pastors and congregations as they carry out the great commission?
(ECG, 36)

As they reflect on the cautions and warnings offered in FSCC,
pastors and congregations may also find it helpful to review the
“Guidelines for Evaluation” offered by the Commission in the con-
clusion of its report ECG (48-49), and to keep in mind its “con-
cluding word”:

2004 Convention Workbook