Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don't

[Paul Harvey]

Rodney Shaw has followed up on his oft-controversial series with a new blog entitled "How Do We Minister?: Theology and Method, Part I"

Here is a sample:

Our theology states that all people must be born again of water and Spirit—baptized in Jesus’ name and filled with the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking with other tongues. This theological affirmation is fleshed out (contextualized) in methods—advertising campaigns, approaches to personal evangelism, music selection, service formats, preaching style, approaches to praying with seekers, children’s ministry programs—with the intent of producing outcomes that are consistent with the theological affirmation, i.e., people should be baptized in Jesus’ name, receive the Holy Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues, and live a godly life as a result of the methods we choose.

It really does not matter whether a minister preaches behind a pulpit in a suit or without a pulpit in a pair of jeans. This is a method. It really does not matter if a preacher moves about the stage yelling into a microphone or whether he speaks in a more conversational tone. This is a method. The more important questions revolve around what the methods are designed to accomplish. Do the methods lead to people being filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking with other tongues? Do the methods lead to people being baptized in Jesus’ name? Do the methods lead to people experiencing deliverance? Do the methods lead to people growing in grace and in spiritual disciplines? And further, do the methods hinder people from experiencing these things? Is a sinner more or less likely to receive the Holy Spirit, be baptized in Jesus’ name, and live a holy life as a result of one’s methods?

Has Shaw gotten the following memos?:

1. The one from the General Board of which his pastor is a part of, particularly from the sub-committee appointed by K. Haney and headed by Paul Mooney that methods do matter to them.

The same the committee that blasted the use of the undiscipled in various ministries and lambasted the "absence of authoritative worship and preaching" in the methods used by some who have succumbed to the "emerging" church.

Stating:

•Pastors often depart from traditional “church dress” to a casual look of open collar, un-tucked shirt, sport coat and jeans.


•Pastors prefer sitting in a chair or behind a table. Generally there is no physical pulpit visible.


•The Emerging Church communication paradigm favors a more casual, conversational tone featuring oral history and storytelling as opposed to Bible preaching/teaching.

•Predictably, there is less of what we understand to be a “move of God” and more of an intellectual assent to Christianity.

For more on this committee's report click here-
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24736

and

2. The UPCI doesn't have an official theological stance on the New Birth - intentionally since the merger between the PCI and PAJC.


One has to wonder if he has a pulse as to what is really going on here? Or maybe he does.

[mizpeh]

Maybe it's those at the top that don't have the pulse on what is going on. Sounds like Shaw is on the money about the keeping the main thing the main thing.

[GrowingPains]

If you read between the lines, he's saying that those changing methods to more casual, conversational (read "emergent") style of churches, aren't having the outcomes where people are receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Pentecostal worship. At least that's what I read. He says it much more eloquently of course.

He has a point. To him, the UPCI and the affirmation statement reflects 3-step doctrine, which most of the UPCI agrees. How many churches that no longer preach HG Baptism as essentiality still have a high percentage of believers receiving the HG with tongues? Valid point and concern from his perspective.

It's not the method, though. It's what the outcome he's seeing. I think it takes some line-reading to see this.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

If you read between the lines, he's saying that those changing methods to more casual, conversational (read "emergent") style of churches, aren't having the outcomes where people are receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Pentecostal worship. At least that's what I read. He says it much more eloquently of course.

He has a point. To him, the UPCI and the affirmation statement reflects 3-step doctrine, which most of the UPCI agrees. How many churches that no longer preach HG Baptism as essentiality still have a high percentage of believers receiving the HG with tongues? Valid point and concern from his perspective.

It's not the method, though. It's what the outcome he's seeing. I think it takes some line-reading to see this.

what is dumb is that is not what "emergent" is

[pelathais]

Perhaps it might be seen as a challenge for both sides?

Are the so-called "Ultra-Cons" producing fruit with their methods or turning people off to the message? And, can the "younger" crowd untuck their shirts and still produce "tongue-talking" converts?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Perhaps it might be seen as a challenge for both sides?

Are the so-called "Ultra-Cons" producing fruit with their methods or turning people off to the message? And, can the "younger" crowd untuck their shirts and still produce "tongue-talking" converts?

Some are, some aren't.
We know many discussion-oriented, casual Sunday Joe's are toning down the emotional offerings to God, and you tell me how many are still receiving the Baptism of the HG with tongues? Just an observation on my part thus far. The numbers are lop-sided.

Yes, untucked shirts can still pray them through, preach Christ, have exuberant worship. Not the point (really). It's usually a package deal. But not always. So point well-taken.

[Justin]

Correct me if I'm wrong... this Shaw sits under D. Bernard and is dipping his toe in to "emergent" church methodology?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Justin

Correct me if I'm wrong... this Shaw sits under D. Bernard and is dipping his toe in to "emergent" church methodology?

I think he sits beside D. Bernard, supporting the work of D. Bernard and is simply asking some folks to "grow up."

Though it should be understood - the "grow up" phrase is my own take on the matter - Shaw appears to be too much of a gentleman to say that.

[Justin]

Too much focus has been about bringing people to church, where there is an order to everything, the place is nice and well kept, visible carpet lines from a freshly vacuumed carpet, everyone has their suits and dresses on...

We need to bring church to the people!

Are we going to develop new doctrine which states, "It is a shame for a man to pray or prophecy with his shirt untucked."?

[shag]

Originally Posted by Justin

Too much focus has been about bringing people to church, where there is an order to everything, the place is nice and well kept, visible carpet lines from a freshly vacuumed carpet, everyone has their suits and dresses on...
[B]
We need to bring church to the people![/B]

Are we going to develop new doctrine which states, "It is a shame for a man to pray or prophecy with his shirt untucked."?

(kinda makes me think of that song - 'Would Jesus be welcome in our churches").......carry on