A New Kind of Church: Should We Be concerned?
by Aubrey Malphurs

I suspect that you as pastors and church leaders won't be surprised when
I say that the new-model churches aren't without their critics, mostly from
those who make up the ranks of established, traditional churches. That's
to be expected, as change comes hard for established, tradition-minded
people. However, they also consist of people within and outside new
paradigm churches themselves. And some critics are well-known Bible
teachers and pastors with a national reputation. Some have come down
very hard on the new models and even challenge their orthodoxy. It's
imperative that we as leaders pay attention to what they're saying as no
one is above error. None of us must be so protective of our churches that
we overlook false teaching of any kind. To do so is to violate Scripture.
Also, there are numerous warnings throughout the Scriptures against false
teachers who promote and practice false teaching.

My goal in the following is twofold: First, I want to address the concept
of Christians policing their own ranks. Who is responsible for detecting
error in our churches, and how might they accomplish this? Second, what
are the arguments being used by those who attempt to police the church
ranks for us - especially those who are most suspicious and critical of the
new church models? My goal is merely to categorize and present their
arguments, not go into any great detail. I simply want you to be aware of
what some are saying. I provide more information in chapters 4-9 of my
book A New Kind of Church (Baker Books, 2007).

Who Should Address Error?

Churches Must Address Error

The first question is, Who is responsible to address error in the church?
The answer is the body of Christ. In other words, Christians must police
their own. I suspect that most of us as pastors see a need for and accept
such a practice. Yet it makes some very uncomfortable. It goes against
their grain. It seems like we're receiving enough criticism from non-
Christians, so what's the sense of adding to it? Aren't we merely
providing them with more ammunition against us? And isn't there enough
conflict in our churches already?

The important question is, What do the Scriptures say about this, and
how might we go about it? As we will see below, this is biblical. But I'm
not advocating that we form some kind of Christian Thought Police that
assumes a "big brother is watching you" approach. George Orwell's
book 1984 has come and gone, and we don't need to create a Christian
version of it. However, a number of New Testament books address
errors that had crept into the early churches, and the obvious implication
is that they were to deal with them. In the same way church history is
replete with the church taking responsibility to address false teaching as
exemplified by the various church councils.

New Testament Teaching

I could fill this book with examples from the Old Testament of prophets
and others who spoke out against error and the practice of error. I could
likely do the same with the New Testament. Instead, I will focus your
attention on a few key passages that provide the following seven
principles that address false teaching. It is clear from the following that
the church is responsible not only to identify error but to deal with it.

Churches are warned against being lead astray by false teaching. Paul
writes to the church of the Thessalonians, "Don't let anyone deceive you
in anyway." (2 Thess. 2:3)
Leaders are warned against false teachers. Paul warns Timothy, "If
anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound
instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching. . . . ." (1 Tim.
6:3) Peter does much the same in 2 Peter 2:1-3.
Leaders have a responsibility to guard or protect biblical doctrine. Paul
exhorts Timothy, "Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing of what is falsely called
knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered
from the faith." (1 Tim. 6:20-21) Also, see 2 Timothy 1:12-13.
Leaders are to address or deal with those who teach false doctrine. Paul
writes
to Timothy, "command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
. . . ." (1 Tim. 1:3) And he even names some of them such as
Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18) who taught that the
resurrection had already occurred and Alexander the metalworker who
generally opposed Paul's teaching (2 Tim. 4:14-15).

5. Leaders are to watch themselves so that they don't teach false
doctrine. In 1 Timothy 4:16, Paul writes to Timothy: "Watch your life and
doctrine closely. Persevere in because if you do, you will save both
yourself and your hearers." (1 Tim. 4:16)

6. Leaders are to take great pains to make sure that they, themselves,
handle Scripture accurately and correctly. Paul exhorts Timothy, "Do
your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who
does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of
truth." (2 Tim. 2:15)

7. Leaders (elders) must firmly hold to sound biblical teaching and use it
to encourage the church and refute false teaching. (Titus 1:9)

Church Councils

On a number of occasions, churches have come together to address and
deal with false teaching. This not only happened in the first century, but
the following reflects what the church did in the following centuries to
address error. I will briefly mention five of them.

1. The Jerusalem Council (AD 49 or 50). The first council of churches
met in Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. Apparently the church at
Jerusalem hosted the conference that dealt with the clarity of the gospel.
Paul and Barnabas preached the gospel to the Gentiles, many of whom
came to faith (vv. 3-4, 7-9). Certain Jews who belonged to the party of
the Pharisees were most concerned about this and argued that these
Gentiles must be circumcised and taught to obey the law of Moses to be
saved (vv. 1, 5). Ultimately these Jews, Paul, Barnabas, and others
traveled to Jerusalem to settle this matter. The final verdict is that salvation
is by grace through faith and doesn't involve keeping the law.

2. The Council of Nicaea (AD 325). The next council of churches met the
city of Nicaea. The debate was over the deity of Christ. Arius taught that
Jesus Christ was created by God the Father, making him a lesser deity (a
view that's held and taught by present-day Jehovah's Witnesses). The
final decision of this council affirmed the full deity of the Savior, declaring
that he was fully God.

3. The Council of Constantinople (AD 381). This council met in the city
of Constantinople. It affirmed the decision at Nicaea regarding Christ's
deity. It also affirmed the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit,
declaring that he was coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son.

4. The Council of Ephesus (AD 431). This council met in Ephesus to
address Nestorius's teaching that emphasized the human nature of Christ.
It proclaimed that Christ had two natures (human and divine) in one divine
person.

5. The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). This council met in the city of
Chalcedon. Eutyches was teaching that Christ had only one nature - the
divine nature. Chalcedon affirmed the Christological teaching that he had
two natures (one divine and one human) in one person with one essence.

The primary biblical-theological concerns of these councils was the clarity
of the gospel, Christology or biblical teaching on Christ, and to some
degree the Trinity as it relates specifically to Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Here we discover that false teaching will always be with us and that it's
the responsibility of the church in general and its leaders in particular to
address it. The church must be alert for false teaching, challenge it,
explore it, and condemn it.

But that is not enough in itself. The church must also clarify what Scripture
teaches. I sense among some in the emergent church movement that they
feel a need to go back and reexamine what we believe is the historic,
orthodox faith. In response, I believe that we must understand from
church history that such re-examination has happened repeatedly
throughout the ages as there were many other councils. I don't believe
that it hurts for us to re-examine what we believe. Some "buy in" without
really thinking carefully about what they're getting. Re-examining the core
doctrines of the faith can help us sharpen our thinking and better
understand what we believe and why. However, the faith as we now have
it has been carefully examined, re-examined, and debated over the last
two thousand years. Rest assured that we will not come up with any
correction to the historic, orthodox teachings of the faith as we now have
it. If someone does, then I believe that it will be false teaching, and the
church is responsible to address and expose it.

How to Address Error

Scripture is very clear that the church in general and we as pastors and
leaders in particular are to address error among the people, in a sense, to
police the ranks. Next the question becomes, How might we accomplish
this? The answer is to turn to Scripture where we'll find that the answer is
Scripture. Our core text is 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul instructs Timothy,
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I want to make several observations on this passage. First, Paul is
teaching that the Bible is inspired. Charles Ryrie defines inspiration as,
"God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own
individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His
revelation to man in the words of the original autographs." (A Survey of
Bible Doctrine, p. 38.) Thus, the Bible contains God's truth and is the
final standard by which we evaluate the church's teaching. Second, note
the various uses for the Bible in regard to truth: teaching truth, rebuking
those who teach false truth, correcting false truth, and training those in
truth. And third, Paul says that the purpose of all this is to equip the
church for good works. Divine truth is critical to what we do in and
outside the church. We must know the truth of God's word to properly
apply it.

So how do we practically apply God's word to address doctrinal error?
The church in general and pastoral leaders in particular need a biblical-
theological grid or sieve that consists of several filters through which they
run any and all teaching that claims to be of God. I believe that such a grid
is how the church in the first century and the times that followed
determined truth from error. It's not new. In a letter to Martin Luther,
Philip Melanchthon who was considered the theologian of the
Reformation, gave us such a biblical-theological grid. But what does it
look like? From this grid I've developed one that consists of three filters.

Filter 1: The Essentials of the Faith

The first filter consists of the essentials of the faith. These essentials are
the propositional truths that are both clearly taught in the Bible and are
necessary for one to be considered orthodox. One who is orthodox
conforms to the Christian faith as hammered out and represented in the
creeds of the early church (see the five councils above). These essentials
are the central tenets of the evangelical belief system. Because they're at
the core of the gospel, there's no room to flex or wiggle. They draw a
doctrinal line in the sand between what is orthodox and unorthodox.
Should someone in the church reject any of these views, his or her version
of Christianity isn't orthodox. He or she has fallen outside the faith.

There are five essentials: the Bible is the inspired word of God; there is
only one true God as three coequal and coeternal persons (namely the
Trinity); the deity and substitutionary atonement of Christ that provides
salvation by faith apart from baptism or man's works; the bodily
resurrection of Christ; and his physical return to earth.

Filter #1: The Essentials of the Faith

- The inspiration of the Bible as the Word of God
- The existence of only one true God as three coequal and
coeternal persons (the Trinity)
- The deity and substitutionary atonement of Christ
- The bodily resurrection of Christ
- The physical return of Christ

We must pursue unity with those who agree with us on these essentials.
Paul addresses the church's unity in Ephesians 4:3-16 and commands his
church, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the
bond of peace" (v. 3). In verse 13 he teaches that this unity in the faith is
a sign of the church's spiritual maturity. This is a relational, not an
organizational unity based on a common orthodox faith (Eph. 4:3; Jn.
17:20-23). Christ commands fellow disciples to love one another (Jn.
13:34-35; 15:12-14). Practically we're willing to relate to one another in
various ways: citywide evangelistic crusades, theological societies, and
other opportunities.

However, the essentials are exclusive as well as inclusive. They include
people of like mind, but exclude people who don't agree on these key
points. Examples of the latter are those of a theologically liberal
persuasion, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and all who
reject in some way the essentials.

Filter 2: The Nonessentials

The nonessentials are views we hold that may be based on the Scriptures,
tradition, or both. The nonessentials aren't as clear biblically, and that's
why evangelicals disagree on them. However, the reality is that often one
group's nonessentials may be another's faith essentials. Regardless, all are
convinced that their view is correct and fully supported by the Bible.
Unlike the essentials, agreement on the nonessentials doesn't affect one's
orthodoxy, salvation, or standing before Christ. The key word here is
liberty. There is room to flex.

What are some nonessentials? The following are examples that have
proved to be nonessentials that may affect the church's ministries and
organization.

1. Church government (polity). Polity addresses where power should be
in the church and who makes the major decisions that impact the church.
Most churches hold one of three views: the Episcopal form where power
is invested in the hands of a bishop outside the local church; the
Presbyterian form where power is found in a governing board within the
church; the congregational form where the congregation has the power of
decision making.

2. Mode of baptism. Most who baptize believe in immersion, sprinkling,
or pouring.

3. The Lord's Supper. The issue is whether the elements convey grace to
the recipients. The positions range from an emphatic yes to an equally
emphatic no.

4. The role of women in the church. The positions range from full
participation including ordination and the senior pastor's office to little or
no participation at all.

5. Spiritual gifts. The positions range from the belief that no gifts are
present today to the belief that all the gifts are for today.

6. When the church meets. Some argue that it must be on Sunday
morning or night, while others argue that any day is permissible. This has
been an issue for those churches that are seeker-oriented.

7. Church practices. The concerns what the church does when it meets.
Some argue, for example, that it must serve communion every time it
meets or that it must teach the Scriptures. Others feel these aren't
necessary every time.

Filter 2: Some Nonessentials of the Faith

- Church government (polity)
- Mode of baptism
- Efficacy of the Lord's Supper
- Role of women in the church
- Presence and permanence of spiritual gifts
- Time and place when the church meets
- Church practices

What should our response be as leaders to others regarding the faith
nonessentials?

In the essentials, we're to pursue unity and love. The faith essentials
distinguish between those who're within and outside the orthodox faith.
We must agree on the essentials or we can't minister together in any way,
but we still treat one another with respect as fellow human beings.

However, in the nonessentials we're to pursue Christian liberty. Liberty
says that it's okay to take a firm position on these issues, but that we're in
the realm of interpretive tradition. Though we believe Scripture best
supports our view, other intelligent, godly evangelicals firmly hold to
differing views for what seem to be good reasons and are still within the
orthodox faith.

Christian liberty says we must be willing to grant others these distinctions
and still hold one another in high regard. Preserving the "unity of the faith"
(Eph. 4:13) means treating others who differ with us on the nonessentials
with kindness and compassion (Jn. 13:34-35; 15:12-14, 17). We must
not falsely judge or malign them (Rom. 14:9-13). We must also recoil at
thinking or claiming that we're the faithful remnant, namely, the only ones
with the truth, while all others are wrong and should be condemned.
Instead, we choose to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
We must remember this as we look at the conduct of some who attack
the new model churches.

I don't believe that I would deny membership in my church to a brother
or sister in Christ who differ over the nonessentials unless their belief was
disruptive. However, I might deny them a teaching position or a place on
a governing board. Much depends on the particular nonessential and their
fervency over the same.

Filter 3: In All Things Love

The final filter addresses both the essentials and nonessentials. It argues
that in both we treat others with love (Melanchthon used the term
charity). We're to love those believers who differ on the nonessentials
(John 13:34-35; 15:12-14, 17), and following Christ's example, we're to
love those who differ on the essentials (Jn 3:16, Rom. 5:8). The latter
doesn't mean that we are to love what they do or teach, but we are to
love them as fellow human beings made in the image of God. That doesn't
mean that we don't address false teaching or ignore sinful behavior. We
can love the individual but hate his or her sin. This was the Savior's
attitude toward lost people ("world") in John 3:16.

I have two gay friends who are my neighbors. Yes, I said "friends." You
must understand that I grew up homophobic in a community in the South
that didn't tolerate homosexuality. God has helped me to work through
my homophobia, and I can say that my wife and I love these two men.
However, we neither love nor condone their lifestyle, and they know this.
Regardless, God has used our love for them to deeply impact them for
the Savior. While many homosexuals are defensive of the lifestyle, one of
these men has admitted to me that his lifestyle is wrong. I don't think this
would have happened had I rejected or castigated him.

The fact that we are to treat others with love leads next to an important
principle and practice that specifically relates to fellow believers. You'll
find the principle in Matthew 18:15-20. In verse 15, the Savior teaches,
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between
the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over." I
see several issues here. First, this would seem to apply primarily to those
within the same local church. However, I don't think that anyone would
challenge the wisdom of two brothers who belong to different churches
getting together to discuss their differences. There seems to be clear
precedent for this in Galatians 2:1-10 and the Jerusalem Council in Acts
15.

Second, Jesus commands the offended brother in the Matthew passage
to be proactive and approach the offending brother. I suspect this reflects
the Savior's practical insight into people. How many times has an
offending party come to you over an issue? Likely never.

Third, this is a private meeting. Again this reflects Jesus' wisdom.
Whenever we believe someone has wronged us and possibly sinned
against us, we are to go to that person before making it public. The
reason is obvious - we might be wrong. What if we go public too soon
and our information isn't correct? We risk needlessly and sinfully ruining
the other's reputation. This has been the fruit of some critics' attacks on
others. Jesus continues in verses 16-18 to address what you should do if
the offending party will not listen and address the issue.

An example of how this works is found in Galatians 2:1-10. Peter
understood that the gospel had come to the Gentiles, and they could be
saved by faith in Christ alone. Thus, he as a Jewish believer would
fellowship with the Gentile believers. However, when certain men from
James came, he disowned the Gentile believers for fear of those who
added the requirement of circumcision to the gospel. Since Peter was a
pillar and leader in the church, others wrongly followed his example.
When Paul saw this, he personally reproached Peter face-to-face over
this issue. Note that he did so in front of those Peter led astray (v. 14).
He included the larger group because they were all involved in this sham.
By bringing them together, he was able to correct the issue with all the
participants present.

In summary, a way to capture and express this grid with its three filters is
the following statement based on Melanchthon's teaching: "In the
essentials, unity; in the nonessentials, liberty; in all things, love."

The concepts of the essentials and nonessentials raise several
applicational questions for the church in general and pastoral leaders in
particular.