Had dinner with Erwin McManus and the Mosaic crew last night. Uber-impressed with their entire tribe! Also enjoyed connecting with some pastors around the table including a couple new friends, Thor and Vidar, from Norway! Good food. Good fellowship. Good times.
Excited to see the way the mosaic alliance will evolve as a network of churches. I continue to see this trend of churches affiliating based on philosophy rather than theology. It seems like church movements used to be bound more by a common theology, but newer church movements are bound more by a common philosophy of ministry.
Excited to see the way the mosaic alliance will evolve as a network of churches. I continue to see this trend of churches affiliating based on philosophy rather than theology. It seems like church movements used to be bound more by a common theology, but newer church movements are bound more by a common philosophy of ministry.
11 Comments:
Hey Mark,
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "churches affiliating based on philosophy rather than theology"?
I've always seen philosophy and theology as being very close, if not one (philosophy) being a part of the other (theology).
Thanks,
Tim
10,769 days
While I am certain that you are correct, I find this trend to be somewhat disturbing. There appears to be a steady movement away from "theology" as people react (and perhaps over-react) to the Church in past eras. What we believe has everything to do with how we do church. Or if not, it certainly should.
Tim,
I think the Willowcreek Association is a great example--lots of theological latitude within orthodox boundaries. But focused on what it means to be a "seeker-sensitive" church.
Denominations started out as theological movements. The glue was a theological distinctive like baptism or spiritual gifts, etc.
What I see now is churches aligning based on a philosophy or methodology. For example, purpose-driven churches.
I think Mosaic is leading one of those new movement--a celebration of creativity as part of spirituality.
My two cents,
Mark
Honestly,
I think affiliating based on theology has splintered the church in many ways. Somehow, methodology seems less devisive than theology.
These movements are NOT "anti-theology." I think they are more focused on new ways of reaching people for Christ and expressing the kingdom in unique ways.
Another way of thinking about it is this: these new movements are focused on new forms of incarnation.
Mark
I get confused by the many -ologies. At the end of the day, if the doctrine, statement of faith, whatever equivalent is the same than how individual churches decide to deliver the Gospel is secondary.
Gathering around philosophy over theology has certainly become the norm. I'm not convinced it's a good thing, but rather the result of the perfect storm of being forced to do church in a new way in our culture, the emergence of the rock star pastors with global internet influence, and a general weakness in the area of theology to begin with.
The first issue - forced change - is hard to avoid. It's just a reality. The second issue - ministry personalities with gravitational orbs larger than Saturn - is usually not the 'star's' fault, but rather those who are looking feverishly for a role model and attach themselves with little or no thought of theology. The third...the theology issue in itself...it's easier to program services than it is to explain propitiation or eschatology, although arguably, it's our our views on things like those that will endure far beyond our couches or candles.
I think we'd do better to align along theology and develop a tolerance for one another's methods within those tribes. It would provide a more solid core to teach from and ultimately do more to diversify the church.
I miss DC some - grab a Burrito Brothers for me when you're over on 2nd and Penn! :)
I hear ya Rob. Don't disagree with what you're saying, but just an observation.
While some "movements" are weak on theology, Mosiac isn't one of them. In fact, I think they've theology in the ways the rest of the church has ignored. For example, creativity is a natural byproduct of spirituality.
One reason I love Mosaic is the fact that Erwin McManus is such a deep theological thinker.
Does that make sense?
I'm a both/and guy. Theology and methodology.
Mark
Mark
I need to clarify - I didn't mean to cast a shadow over McManus, Mosaic, or any of their efforts. Like most of the guys in this role - Warren, Hybels, etc - they're just trying to resource the next generation of fire starters in a helpful way.
It's when the method, the 40 day plan, or the buzzwords that always surround methodology become the young guy's identity that I get nervous, and glancing around western Christendom, I see reason to be concerned - a vast army gathered around methods who have only the rudimentary concern for the message. That's not the leaders' fault by any means.
And who the heck is Rob? :-)
philosophy tells us that uor problem is in our "MIND", theology tells us that our problems are with a WICKED HEART OF SIN. They are almost opposite. I can't even believe the so-called churches touch man-made philosophy.
Dalton,
I think you misread the post?
It says "philosophy of ministry."
Too many pastors haven't taken time to develop a philosophy of ministry so they do ministry out of memory. They are repeating the past instead of creating the future. We need a well-developed philosophy of ministry so we don't forget why we're doing what we're doing.
Of course, I totally disagree with the assertion that philosophy is somehow "bad" as well. Every ology is a branch of theology. Romans 1:20 says that God reveals himself through creation. The arts and sciences are a study of creation. So if you ignore them you're ignoring God. I think we need to put God back into our philsophy and psychology and biology and neurology.
My two cents,
Mark
I'm with you Mark. One of the biggest problems with the church is that it is full of people who know a lot of stuff: about the Bible, about church history, and about doctrine. Unfortunately that doctrine or theology does not change lives. Theological orthodoxy is important but the goal is relationship not theology.
Your post said that the networking is based on philosophy of ministry not theology. It did not say that theology was not important. To be a member of the Mosaic Alliance you to agree with their doctrinal statement. But that doctrinal statement is not the reason people join the alliance. It is the philosophy of ministry.
Post a Comment
<< Home