Are house churches still the rebel step-child of American evangelicalism?

by Matt Green
from Ministry Today magazine, May/June 2007

Since pollster George Barna released Revolution in 2005, discussion on the topic of house churches (aka simple churches, organic churches, micro-churches and so on) has grown to a fever pitch—ironically, alongside discussion of the undeniable growth of megachurches.

For those hiding under a rock, Barna’s estimate is that 8 percent to 9 percent of adults in the United States are now involved in some type of house church. And his prediction is that 70 percent of the church will be worshipping in non-traditional settings within the next 20 years.

When we say “non-traditional,” we’re not talking about those wacky churches that have WiFi in the sanctuary or a coffee kiosk in the lobby.

That’s so ’90s.

Nor is Barna (along with many others) envisioning house churches populated by disgruntled church hoppers with an insufferable superiority complex, assembled with the common denominator of their disdain for the institutional church.

That’s so ’70s.

The new house church movement is less predictable, more engaged with the institutional church and missional to the core. Not to say they don’t have their problems, but today’s house churches are virtually unrecognizable in comparison to their old-school predecessors.

A brief disclaimer is in order: Of course, the concept of the church meeting in homes is nothing new—from the household-based congregations Paul addressed (see Rom. 16:10,11; 1 Cor. 1:11,16, 16:15; 1 Tim. 3:12; 2 Tim 1:16; Tit. 1:11) to modern-day house church movements in China and India composed of millions of believers.

However, from the time of its institutionalization in the early fourth century, Western Christianity has been most visibly identified by the buildings in which it is practiced and the full-time clergy who administer its rites. All this is up for grabs in the postmodern world, in which the core values include distrust of authority, suspicion of structure and an unabashed pursuit of authenticity.

It is in this environment that ecclesiology gets stripped down to its lowest common denominators, and the champions of the new house church movement are surprisingly consistent on what those ingredients are.

HOUSE CHURCH DNA

“DNA—divine truth, nurturing relationship and apostolic mission,” explains Neil Cole, identifying what he believes are the core ingredients of the biblical church analogous to those of human biology. “My conviction is that without these happening, you don’t have any life or health. You can’t unravel the DNA into its component parts. Its only power is when it’s intact.”

The executive director of Church Multiplication Associates (cmaresources.org) and author of Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens, Cole has planted more than 700 churches in 32 states and 23 nations. Cole is not anti-traditional-church in the least—in fact (like many in the house church movement), he once served on staff at a megachurch, pastored his own congregation and maintains denominational ties (for him, Grace Brethren Church).

However, he believes that these ingredients can be left out of the mix in a traditional church without anyone noticing and the business of ministry not missing a beat. Others in today’s house church movement share Cole’s heritage in traditional congregations and conviction that the tried-and-true model may not be the only model for reaching people who would never walk in the doors of a typical church.

“Most of the house churches of the past were inwardly focused—an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality,” Cole explains. “Now, people are choosing this expression of church because it is healthier and more participatory. It suits the postmodern world very well—it’s relational, authentic and experiential.”

Unlike their counterparts of the past, most of today’s house church advocates are cautious in labeling their movement the “only” way. Many of them maintain relationships with denominations and traditional churches—and these denominations and churches are even finding ways to plant and support house churches themselves. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church sends out “missionaries” from its own flock to plant home-based congregations, and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is seeking new ways to embrace the movement.

For instance, in an article on his Website newchurches.com, Southern Baptist missiologist Ed Stetzer admits that “enthusiastic house church proponents have neglected some of the ecclesiology described in Scripture by de-emphasizing New Testament delegated leadership, misunderstanding the role of covenant and related church discipline, and a failure to practice the biblically prescribed ordinances.”

However, the research team director at the North American Mission Board notes that he’s more concerned about those who don’t see house churches as an authentic expression of biblical ecclesiology.

“The greater problem,” he says, “for the biblical house church is the millions of believers that consider their brick, institutionalized, non-multiplying church to be a more biblical model than the fifteen people meeting in a home with a passion to grow and multiply.” Citing the SBC’s initially negative response and eventual acceptance of the house church movement, Cole argues that every denomination will eventually have to deal with the reality of the trend. The response, he believes, will often hinge on the denomination’s view of clergy and education.

“The anabaptist denominations with a history of strong lay leaders will thrive in this new environment,” he notes. “The reformed denominations that require a high level of clergy education will have more challenges. However, even in the Reformed Church in America and other established presbyterial denominations, we’re seeing the movement happen—but it has to be more grassroots.”

Larry Kreider, international director of DOVE Christian Fellowship International (dcfi.org), a network of cell-based and house churches, envisions a future in which partnership between house churches and megachurches is the rule rather than the exception. In his hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, leaders of both models meet for prayer and partnership.

“We have a leadership team of church leaders chosen by the body of Christ in our own area,” he explains. “On that team are megachurch leaders and house church leaders—all working together to honor one another.”

FROWNING ON TITLES

As Stetzer hints in his article, any discussion of the house church movement naturally gravitates toward leadership—particularly the concern that a lack of leadership is an invitation for chaos and heresy. While few house church advocates deny the need for leadership, they often define it in radically different terms from their counterparts in the traditional church.

“I would call myself ‘pro-leadership,’ but ‘anti-positional leadership,’” Cole says. “When your authority is based on the position or title, and you need a position or title to lead, chances are you’re not a real leader.”

Tony Dale and his wife, Felicity, who lead a house church in Austin, Texas, are the founders of House2House magazine (house2house.net) and have written several books on the simple church movement.

“Leadership does not demonstrate itself in titles and positions,” Tony argues. “Our idea of leadership is that of a father who longs for his children to overtake him.”

Dale admits that this model is not unique to the house church movement and even points out abusive situations in which house church leaders have exerted Machiavellian rule over their domains. However, he argues that the traditional church’s strong distinction between professional clergy and laity is designed to keep people in “perpetual spiritual infancy.”

Conversely, house churches often function from a bottom-up structure. While there may be one leader who directs meetings, leads worship sessions or mediates conflict, participants usually have a say in the weekly activities and long-term vision of the group. For other home churches, this role rotates or is shared among a group of leaders.

Likewise, many in the house church movement embrace the values of the apostolic and prophetic movements. They militate against the more “governmental” expressions of ecclesiology often associated with the New Apostolic Reformation. “I agree with C. Peter Wagner that we desperately need apostolic and prophetic types that the church is built on,” Tony Dale notes. “But I would completely reject any concept that this is governmental. It isn’t the force of their personality. It isn’t that they are classic great leaders. It’s what they do by laying down their lives that prepares the groundwork for what they’re going to accomplish.”

Dale cites the house church movement in China—much of which was carried forward by women and teenagers. For house church advocates like the Dales, the movement is a hothouse for a new type of leader that leads from brokenness and weakness rather than personal charisma.

“Under the old paradigm of church,” Felicity contends, “success is measured by growth, whether that is in numbers, finances or real estate; in the new paradigm, success is based on faithfulness. God is looking for leaders who walk with a limp; those who, like Jacob, have fought with God and surrendered unconditionally to Him. They have learned from the disappointments and challenges of following him through good times and bad.”

But even its strongest advocates suggest that the house church movement could endanger itself by resisting leadership in an effort to redefine it. Many would suggest that George Barna’s equation in his book Revolution of two guys playing golf as church is dangerously minimalistic. Barna himself notes that the small-group movement has long struggled as an effective means of growing people spiritually because of a lack of good leadership, and he believes that the house church movement will have to face the same issue.

For Kreider, a church without a leader is not fully a church—in much the same way that a family without a father is not fully a family.

“Local churches are much more than two believers at Starbucks,” he explains. “They can be, if there’s a sense of godly authority and leadership. But families need parents, and the church is a family. To assume that a bunch of kids without parents is a family is an incorrect assumption.”

Kreider argues that the governmental aspect of leadership has “gotten a bad rap” because of abusive leaders—but that it’s no excuse to embrace an anarchistic or isolationist view of church.

“Whether we like it or not, we have to have some form of leadership,” he notes. “I have to govern my family, my checkbook.”

REAL-WORLD ENTRY POINT

In a culture increasingly skeptical of top-down leadership, the house church movement’s democratized view of authority is attractive to the jaded. But equally significant are house churches’ ability to provide a “customized” model of worshipping God that avoids the enculturated stereotypes of institutional church.

“The world is interested in Jesus; it is His wife they don’t want to spend time with,” Neil Cole observes in his book, Organic Church. “We tell people they must take the bitter pill of ‘church’ if they want to even hear about Jesus. Most would rather die of the disease than consume the medicine.”

Of course, this concept is nothing new. From Christian rock concerts and skateboard demonstrations to fishing trips and Halloween alternative parties, congregations have found new ways to lure church-wary unbelievers into “safe” environments where they can be evangelized.

But house church advocates do not see a need for these entry-level venues where the uninitiated can warm up to the idea of joining the institutional church. “Why not bring the church to the sinner?” they ask. With that philosophy in hand, micro-church planters have launched congregations in dorm rooms, parking lots, restaurants, health clubs and even bars.

While some who participate in these “congregations” may end up attending a traditional church at some point, house church advocates contend all of the elements of biblical ecclesiology can be present in a group of two or three people just as effectively as two or three thousand people. And the small-group dynamic provides a low-risk environment for both the seeker and the skeptic.

“My wife leads a house church, the majority of whose attendees are first-generation Christians. The majority would not have gone and do not go to a conventional church,” Kreider explains, but he also recalls an instance in which some unsaved people were befriended by house-church members, invited to services—and then shocked to find out they were attending church. “We also have people who have grown up Roman Catholic and left it years ago—and congregations made up of pre-Christians.”

It is this flexibility and openness that allows house churches to multiply in what some describe as a “viral” manner. Traditional church planting has often been carried out with an “addition” model. One congregation or denomination raises money that is in turn dumped into a single church plant in a geographical area deemed ripe for the picking. Problem is, this high-capital, high-risk model sometimes fails, resulting in disillusioned church planters who wonder why vast resources, savvy marketing and even a good dose of prayer didn’t spell success.

“What we need is new wineskins,” Kreider says. “There’s a harvest coming, and we need to be prepared to bring it in. To do this, God will raise up saints to be ministers. The problem is that many times people are too busy in church programs that they don’t have time to be Christians. We need church-planting movements worldwide that will reproduce.”

Additionally helpful to the growth curve, many house churches carry the DNA of the fastest-growing segment of the global church: the charismatic/Pentecostal experience. While many house churches would not identify themselves as “charismatic” or “Pentecostal,” spirit-filled expressions are often commonplace in home-based congregations.

And house-church advocates tend to be more open toward this type of activity—regardless of their denominational heritage. Barna’s research reflects this openness toward the gifts of the Spirit. Among the house church participants he surveyed, 58 percent of their meetings have a prophecy or special word delivered.

“I was taught cessationist doctrine,” Cole notes. “But our team of leaders began to question that and searched out what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit and made some pretty revolutionary decisions.”

Although the physical context for house church meetings is often unconventional, the basic structure is similar: Scripture reading, personal sharing, prayer, worship and—almost universally—eating together. And theologically, house churches tend to be overwhelmingly conservative—in faith and practice.

“There’s a strong, traditional, classic, evangelical theology and biblical foundation,” Tony Dale explains. “What’s happening isn’t so much that people’s theology is changing, but their ecclesiology is changing. They’re beginning to think of church as a living, vibrant organism.”

In a recent interview with Ministry Today, Barna, who calls the new simple church advocates “revolutionaries,” cites some of their spiritual habits: “Revolutionaries …

• donate almost twice as much money every year for religious purposes as do non-revolutionary born-again Christians.”
• are three times more likely to study the Bible every day.”
• are more than three times more likely to have family Bible studies every day as non-revolutionary born agains who are married and have kids.”
• are slightly less than twice as likely to believe in moral absolutes.”
• are almost twice as likely to believe Satan is real, not just a symbol of evil.”

Barna’s prediction is not so much that this movement will supercede the traditional church, but that it will influence it—for better—and that it will challenge leaders in the traditional church to rethink paradigms for spiritual growth and discipleship.

“Any good leader is looking to the future. What we’re looking at is a future in which alternative forms of faith community will be prevalent—which says that, if I’m the pastor or leader in a conventional church, I need to think about making that transition,” he argues. “I would begin working with youth and children to prepare them for a different type of church.”

But as Cole warns, the house church movement will always be challenged to resist the natural gravity of institutionalism. His solution? A “theology of death”—an idea that has applications outside the boundaries of the house church movement. Applied to the church, Cole argues that, if a church survives only a year—but gives birth to two other churches—it’s healthier than a congregation that lasts 15 years and never reproduces.

“We’ve come to realize that there are some words of Christ that relate to this: ‘If you hold on to your life, you lose it; if you lose it for My sake, you’ll save it,’” he explains. “We need to build into our structures the truth that we do not want to stay alive forever. We will never make plans to keep ourselves alive—this is the sin of self-preservation. We’re no longer trying to keep church alive. Once you start talking about a career, you’ve already died.”

While Kreider reflects this same caution of institutionalism, he’s also concerned that house churches face the same challenge of the charismatic/Pentecostal movement of 30 years ago—that of ridicule and persecution from traditional church leaders who may not see the Spirit’s activity in this unconventional new model.

“I’m concerned that those of us who are more traditional—who may come from a more conventional model—may persecute this next move of God,” he says. “And that those of us involved in house churches would not get puffed up with pride. It’s an important way, but not the only way. I find myself in a vulnerable place. I have a lot of history with megachurches and community churches—but I have a heart for this new generation.”

copyright 2007, Strang Communications

Reinventing accountability in a world of superstar leaders.

by Matt Green
from Ministry Today magazine, Jan/Feb 2007

November 2006 may have been the toughest month in 20 years for American evangelicals. One of our brightest stars fell. As president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Ted Haggard was assertive and winsome in representing the convictions of 30 million evangelicals in the halls of political power. He was thoughtful and unpredictable in his desire to build partnerships and embrace broad issues of social concern.

As pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Haggard was a committed charismatic, who reflected the respect Spirit-filled believers are being granted in wider evangelical circles.

But he was also a deeply flawed man, who hid a dark secret none of us could have imagined. His fall from grace raises the same questions that surface whenever the hidden failures of a high-profile leader are made public.

Although even the most elaborate accountability processes can be circumvented, could this situation have been avoided? Are there patterns of behavior that should serve as warning signs to church leaders and their congregations? Are the “superstar” positions of power and influence that characterize 21st-century evangelicalism too much for any man or woman to handle without cracking under the pressure and succumbing to their worst flaws? How does the church regain credibility when its own spokespeople seem to be strangely vulnerable to the very sins that it so vigorously condemns?

In the days following Haggard’s admission and removal from leadership, Ministry Today talked with some of the leaders involved—as well as others who have navigated the waters of failure, discipline and restoration. Although many were unable to go on the record with more details than have already been covered ad nauseam in the media, several key observations distill that demand a shift in the way we deal with prevention, discipline and restoration in the wake of a moral failure.

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT

At a time when some Christian organizations possess influence and notoriety on a level with Fortune 500 companies, the days of family-run ministries with secretive policies and no outside accountability have officially run their course. If anything, the Haggard scandal revealed the necessity of efficient, open processes of addressing ethical and moral accusations.

Perhaps wearied of denials and top-secret investigations that last for months with no substantive conclusion, commentators in the media seemed almost incredulous with how quickly the wheels of truth began to turn when allegations about Haggard first broke.

Within 72 hours, a megachurch pastor and one of the most influential evangelicals in America was exposed, unseated and placed in restoration. The bottom line? Every leader, no matter how powerful, should serve at the behest of an independent board of directors that has the power and fortitude to act quickly and decisively.

Unfortunately, the oversight for many prominent churches and ministries is left in the hands of employees and family members, leaving an organization vulnerable to accusation with no independent means of clearing its reputation.

For instance, in 1998, when a former Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) employee threatened to go public with his claim to have had a homosexual relationship with TBN founder Paul Crouch, rather than have the TBN board (composed of Paul, his wife, Jan, and his son Paul Jr.) investigate the claim and clear his name, Crouch paid the accuser $425,000 in hush money. Unfortunately, when the money ran out, the accuser came back in 2004 asking for $10 million more. When he didn’t get it, he took his story to the Los Angeles Times.

For members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), this is a non-issue. The ECFA has stringent requirements for entry—one of which is that “every member organization shall be governed by a responsible board of not less than five individuals, a majority of whom shall be independent, which shall meet at least semiannually to establish policy and review its accomplishments.”

Although some leaders Ministry Today spoke with cited the stringent and costly membership standards of the ECFA, one need not join the ECFA to enjoy a comparable level of security and accountability. Any ministry could create its own structure of accountability by appointing an outside board and making its financial activities public.

Although not a member of ECFA, New Life Church had policies written into its bylaws, prescribing a process of investigation and, if necessary, discipline in the event that allegations were made against the church’s leadership.

Thomas Gehring is a Los Angeles-based attorney for several megachurches and national ministries. Also the founder of Concilium, a dispute resolution service, he notes that, although state laws usually require a nonprofit organization to be governed by an independent board (no more than 49 percent family members, employees and so on), these same laws do not apply to churches.

However, Gehring emphasizes the importance of an independent board to the ministries he counsels and dispels the myth that such a board puts a crimp on the effectiveness of a visionary leader.

“I’ve seen an independent board actually help a ministry grow. It’s an integral part of church government and church growth,” he explains. “The talent that you can bring to a board is just phenomenal.”

Regardless of the legal loopholes that allow churches to avoid having an independent board, Gehring points out that the public has high expectations of churches and religious organizations.

“The government, judges and juries expect you as a religious organization to take the high road,” he contends. “You’re supposed to do even better than just adhering to the law.”

INTERNAL INCENTIVE

These internal policies are worthwhile, not just for ethical reasons, but for legal protection, as Pasadena, California, pastor Ché Ahn discovered. Ahn leads Harvest Rock Church and is the founder of Harvest International Ministry (HIM), a network of 4,960 churches in 32 nations. In 2004, Ahn was faced with a crisis when one of the pastors he oversaw was exposed in ongoing homosexual behavior. When HIM attempted a process of discipline, the organization was sued.

“The sad thing was that the lawsuit essentially short-circuited the restoration process,” he notes, “because we had to delegate it to someone else.”

The incident prompted Ahn and his team of 23 apostles to tighten up restrictions for membership and ongoing accountability. New applicants for HIM membership must now complete a form drafted by an attorney clearly stating that HIM has the right to exercise discipline in the event of sexual immorality, financial impropriety or doctrinal heresy.

As Ahn discovered, when a ministry’s bylaws do not account for potentialities such as moral failure, that ministry is at the mercy of the offending party, who may see an opportunity to drag an organization into a costly and demoralizing court battle. In the current litigious climate, churches are not immune to the attacks of predatory lawyers and embittered constituents, and ministries would do well to re-examine their policies for hiring, firing and disciplining employees.

But some leaders point out that these mechanistic policies—although worthwhile—do not address the root causes of sexual failure that lead to such disciplinary problems in the first place.

“The church has fallen into a false naivete,” says Doug Weiss, an author and counselor specializing in sex addiction. “We’re still holding pastors to a 17th-century standard of purity, while they’re living in a culture of immorality.”

Increasingly isolated ministers in an increasingly sexualized culture is a volatile combination, Weiss argues.

“Ministers tend to get caught before they actually admit to sexual addiction,” he notes. “And we have not dealt with increasing problems of this among our leaders much better than the Catholic Church and its abuse scandals. Instead, we should be dealing with sexual sin when its small—before it leads to death.”

The founder of Heart to Heart Counseling Center in Colorado Springs, Weiss attends New Life Church and is involved in Haggard’s restoration process, but he declined to comment on the specifics of the process for reasons of confidentiality. However, he regularly consults with ministers battling sex addiction—as well as the churches they serve—and contends that as many as 50 percent of Christian men are sex addicts in some form or another.

Weiss’ solution? Lie detector tests. The psychologist recommends that churches administer them to employees annually as a further incentive to keep pastors and church leaders pure. According to Weiss, sex addicts will not apply for positions that require polygraphs, for fear of being exposed. Additionally, polygraphs help churches effectively restore and monitor staff members struggling with sex addiction.

“If the church is sued for the sexual problems of a staff member, this allows churches to legitimately say to the public, ‘We’ve done our due diligence,’” Weiss notes. “If evangelicals do not decide to be proactive about our leaders and the issue of sex addiction, and perform due diligence in whom we hire as ministers of the gospel, there is a legitimate concern that God will have lawyers help us do so.”

Weiss admits that some see polygraph tests as merely a mechanism for changing behavior, not for transforming the hearts of sex addicts, In response, he cites Numbers 5:11-30 in which God instructs the Israelites on how to determine the guilt or innocence of a suspected adulteress by having her drink a potion of water and altar ashes. Sometimes its these practical measures that protect us from spiritual downfalls, he argues.

“Spiritual people fall every day. In Revelation and in 1 Corinthians, there were people who were loving the Lord and people who were immoral, martyrs and sinners side by side,” he explains. “The polygraph helps kill the flesh.”

As far as concerns about the reliability of polygraph tests, Weiss quips, “They are 98 percent reliable—100 percent more reliable than most sex addicts I know.”

VOLUNTARY ACCOUNTABILITY

Although polygraphs can serve as an effective preventative measure against sexual sin, Weiss notes that our individualistic models of ministry are essentially a breeding ground for immoral conduct.

“Jesus sent the disciples out two by two,” Weiss points out, noting that this was probably not just for reasons of friendship or camaraderie, but also for protection against sin. “That was a good policy—not one that suspects everyone is guilty, but one that protects them from becoming so.”

As a useful guideline, Ahn cites the “Modesto Manifesto,” a document Billy Graham and his team of evangelists drafted in 1948 addressing the dangers of sexual immorality, criticism of local churches and exaggerated publicity. One well-known guideline in the manifesto required Graham to be accompanied at all times by a fellow male minister, to protect from accusation and ensure accountability.

“However, no matter what systems you’ve set up, you can find loopholes,” Ahn notes. “Even if you travel with someone or someone always knows where you are. The real issue is the root issue of the heart. The root cause is pride, arrogance, thinking we’re above this.”

If anything, the Haggard fall illustrates that every pastor needs someone to whom he can tell his darkest secrets, his most destructive inclinations, his most painful failures. It is in the shadows of secrecy that we are vulnerable to our own depravity—secrecy that is often cultivated by the distance our positions create.

Although he has no means of enforcing it in HIM, Ahn encourages leaders in his network to have at least one person with whom they can have total freedom—a confessor. Ahn emphasizes that these voluntary decisions to be accountable must be made when someone is less prominent, less successful and has less to lose.

For many pastors, this level of transparency is essentially nonexistent, as a July 10, 2006 Barna Group study reveals. Sixty-one percent of pastors say they have no close personal friends. Simultaneously, the survey reveals that “one-sixth of today’s pastors feel under-appreciated. Pastors also deal with family problems: one in every five contends that they are currently ‘dealing with a very difficult family situation.’ ”

Many argue that this combination of isolation and deep spiritual and family challenges so common in church leaders is essentially a recipe for disaster. The only solution: deliberate, voluntary, relational transparency.

In the sidebar ” ‘I Was There’ ” (page 24) former Pentecostal pastor Nate Larkin reinforces this principle of mutual transparency in an autobiographical account of his own sexual failure in the mid-’80s and the subsequent decades of recovery.

“This is what I have had with another brother for 27 years,” Ahn notes. “We share everything, from when we slip and watch something on television we shouldn’t to blowing it with masturbation. It’s that kind of transparency that we need to have with someone else.”

CLEANUP DUTY

With the exception of Haggard’s family, no one felt the pain of his failure more than the New Life Church family, who endured the probing questions of media and neighbors wondering how they could put faith in such a flawed person.

Ministry Today recently talked with Steven Todd, a former pastor, New Life member and executive director of special projects for Africa Ministries Network, a missions organization with offices in Colorado Springs.

Todd is hopeful that the church will recover from the blow of Haggard’s failure, citing the swiftness and finality with which Louisiana pastor Larry Stockstill and others on the board of overseers dealt with the accusations.

“It saved the church from weeks of ‘he said she said’ and a growing polarization of sides—perhaps those who would have been ‘pro-Ted’ and those against him,” he explains, describing the discipline process as an “amputation,” a drastic act bringing health to the congregation.

In hindsight, Todd admits that Haggard’s notoriety placed undue strain on the congregation—and on Haggard himself.

“Lots of us began to tire just a bit from the constant presence of TV cameras in the sanctuary from CNN and other news outlets,” he notes. “But quite frankly, Ted seemed to be handling it in stride. A joke around the church prior to the fall was, ‘What is the acronym for Attention Deficit Disorder? Answer: TED.’”

In the weeks following the crisis, Todd notes that the church staff at New Life has been proactive about communicating with New Life’s hundreds of small groups, providing them with information as it becomes available and encouraging discussion and healing. While no church can be entirely prepared for the implosion of its leader, Todd emphasizes the benefit of strong structures and decisive action when such a failure occurs.

“The key to all this has been honesty—from the leadership, in particular,” he explains. “We can’t shove it under the carpet or blame the devil. We have to face it head on. The presence of the overseer board, particularly Larry Stockstill, is extremely significant. We felt that we were not ‘alone’ and it provided a ballast for the congregation.”

A RENEWED VOICE

Admittedly, the failure of Haggard was a tough blow to those who appreciated the fresh manner in which he engaged political leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill. Haggard avoided the combative rhetoric that characterized conservative Christianity for the last 25 years, and he was frequently quoted in national media as the voice of American evangelicalism. In retrospect, perhaps we put all our eggs in one basket.

Joel Hunter, pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in the Orlando, Florida, area, serves on the board of directors of the NAE. He notes that this tendency to let someone else speak on our behalf is natural—and biblical—but that it does not negate the responsibility of local leaders and individuals to initiate direct communication with their representatives.

“We will always appreciate and look for a natural leader or spokespersons,” he notes. “Teams and individuals do not replace the need for a go-to leader. Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments was much progress made without a leader stepping up to the task.”

At the same time, some have suggested that Haggard’s prominence was something of an anomaly created by the convergence of an evangelical in the White House, a Republican Congress, a war with Islamic extremists and the growth of the megachurch movement—phenomena that may be drawing to a close with the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006 and the election of a new president in 2008. With this in mind, Haggard’s departure reinforces the need for a variety of voices—each emphasizing different biblical concerns.

“The voices will become more sophisticated and focused, not unlike how the major channels have given way to the cable competition. There is not only FOX News, but also the History Channel, movie channels and so on,” Hunter predicts. “So there will be different groups of Christians more focused on specific concerns. But what will not change is the requirement for a biblical basis for our voices and votes.”

For better or for worse, the shepherding of this voice is ultimately in the hands of flawed human beings—whose lives sometimes contradict the very values they espouse. Far from an excuse to stop speaking, this factor emphasizes the need for leaders to build walls of protection and networks of accountability to protect the integrity of our voice. The world is watching. God is watching. Where do we go from here?

copyright 2007, Strang Communications

How evangelicals are reclaiming the environmental agenda on a biblical foundation.

A group of 86 prominent evangelical leaders stirred up controversy earlier this year when it backed a major initiative for environmental stewardship called “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” Signatories included pastors, educators and denominational officials from a broad swath of evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal traditions, including pastor and author Rick Warren, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel president Jack Hayford and Wheaton College president Duane Litfin.

Soon after the document’s release, 22 high-profile evangelicals sent a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals, urging the body not to issue any statement on global warming or to allow its officers or staff members to take a position, arguing that, “global warming is not a consensus issue.”

Signatories of this counter-document included Prison Fellowship Founder Charles Colson, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Recently, Ministry Today sat down with Joel C. Hunter, pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Fla., to discuss this new brand of evangelical environmentalism. Hunter signed the original document and also appeared as a spokesperson for TV commercials promoting the initiative’s agenda. Hunter notes that the initiative has been largely welcomed—especially among younger evangelicals.

“There’s a part of emerging Christianity who’ve been waiting for leadership in this area,” he says. “There will always be some who will be scared, but that’s not the majority of what we’re hearing.”

While he recognizes that some who are against the initiative may object to the partnerships with more liberal groups that such a stand may bring, Hunter contends that biblical obedience must trump political concerns. We asked him to respond to some of the concerns of opponents of evangelical environmentalism:

Ministry Today: Some would say there are more pressing, “eternal” issues at stake. In other words, why focus on creation care when millions still need to hear the gospel?

Joel Hunter: This is not a focus. This is part of a full and comprehensive spreading of the gospel. In the future, I believe service and social witness are going to be the main venue for evangelism. We will be able to do more to spread the gospel by addressing some of the practical issues of people’s needs than if we had just gone in there and started preaching the Word. We’ll build up credibility as being a people who care about more than just spreading their own religion.

Ministry Today: Don’t government-enforced environmental regulations ultimately hurt poor people by raising the cost of goods and services?

Hunter: We think the poor can be hurt more by the devastation that may be caused in part by global warming than by any government-imposed sanctions. There can be a remedy to this by a business-generated, economically-suitable cure for the problem, rather than simply imposing a top-down solution. There are ways to build both jobs and economic incentives to solve the problem, rather than mandate certain limits. Government needs to partner in this. It’s more than an NGO [non-government organization] can cure.

Ministry Today: Although there are scientific indications that global warming is occurring, how do we know that it’s humanly-generated?

Hunter: I have in front of me the executive summary for the National Academy of Sciences document on climate change science. Its first sentence starts out like this: “Greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activity.” You can go from “We are a major cause” to “We are a minimum cause.” Either way, we are still a cause.

Ministry Today: Doesn’t an emphasis on environmental concerns distract the church from more pressing political and social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage and poverty?

Hunter: I think it’s just the opposite. There will always be a few Christian leaders who focus on one or two or three issues, because that’s their heart—that’s their passion. But I think that the more Christians are involved in addressing the problems of society, it is going to give us greater credibility for the issues that we are concerned about. In other words, as we get more involved in society in multiple ways, we’ll be seen as a force to reckoned with. We’ll have a momentum that enhances our impact on certain issues, rather than takes away from. It’s not an either/or issue, it’s both/and.

Ministry Today: How do signers of this initiative avoid supporting a pantheistic worldview that is often at the heart of environmentalism?

Hunter: Here’s what Christians have to do: We have to continue to frame the issue as one of biblical obedience, appreciating the Creator by taking care of His creation. Simply put, Christians are doing this out of reverence for God, out of respect for his gifts, rather than out of any devotion to the gift. The earth is the Lord’s, and that’s why we’re doing this.

Ministry Today: Doesn’t “dominion” over the earth imply that we would eventually use—or even exhaust the resources—we’ve been given?

Hunter: That has been grossly misinterpreted. Dominion is defined in Genesis 2:15 when God puts the man in the garden to cultivate it and to keep it. In those two words we have the definition of dominion. The first is abad—”to make use of.” The second is shamar—”to protect and safeguard.” So, we can’t exploit the gift of creation and use it up. We have to develop it in a way that respects it and protects it. We have to be sure that we don’t use the old cultural definition of dominion. The biblical definition has everything to do with protecting and serving.

Ministry Today: The signs of the times indicate we may be nearing the return of Christ. So, why focus on this right now?

Hunter: First, if Christ comes back right away, wouldn’t it be nice to have him find us doing what we’re supposed to do? It’s very important that we don’t protect the earth for utilitarian purposes. Our focus is obedience. Obedience is right whether it’s utilitarian or not. We want to obey God no matter how long or how short Christ is in His return. Plus, we’re going to be judged for our works. If we don’t care for the earth, we’re going to be asked, “What did you do with what I gave you?” We don’t want to answer, “We trashed it.”

Ministry Today: It doesn’t seem this debate has been settled among scientists—let alone church leaders. So shouldn’t we avoid it altogether rather than make ourselves look foolish?

Hunter: The reason we’re doing this is not because of the science. Since when do Christians need scientific confirmation to do what God tells them to do? What will really make Christians look foolish is talking about religion as though it’s something inside a church, without our faith blessing all the families of the earth, which is really why God called a people unto himself in Genesis 12:3. If we want to look foolish, sit inside our churches and do things that don’t matter to the world. That’s what will look foolish.

by Matt Green
from Ministry Today magazine
May/June 2006