Buttressing The Church
Dear Friends,
An event of great significance took place in 1966! Some of you may remember it well to this day!
It was an event perhaps most clearly remembered still by those whose home is England, and an event which featured two great ‘giants’ of the day.
And, no, I’m not talking about the day when England beat West Germany to win the World Cup! I’m talking about an event a few months later that year which had far more profound significance – the opening night of the Second National Assembly of Evangelicals held in Westminster Central Hall, when two ‘giants’ of the Christian Church went head-to-head with each other in an unscheduled, but hugely seminal debate.
In the one ‘corner’ was the host, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones (often known simply as ‘the Doctor’), at the time newly into his twenty ninth year as pastor of Westminster Chapel in London: and in the other ‘corner’, was John Stott, rector of All Souls Church, Langham Place (London) and the chairman of the Assembly on that occasion.
Of course, they were not in ‘corners’ at all: they were brothers in Christ, who esteemed one another highly and contended shoulder-to-shoulder with one another in the cause of the gospel, but who (like Paul and Barnabas, or John Wesley and George Whitefield) could nonetheless sharply disagree with one another. And they did just that.
At the risk perhaps of missing some of the nuances of the debate, let me put it like this: Lloyd-Jones argued that Christians were compromised by staying within a denomination which did not stand on the authority of Scripture, whereas Stott argued that it was the responsibility of Christians to stay and contend for the truths of Scripture from within the denomination.
This is how Lloyd-Jones later explained (in a letter to his congregation) what he had sought to do:
“I made an appeal .. to all truly Evangelical people in all the denominations to come together and to form local independent Evangelical churches which should be in a loose fellowship together in order that the world might hear and see a living witness to the truth of the Gospel ..”
At the end of the Doctor’s appeal at the Assembly, John Stott, taking the ‘liberty’ that was his as chairman, rose to his feet and roundly contradicted him, declaring, “I believe history is against what Doctor Lloyd-Jones has said, in that others have tried to do this very thing. I believe that Scripture is against him – the remnant was within the church not outside it. I hope no one will act precipitately.”
They differed profoundly, and the issues of that evening have reverberated down through the last 5 decades and more to this day. To ask who ‘won’ the debate is perhaps as fruitless a question as it is inappropriate, for in some ways there are never any ‘winners’ in a context where a denomination has lost the plot and watered-down God’s truth.
Lloyd-Jones might point to the state of the Church of England today as proof of the point he was making: while John Stott might well be asking how many of those newly formed independent churches, comprised of those who had left the denomination – how many of them have actually survived, far less thrived?
Historically (and I don’t just mean in the aftermath of that particular debate, I mean against the backdrop of a far larger swathe of church history) – historically, I think it’s the case that most churches which become independent through leaving their denomination (as opposed to those which have that ‘independence’ from ‘birth’ in their DNA) are highly susceptible to decline, dwindling numbers and depletion, within a generation or two. That, in essence, was the point which John Stott was making – ‘others have tried to do this very thing’ (and – this would have been his subtext – it doesn’t work).
That’s not always the case, of course, and there’s nothing inevitable about it. But it is what tends to happen. And because that’s the case, and because we are ourselves a fellowship characterized thus – a ‘local independent evangelical church’ now (to use the language of Lloyd-Jones) which is ‘in a loose fellowship together’ with other such churches (think Didasko) – the matter has more than a little relevance for ourselves!
There are a number of reasons why such churches are so very susceptible to decline and depletion, and why very often they do in fact fail to stand the test of time. And if we mean to avoid such a drift towards decline, then a necessary starting point is our grasping what those reasons are. That’s what the Leadership Team here has sought to do, right from the start, in recognizing the inherent ‘fragilities’ of our situation.
So what are those reasons?
First, in leaving a denomination a congregation’s energies are inevitably concentrated on the very considerable challenges of that ‘departure’. However it is done (and here it was done very carefully, thoroughly, patiently, unitedly, and well) – however it’s done, it is a complicated, demanding and largely ‘uncharted’ business (for obvious reasons there aren’t any manuals on how to leave a denomination): and the process involved necessarily takes a very substantial toll on the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual energies of a fellowship. Those energies poured into the leaving can mean that there’s simply much less energy left for the huge and voluminous challenges of then ‘living’ again as a new fellowship, when that involves effectively starting from scratch.
Secondly, there’s inevitably something of an ‘identity crisis’. Who are we now as a fellowship? What’s our place and role as a church in the work of Christ in the city of Aberdeen? Where do we fit in? Life within the denomination may have had its problems, but it did provide parameters which helped ensure identity: we knew who we were and what we were there to do. The switch from being a denominational to an independent fellowship creates an immediate identity crisis and requires a carefully considered and substantial identity ‘re-think’.
Reason number three. Leaving a denomination is a big, big step in every regard. And while difficult and traumatic enough for an individual, for a fellowship to leave a denomination, there is always a need for bold and inspiring leadership, which will often be centred on a single, (small ‘c’) charismatic leader. It took a Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. It took a Joshua to lead them into the land of Canaan. But note what happened when those leaders were gone: rapid decline and decay (check out the book of Judges). The life of a church that has boldly, and at cost, left the denomination will as often as not be overly (and subconsciously) dependent on the bold, inspiring leader who has given them the confidence to leave. And if (as often is the case) that confidence in God is wrongly bound up with, and located in, the leader (or the leadership) who’s led them out, then when that leadership is gone, the ‘rot’ and the ‘drift’ can quickly set in, and whatever momentum there maybe once was can evaporate overnight.
And a final reason, perhaps rather ‘psychological’ in its nature. Commitment to the church of which you’re a part has been subtly weakened by that conscious choice of departure. A line has been crossed, as it were, in the sands of Christian discipleship. Members of a fellowship have together taken the step of leaving the denomination – for reasons, of course, which they’ve considered and concluded are compelling. The first time is the hardest! It’s a huge step! But having done it once .. well, it’s easier by far now to do it again! And with other options available, when things don’t go right (or at least the way you’d want them to go) in this new and independent fellowship, then you can easily ‘leave’ again: you’ve done it before, that line has been crossed. A ‘separatist’ spirit subtly takes root in the psyche, and dissipation and depletion can quickly be the consequence. Church history (and, sadly, Scottish Church history not least) bears that out.
There are reasons, in other words, why such churches very often succumb to dwindling numbers and large-scale decline. As a Leadership Team, we’ve seen it as our responsibility to have our eyes wide open to the realities of this situation, to understand what the challenges are, to anticipate where the ‘fault-lines’ will lie, and to build in the necessary safeguards – to ‘buttress’, as it were, those points in the wall of our life where there’s likely to be a weakness. That’s why for the past few years we have spent such time on addressing the whole key issue of ‘succession planning’: for we recognize that the point at which there’s a change of minister can be one of those major ‘fault-lines’ – one of the five main areas, therefore, where we’ve sought to build those ‘buttresses.’
Let me say a bit about these various ‘buttresses’ we’ve been building. Five of them, as I say. Corresponding to what we identify as the five major ‘fault-lines’ for a congregation which has become independent through leaving a denomination.
‘Buttress’ number one: the importance of a constant local setting. ‘No fixed abode’ may be fine for a camping holiday, but it doesn’t work for a church. The Lord set Adam and Eve in a defined local setting, the garden of Eden, and commissioned them to do the business there (and yes, I know, there was room for expansion). The Lord set Israel in a defined local setting, the land of Canaan, and called them to do the business there – be a light to the world, and do it from there. A fellowship needs such a defined local setting: and the Lord has surely set us here, where we are, to do the business from here (with scope, for sure, for expansion). For that we give Him thanks.
‘Buttress’ number two: the importance of a clear sense of direction. What is to be the focus of our ministry, and what will be our strategy in following that through? The ‘identity crisis’ concern, in other words. Who are we? Where do we fit in? What are we about? That’s why we developed an easily remembered acronym, putting down markers as to what we’re about. ACTS. Attracting people to Jesus. Consolidating the faith of believers. Training our members for ministry. Sending our people out in mission. A second vital ‘buttress’.
‘Buttress’ number three: the importance of a committed association with other churches. That’s a strength, of course, of denominational life – which becoming an independent church is immediately lost. The need to be accountable to, to receive support from, and to be integrated with, the wider church of Christ. Without that we become mere empire builders, rather than servants of the Kingdom. Hence the (albeit rather makeshift) association which we sought to develop with the other Didasko churches, as – if nothing else – at least a ‘stop-gap’ measure. But another necessary ‘buttress’.
‘Buttress’ number four: the importance of close co-operation with other local fellowships. That’s bringing the ‘kingdom’ mentality into our actual Aberdeen locality, and discerning the ways in which we do the work of Christ as part of the body of Christ in the area. ‘Do the business here,’ says the Lord, and we figure out how we best work in conjunction with others – other like-minded fellowships – to see the church of Christ grow. And, again, we’ve worked hard at that – and still work hard at that, developing practical, purposeful partnership in Christ. It’s a ‘buttress’ which needs to be in place.
And last but by no means least – ‘buttress’ number five: the importance of there being a careful co-ordination of continued leadership. The backdrop to this is the classic, well-known warning from the London tubes – Mind the Gap. Because, yes, there’s a real and present danger with the ‘gap’ between two ministries. A potential major ‘fault-line’ in any church, and perhaps more so than ever in a “we’re-now-independent” church like ours. Hence our careful, protracted ‘succession planning’ over the last any number of years, and our concern to ensure that there isn’t that gap, but instead a seamless transition and a steady expansion in ministry. A big, solid ‘buttress’ of prayer-soaked planning which will, we trust, ensure that there will be continued, steady growth.
I hope that helps you see and understand in its rightful context the extensive ‘succession planning’ we’ve been working at. I’ll hope to elaborate a bit on that next month, but the common concern of both Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his brother in Christ, John Stott, remains for ourselves the long-term objective we have in the rapidly changing world of today – “that the world might hear and see a living witness to the truth of the gospel.”
May God grant us grace to rise to the call of His Kingdom in our day and to press on with confidence in His service.
Yours in Christ Jesus our Lord
Jeremy Middleton