Intellectuelle

John, I loved the Sat Veritas Seminar at Naperville on May 5. Rarely have I learned so much about a topic I am so interested in. I do have the following theological concerns however about what the seminar omitted in terms of ecclesiology; specifically, the marks of a church. At no point was the church defined. My concern is that we may be spawning "religious organization" which do not fit the definition of a church which is Christian, whether it is Healthy/Missional, Stable, Critical-Moment or At- Risk. I would encourage you to weave into the analysis of churches some of the basics. For example, can a church be healthy and missional which does not celebrate the Lord's supper. I know this may sound like tautology, but at no point was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper mentioned orally or in your notes. Luther indicated this along with baptism as a mark of the church. In a day when the cross is being taken out of the church to make it "culturally relevant" lest we offend people with the scandalous gospel Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 1. The cross as a mark of the church may also need to be given more visibility, since Luther also , as you know, included this as his last criterion for the church. I believe by implication you have this throughout the seminar, but because the cross is THE crux of Christianity, it lends itself to the crucial ontology for the church. The cross separates out the Christian church from any other social-compassion-justice agency. This came up in a Bonhoeffer seminar I
was presenting when a brother suggested that his "church" was true because it "met his needs." I suggested the local Lion's Club might also meet his needs, yet cannot be mistaken for the church. You get my point. Because of the whiteashing of the church Hybels and Warren hae given the concept of church with no help from pundits like McClaren...none of whom possess any real theological reasons for why their "churches" are the church. Your approach is far more theologically and bibilically based than the culturally-accommodating church concepts suggested by these "evangelical" leaders who dominate so much of what Covenant churches are copying to stay "relevant." Relevance can't be confused or replace truth. Given the sad state of truth in our churches and the reductionism toward relevance or cultural accommodation, the truth of the scandalous cross and the scandalous churches it must by nature spawn, I would stir this thought into your definition of the H/M church as the end-game for those communities of the cross we need in Christianity.

In sum, before using the adjectives for the four-typologies, I believe your seminar could be enhanced and enriched by a trajectory which doesn't assume that what we call church is theologically, ontologically or biblically a church that is uniquely Christian. Then I could see unpacking the four typologies with the adjectives used.
It will do little to create healthy/missional religious communities, which lack the ontology of a church which is informed by the unique Christian distinctives...all of which counter the cultural of materialism, narcissim, hedonism and individualism which has created the oxymoron "evangelical church."

Paul O. Bischoff, Ph.D.
Adjunct Faculty-NPTS
Interim Pastor-North Park Cov Church
Machesney, IL
630-682-4245