I want to thank you guys for your feedback on Pixelight Creative and our logo these past few days. Please continue to comment and offer suggestions and thoughts regarding the logo stuff, even though I’m moving on to another post. Hopefully, in the next week or so, we will develop the final version of our logo and we will begin to develop our “brand” in order get our website and business materials up and running. Pixelightcreative.com is now reserved and will be under construction for a while, but keep tabs with it and look for the launch (I’m sure I’ll announce it here too).
Like I said, I still want to hear more ideas and choices on logo stuff, but I want to be able to move on to another post today because I haven’t had a chance to talk about what happened in our second membership class last week. In short: it was awesome. It was awesome in a way that I really can’t articulate, but of course I will try anyways.
The second membership class focused largely on the central theologies that the church values the most. Not church theology or methodology or philosophy, but theology that is the foundation for their particular flavor of Christian spirituality (and mine, too). There are two basic areas that were dealt with: Christian Hedonism and classic Dutch Calvinism. Now, before you get scared or bent out of shape about some of this stuff, you should hear me out, because these things aren’t even the things I want to discuss right now.
Now, I knew that Barry (the pastor) adhered to these theologies because his preaching reveals it. He isn’t explicit about it, but it just resonates somehow. What I didn’t know is that the membership covenant that is required to be signed in order to become a member contains these theologies as well. Simply put, if you want to be a member at Providence, you need to believe that God is the source of happiness and joy (Christian Hedonism) and that God initiates salvation (Dutch Calvinism). Now some of you, aside from having issues/questions with some of this stuff, probably think it’s pretty exclusive to require that from their members. Why should you have to believe those things in order to be a member? Why can’t the central issue (faith in Christ) be the only prerequisite? Is this kind of “exlcusivity” something Jesus would have wanted for His Church? I’d like to try my hand at answering some of these questions.
An illustration Barry used was the idea that there are some things that a body of believers cling to with a closed fist and there are other things that a church holds with an open hand. All of this is to say that there are things, views, beliefs that a church can/should be exclusive about (concerning membership). For most churches, these would be salvation (by faith, not works), baptism, the Trinity, etc. There are also smaller, more peripheral theologies and beliefs that can be dealt with using an “open hand”, leaving room for disagreement. What I find interesting is the fact that Providence regards Christian Hedonism and God’s sovereignty in salvation as things that should be held with a “closed fist”, whereas most churches I am familiar with do not. Some would call this “fundamentalism”, so I have to point out the severe inaccuracy with this suggestion. Fundamentalism submits that you have to believe all sorts of things, both central and peripheral in order to be a Christian. What I am dealing with is the idea which promotes some ideas which we were taught were peripheral, are actually central, not to salvation, but only to a particular church’s membership. I think this is not only ok, but a positive idea for the emeging generation of churches.
Why? Because I firmly believe that God is glorified with the diversification of church, as long as the Gospel and the Scriptures retain their integrity. There are different churches for different people, and that’s a very good thing. No church will connect to every single person in the world. There has to be a harmony of diversity in both the methods and visions of our churches. To try to make the “perfect church” for everybody is a waste of time and history shows that.
So, from my perspective, Providence is simply another facet of the diverse, emerging, missional church movement. Some may say that it excludes too many people, but I disagree. Mainly because Providence doesn’t emphasize membership a great deal. Most churches tack it on to every invitation at the end of worship, but at Providence, it’s mentioned sparingly. If you want to learn more about the church, or become a member, chances are you will have to ask someboody or find the class signup sheet yourself. At Providence, you can worship there your whole life and not be pressured to join. In fact, we’ve been running 200+ in our weekend services, but I think there are only 20-30 members.
So the question is, is this ok? Is that kind of ratio healthy for a church? Is it ok to require certain theologies and small-group involvement and ministry service in order to be a member? I think so, but that’s because I look at it from this perspective: would I rather be a part of a smaller, tightly-bound band of brothers and sisters who believe the same things as I believe, who are fully-committed to my church, or would I rather be a part of a larger group, who is theologically disconnected, and loosely commited to service and involvement? It’s a no-brainer for me. And I’m prepared to sacrifice our church’s size in order to maintain that integrity.
Another interesting note is the probability that Barry has never had to “turn away” somebody from church membership. I think anybody who didn’t believe what we believe would understand that they wouldn’t be happy at Providence anyways, because it is those central beliefs that saturate our spirituality and resonates in our worship and preaching. So all of this is to say that Providence is not for everybody. Barry blew some people’s minds last week with some of this theology and I’m curious to see how many people will return for the third class. Even if it’s just a fraction of people, I can’t tell you how much it comforts my heart that I am among a body of believers who share the same theological foundation as I do. That’s what I thought was awesome about last week.
I know many people do not view these theologies as “foundational” as I do, but that debate will have to wait for another post. Right now, I’m interested in hearing some thoughts on what sort of theologies, beliefs, and core values should be regarded as “closed fist” issues for a church. Should faith in Christ be the only prerequisite for church membership, or should other things (Calvinism, Armenianism, the Trinity, baptism, “missionalism”, Christ’s physical ressurection, inerrancy, etc.) be considered central, not in salvation, but in church membership? Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to draw the line where you want? Is a church obligated to a specific measure of theological and philisophical diversity in it’s membership? Man, these are great questions…..I look foward to hearing some good answers.
Chris,
First, I want to say that a church can do whatever it wants to do. If it wants to limit membership to people with blonde hair and blue eyes, that’s up to that church.
But that’s the only way I can defend the kind of thing you’re suggesting.
It’s hard for me to give an unbiased answer
I’ll admit that I find the whole concept of Christian Hedonism pretty disgusting. But besides that, it’s what, a 20 year old idea? And it was basically created, or at least popularized, by one person. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I’ve never heard the term spoken by, written by, or attributed to anyone other than Piper.
Even if I agreed with the concept, I don’t think it’s important enough to make it a core belief. What difference does it make whether someone is a “Christian Hedonist” or not as long as that person is a Christian.
As for Calvinism, in any of its manifestations, again, it’s not for me. But, I can see how this can be seen as a core belief at a church.
The fact that I don’t agree with these beliefs is beside the point, though. I don’t think anything so unessential to the Christian faith should be requirements for church membership.
I think what you’re describing is exclusion, not unity. Uniformity is not the same as unity. Surrounding one’s self with others who believe the exact same things while shutting out others who disagree with you on the details is not unity.
I’ll stick with Augustine. “In essentials, unity. In doubtful things, liberty. But in all things, love.”
I’m not trying to run down your church. I’ve never attended a service, and I’m only going by what you’ve written. It obviously wouldn’t be for me (judging by this entry, I wouldn’t be welcome, anyway), but it may be just right for you and a lot of other people. I don’t happen to agree with this, though.
Sorry for such a long comment.
lex, long comment but good comment. But with you disagreements I have to make my rebuttals. Firstly, i think it would be a tragic miscalculation to say that any Christ follower would not be welcome at this church, that should have been emphasized more in my post. The truth is, is that if you wanted to be a part of Providence, go for it–you will be welcomed and loved. BUT, if you chose to go to the membership class, you would be turned off by some of the theology and you probably wouldn’t end up joining. You would either continue attending or, most likely, you would go to another church. “Shutting you out” would hardly be a characterization. Would you even want to go to a church where the preacher’s sermons resonate election and the pursuit of happiness in Christ? Chances are, you wouldn’t. I probably wouldn’t want to go to a church that preached transubstatiation and against Trinity, but I wouldn’t say that it’s wrong for that church to ask it’s core members to adhere to those things. In fact, i think I would appreciate the upfront honesty about their theology instead of finding out two years later in a small group meeting.
Another point I neglected to emphasize more is the nature of membership at Providence. It’s not just a label saying you are a part of this church, but it’s a covenant commitment stating that you are an active participant in leading this church in it’s direction. Members are required to be in small groups, serve in ministry, invest in each other, and sacrifice for one another. None of these things are options, they are vows. A better label I would say is “core group” membership. This is the group that the church looks to for eldership, leadership, and staff. With that said, I think a little more that faith in Christ should be required of a core group member. The question is, how much? I’ve got that Augustine quote written in a journel of mine. The issue is what you consider essential. Obviously, salvation by faith is the only essential in the grand scope of things, but when you are talking about church, trying to bind together a tight band of believers, isn’t it ok, if not helpful, to want that band to believe in the same things? isn’t it ok to acknowledge the fact that churches need to be different in what they believe and how they want to minister to it’s culture?
i guess what makes my angle unique is my belief that Christian Hedonism and Calvinism are not only biblical, but also foundational to my Christian spirituality. I don’t know where I’d be if I thought that God wasn’t sovereign in my salvation and that God is not the source of happiness. I’d be a completely different person and I would be going to a different church, and that’s ok…..I’d still be a believer. Since I regard these things as foundational to my faith personally, it’s only natural for me to want to join a membership made up of people who share the same foundation. if I thought Christian Hedonsim and Calvinism weren’t a big deal in the Bible, my faith, or in general, I wouldn’t have made this post. “Doubtful things” should be treated with liberty, but I don’t have a lot of doubt about these things, and neither does my church membership. If you owned a car repair shop, wouldn’t you want your mechanics to agree on the fact that turning the key in the ignition starts the engine?
The beauty of all this is the fact that nobody is forcing anything on anybody or “shutting anybody out”. The pastor doesn’t cram those theologies down people’s throat, the leadership doesn’t strongly urge it’s attenders to become members and believe these things. it only asks that if you wish to be a moving force in the spiritual, theological, and missional direction of this church, you need to make sure you believe some of the same (what we think are essential) beliefs.
I’ll make my case for the pre-Piper existence and “popularity” of Christian Hedonism at another time. Piper may be a great theologian in my mind, but he hasn’t really come up with anything original. He’s just articulating some things that have been forgotten by our culture. Again…some other time.
Good stuff.
Chris…
I went to the Provident website and skimmed through the doctrinal statement. Neither of the two ideas you are discussing here are explicitly treated in that statement from what I read, though I can see that perhaps a great deal of it may spring from them, particularly the Dutch Calvinist slant. And, I must admit that a great deal of it is probably lost on me, as I am not student of either Piper’s Christian Hedonism, or Calvinism.
Nevertheless, and more to the point of your post and question… I suppose I tend to agree with lex, generally speaking. It’s certainly within the purview of the leadership of Provident to determine what their doctrinal statement will be. And, those who engage with Provident, and the membership process in particular, may choose to agree, join, and participate fully, or disagree, not join, and leave or perhaps participate as a non member, presumably as some lesser level (otherwise what would be the point of membership). All of that is fine and good.
As for me, however, I prefer that we keep our core as tight as possible. Or, if you prefer, to close our fist around as few things as we may. To this end, I am a huge fan of using something like the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed as a doctrinal statement. It seems to me that the further you get from those basics, the more your statement of doctrine will contain theological theories and constructs that may or may not be accurate, and certainly would not be considered essential to be considered a follower of Christ.
If a church community wishes to require things in terms of belief for it’s formal membership that are beyond that which is required to be a member of the Universal Church, that is to say, beyond that which is required to truly be a Christian, then they may certainly do so. My question would simply be why?
And… that leads me to a related, but important question. What is the purpose and point of an individual church body’s “formal” membership? At Provident, for instance, what about all those folks (more than half) that are a part of the community but not members? What are they not able to do, or what are they forfeiting by choosing to remain non-members?
By the way, my church (and I am a leader/pastor of my church) also has a doctrinal statement that is, in my opinion, too long, containing too much (though it is about one third as long as Provident’s). And, we have a “formal” membership as well, and like Provident it is much smaller in number than the actual participants in our community.
That is, in part, my way of saying that I am not dogging Provident at all… it looks like a cool place, and I pray for it’s success as another community hub of the Church in which we all share membership.
My appologies… for referring to “Providence” Church as “Provident”…
Thanks for clearing some things up, Chris. But it still sounds exclusive to me.
You may be right, I may not be interested in joining a church that emphasizes Calvinism or Christian Hedonism. I definitely wouldn’t be interested in joining a church that requires that I believe those things in order to become a member. But I’ve been a member of churches that have some ideas that I don’t agree with - I don’t agree with everything at Crosspoint. I can tolerate that, and I’d like to hope that churches can tolerate a few disagreements from me, too.
We should be united through Christ, not through any minor theological details. One of the greatest things about churches, in my opinion, is that it unites people that wouldn’t otherwise fit together.
I appreciate your concept of a closely knit band of brothers/sisters (and I think that just happens naturally, honestly), but we should never forget that we are part of something bigger than that.
Do you really believe that a pastor ascribing to Christian Hedonism is similar to a mechanic knowing how to start a car?
I really would like to hear about the history of Christian Hedonism. It’s a concept that I’ve never heard outside of Piper.
Lex, you can find the “history” of Christian Hedonism in two of Piper’s books: Desiring God–Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, and, The Dangerous Duty of Delight. Piper both crafted the philosophy and coined the expression. He explains that first he read C.S. Lewis, formulated the philosophy from Lewis’ writings, and then turned to the Bible and Jonathan Edwards for support.
Personally, I have found that Piper hugely misstates what Lewis said about pleasure. Lewis wrote strong objections to pursuing pleasure. Lewis liked to think that God allowed pleasures to happen to people, like giving them little gifts all the time. But Lewis thought people who pursued pleasure were being greedy and demanding of God. Piper chooses not to use those sentiments from Lewis.
One place to read some of what Lewis said is at http://thefaithfulword.org/chfaqspage2.html#Q33