We started working with the Natural Church Development program. In many ways, it makes sense on the surface. But we began to see things that eroded our confidence in NCD, particularly things that Christian Schwarz has written.
1. NCD claims to essentially be theologically-neutral. It seeks to help you be a healthy church within your theological tradition. But would Paul agree? Based on his letters to Timothy, I’d say healthy/sound doctrine is essential to a healthy/sound church. Theology does matter. A church can have great systems and growing out the wazoo, but if they teach error having to do with the gospel, they are leading all their people astray and possibly to destruction.
2. The questions asked in the NCD survey were largely subjective, and therefore the answers are largely subjective (which is why I wish From Embers to a Flame didn’t use them). People aren’t asked about the role & use of Scripture, fidelity to biblical doctrine, how much prayer takes place etc. The few objective questions had to do with the number of friendships you had inside and outside of the church- not how those relationships related to discipleship and evangelism (it takes more than relationships with non-Christians to make you an evangelist).
3. He’s a sociologist, from Germany. This means that theology is not his primary discipline. And it looks like most of the theology he reads is from Continental scholars tainted by liberal scholasticism. For instance, he views plenary verbal inspiriation as if we think the Bible was dictated to the apostles. His view of Scripture is quite low. This also impacts his understanding (or lack thereof) of original sin which results in his rejection of the doctrines of grace I find so fundamental to understanding the gospel. So, he’s quite unfamiliar with British and American theology founded on the Reformation. His bibliography is laden with Barth, Brunner, Bultmann & Tillich. What few English speaking authors he has are mostly ministry, not theology, related. And lots of Peter Wagner.
4. He’s overly ecumenical. When he chides Rome, it is for its institutionalism not its theology. NCD’s use in Catholic parishes is endorsed/applauded by Schwarz. Remember, theology doesn’t really matter in his view (though we’ll see this is not quite true).
5. He seems to be greatly influenced by Hegelian philosophy. The light didn’t come on for this one at first. I saw his 2 poles (vitality & structure) as a form of tension that we have to keep in balance. It helped me to see how people on either of the extremes will view you as embracing the other extreme rather than noticing that you affirm aspects of their position (the need for spiritual vitality or structure). BUT, his book Paradigm Shift in the Church: How Natural Church Development Can Transform Theological Thinking appears to go beyond that to more of a thesis + antithesis = synthesis model. This makes sense since he’s a German sociologist. Additional reading will be necessary.
Now I’m starting to see more clearly why some people in my denomination have a problem with Schwarz and NCD. As I continue to read I suspect more read flags will emerge. Oddly, I haven’t heard of any other denominations raising any of these issues (we aren’t used to being on the forefront of anything). Or are we just missing something?
Dear Cavmen,
I have spent a lot of time researching the phenomenon of the CGM and ALL the ofshoots it seems amazing that as one starts and it is already in its full bloom another marketing sociological profile is being developed. For the purpose of helping us do Church better.
Yet in this process I feel starved.
I havent been to a decent Church service and passionate faithful Preaching of God’s Word in so long I have almost forgotten what I sounds and feels like.
I cannot for the life of me understand (except from what Scripture says, the only Book making sence of this madness) why those who know the Scriptures could actually not see the pitfalls.
Anyway I would like to commend you on your perception (Discernment), this is yet another extension of the same ol same ol…devil inspired sheep led by goat scenerio.
God bless
Linton Holm
Hi Cavman.
Just responding to this:
“1. NCD claims to essentially be theologically-neutral. It seeks to help you be a healthy church within your theological tradition. But would Paul agree? Based on his letters to Timothy, I’d say healthy/sound doctrine is essential to a healthy/sound church. Theology does matter.”
I’ve read a number of reviews criticising Schwartz for being uninterested in the theology of the churches he works with. My further research into his work doesn’t bear this out. His stance appears to be that as people engage in the NCD process, they interact with the Trinitarian theology of the process and perhaps lose their liberalism (or fundamentalism).
Anyway, he could equally retort that most books of systematic theology ignore principles of church development in favour of an abstract and decontextualised orthodoxy. How do we communicate theological truth to people without healthy churches?
T-man,
You get some mixed messages with NCD. Theologically, they say the system works within your own theology.
His bipolarity does suggest some changes in theology as you work through the process.
Though some theologies are truer than others, he never lays out a summary of what might be a truer theology. And the my denomination has problems with his problems with Reformed Theology.
Systematic Theology should depend on Biblical Theology so it is not decontextualized and keeps it in touch with God’s purpose for revealing that particular truth.
I love the way the Westminster Shorter (and Longer) Catechism start. It is a great way to contextualize theology- it’s purpose is to help us glorify God and enjoy Him forever. As Frame says, it has application. As we apply our doctrines, they should have application to worship, church growth, personal growth, social justice etc (see Poythres’ book on Interpreting Scripture). To lay out all the applications in a book on systematic theology would be to write one honking huge book, that would, perhaps, we lost in its own historical context (for the theologian can’t see too far beyond what has been and what is).
Gurus of change
The marketing ecclesiastical shows us a new means to impact the culture to measure the health of a church: the organizational diagnosis. So, called today to churches to move in that direction under the slogan: “Change or die”.
The ecclesiastical tradition has been to defeat the enemy now, tradition has been a sign of legalism and legalism is death. Change has been a sign of contemporaneity, and then contemporary church is a healthy church.
In this sea of change inevitably arise prophets, tlatoanis, gurus who would be suited to guide us through the path we should follow if they want the church to grow and not die, if they want pastors that the church is healthy and not as sick as some ministers say.
That is why I think this effort contemporary human labeled iglecrecimiento is one that is not honoring the Word of God, it depends on human effort.
Ommar Ayala
ayala213@gmail.com
Our church recently picked it up too. My thoughts are similar to yours.
2. The questions asked in the NCD survey were largely subjective, and therefore the answers are largely subjective (which is why I wish From Embers to a Flame didn’t use them). People aren’t asked about the role & use of Scripture, fidelity to biblical doctrine, how much prayer takes place etc.
People’s views on these things will be subjective, too
Neil,
People’s views on that can be subjective. But part of fixing the problem is making the questions more objective.
For example: How long is the pastoral prayer (offer ranges)? If there is a prayer service or group, how much of that time is actually spent in prayer (again, put in ranges)?
YOu can break down the worship service to see if various elements that utilize Scripture are present (Call to Worship, Confession of Sin, Benediction, OT and/or NT readings…). Does the sermon cover one specific text or not?
It’s one thing to say the church teaches doctrine, but another to be able to identify what doctrines have been taught from the pulpit, SS or small groups in the last few months or a year. It would help to ask if the person can identify the doctrinal standards of the congregation, and how often they are mentioned.
Alot of it is how you ask the questions to limit the subjectivity. I suspect that is part of what solid surveys are about
About the “theory” of the NCD, it is true that I was struck by the frequent use of bio-ecological concepts like “synergy” recycling “,” symbiosis “and others that are part of the thinking of the” New Era “.
Hence there are at least some “family” in the way of thinking, not to say too much.
In addition I see a strong influence of secular theories from the field of business administration, which may be valid when applied within their own environment, but when applied to the church, mean that the church is contaminated with an entrepreneurial thinking, principles as
“Growth”, “effectiveness”, “quality”, etc, are placed above the biblical principles.
Are we witnessing a “New World Order” which also is infiltrating the Christian churches to prepare the way for the Antichrist?
In 2nd Timothy, Chapter 3, it shows what we are witnessing this apostasy: “You should also know this: that in the latter days will be dangerous times.”
http://www.dni3.blogspot.com
Ommar Ayala
ayala213@gmail.com
[…] Feb 08 at University of Michigan. ———————– Maybe a little bit of help and direction on my answers to my Free Methodist class I had to take on the NCD tool. […]
I came across a 2002 lecture about developing a comprehensive definition of church health from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary given by Dr. William Day.
Click to access Day_Church_Health.pdf
He was critical off Schwarz’s openness to change basic Christian doctrine.
“The lack of a stated basis for Schwarz’s eight characteristics was made worse by Schwarz’s statements regarding theology: …Christian doctrine- by contrast with the person of Jesus Christ– is changeable, and must be changed over the years if it is to fulfill its task of serving the proclamation of the gospel in different historical and geographical contexts. No doctrine, not even the famous creeds developed in the history of the church, can “claim a canonical validity for the form of their statements in the sense that they claim to be a historical, valid independent of time.” Theological formulas– even such respectable concepts as the trinity or the doctrine of the two natures– must not be guarded as if they were a magical inheritance. Rather, we should constantly ask whether they demonstrably fulfill their purpose, which is to make the essence of biblical revelation clearer, rather than to obscure it. A statement which is helpful in one historical context can be decidedly counterproductive in another….every doctrine must be judged by the criterion of whether, in its own context, it has the effect of stimulating the life and growth of the church as an organism. “Functional dogmatics” can thus only mean a doctrinal approach which constantly strives to establish this principle, and which defends it against the spiritualistic and institutionalistic paradigms. What answers this doctrinal approach provides depends largely on the historical context, and thus cannot be definitively laid down for all the time….this approach leads to the conclusion that different doctrines can be right at the same time (as they each serve God’s purposes in their given context)….the statements we make on this subject have been thought through with great care, and they are painstakingly revised form one edition to the next, but they are not, of course, absolute truths that are valid for all time– just as not theology is valid for all time. Our theological statements must be useful for the development of the church in a specific situation– no more and no less. With these word, however, I certainly do not intend to justify any sort of relativism (emphasis mine).49
49 Christian A, Schwarz, Paradigm Shift in the Church: How Natural Church Development Can Transform Theological Thinking ( Carol Stream, IL: Church Smart Resources, 1999), 109-111
Contrast that with this statement.
In an article entitled “Theology and the Healthy Church,” Paul Robertson wrote, “The church that fails to let biblically based theological reflection inform her identity and practice risks the danger of either sinking or losing her way in the storms of life.”50
50 Paul E. Robertson, “Theology of the Healthy Church,” The Theological Educator: A Journal of Theology and Ministry 57 (Spring 1998): 45-52.
A vast majority of the church health movement is not theological.
As Anthony B. Robinson wrote, “By and large, congregational health seemed, to judge by the literature, not to match much with either the core convictions of the Christian faith, theology or the Bible.”
Robinson, Anthony B. (2006). What’s Theology Got to Do with it? : Convictions, Vitality, and the Church. Herdon, VA: Alban Institute. page. 3.
So far, I’ve only found 6 books that focus on on the Bible and theology concerning church health.
1. The Measure of a Healthy Church: How God Defines Greatness in a Church. by Gene A. Getz
His book draws from every mention of church in the NT to offer a biblical way of measuring church health. Each chapter covers an area of being a church and ends with questions that help the reader measure the church they are a member of and/or attend.
I agree with him entirely that church health is not about statistics. The health of a church is measured qualitatively by the Bible and not quantitatively by the by statistics. As Getz point out, “It’s clear from the New Testament story that numbers and quantitative growth never became a means for measuring success for New Testament churches.”21 I appreciate his emphatic statement, “We must not compromise the biblical doctrine of Christology. If we do, we compromise the very essence and heart of Christianity, which would be tantamount to theological suicide.”22 Without a sound Christology, we cannot expect to have a sound Ecclesiology upon which a healthy church is developed.
2. Discipled Warriors: Growing Healthy Churches That Are Equipped For Spiritual Warfare by Chuck Lawless
His book builds on Ephesians, with a strong focus on making strong disciples which in turn help create healthy churches who are not only inwardly healthy in prayer, lifestyle, worship, family life, etc., but also outwardly in terms of evangelism.
3. Healthy Churches in a Sick World. by Howard Foltz
It not only describes a healthy church biblically and offers that as a prescription for developing such a church, but he takes discipleship a step further into the world. Also, he provides an inventory for measuring the health of a church from his biblical framework.
He builds his vision for healthy ministry to the congregation, the community and the world from a biblical foundation for a healthy church by looking at the church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Thessalonians, and the seven churches of Revelation.
4. What’s Theology Got to Do with it?: Convictions, Vitality, and the Church by Anthony B. Robinson
His book challenges one to look theologically at the health of a church from the perspective of basic Christian doctrine, i.e. God, the Trinity, scripture, sin, the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit in Christian living, ecclesiology, sacraments and ministry, and eschatology.
I have yet to read the other two books.
1. Developing Healthy Churches: A Case Study in Revelation by a pastor in Ireland, Kieran Beville. From the pieces of his book that I read online, he believes that a healthy church is a biblical church.
2. From a series of book on the IX Marks of Building Healthy Churches, is the book, Sound Doctrine: How a Church Grows in the Love and Holiness of God by Bobby Jamieson
Currently, I’m working on An Ecclesiology of Church Health.
Evidently, Ecclesiology is lacking in seminary education.
Princeton Theological Seminary professor, Ellen Charry, boldly states: “I am increasingly realizing that a number of our ministerial students have no ecclesiology to speak of. For them the church is a voluntary not-for-profit organization run like a local franchise.”4
4. Charry, Ellen T. (2005). “Sacramental Ecclesiology,” The Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press. Page 201.