A New Kind of Church

Understanding Models of Ministry for the 21st Century

Book Details

Discerning Reader Editorial Review

Reviewed 12/10/2009 by Trevin Wax.

Recommended. A thought-provoking but often dissatisfying analysis of what it means to be the Church in the 21st century.

Aubrey Malphurs is the professor of pastoral ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written a number of books on contemporary models of church planting and church revitalization. His book, A New Kind of Church: Understanding Models of Ministry for the 21st Century, makes a case for using new models for ministry in the 21st century. Throughout the book, Malphurs answers criticisms of the new models while offering a vision for moving forward in effective church ministry.

Summary

A New Kind of Church is divided into two parts. The first part addresses the changing times in which we live. Malphurs explains why churches find themselves in the position of being forced to adapt to new cultural realities.

He begins by pointing out the ways in which culture has changed:

    * People no longer think the way they did fifty years ago.
    * Faith is no longer tied to church attendance.
    * A diminishing view of Sunday morning as a sacred time (35).

Churches have been too slow to adapt to these new realities. We missed opportunities to reassert the importance of Christian faith (September 11), and despite a few glimmers of hope (the church's response to Hurricane Katrina), the church has moved toward irrelevance. Add to these problems a general apathy toward evangelism and the picture grows even starker (43).

According to Malphurs, churches must change or die. But many believe that change equals unfaithfulness. Therefore, Malphurs examines the arguments launched against churches that implement new models and methods.

Central to his proposal is the distinction between doctrines and practices. He divides doctrines into "essentials" and "nonessentials." Churches should be exclusive regarding the essentials and inclusive regarding the nonessentials (51).

The second (longer) half of the book provides information for leaders to help them make wise decisions regarding church models and ministry methods. Malphurs seeks to base his proposals on Scripture. He makes a number of helpful distinctions in the New Testament, showing that not everything described in first-century Christianity is necessarily prescribed in 21st century America (66-68). Likewise, he distinguishes between patterns and principles, showing how we are not bound to the specific patterns of first-century ministries, but to the principles seen in these contexts (70-73).

Next, Malphurs encourages churches to develop a theology of change. Leaders must recognize that the functions of the church are based on the Bible, and therefore, they are timeless, unchanging and nonnegotiable (76-85). However, the forms we use in order to practice these functions are flexible. Churches must exercise freedom in choosing the way in which the functions are to be accomplished (85-92).

Malphurs also challenges churches to develop a theology of culture. It is important to understand a culture before we can effectively reach people for Christ. He defines culture as "the sum total of what people believe and how they act on their beliefs" (98). Malphurs warns us against isolation or accommodation, and instead encourages us to contextualize the unchanging gospel in an ever-changing world (102-108).

In Malphurs' understanding, the church is "an indispensable gathering of professing believers in Christ who, under leadership, are organized to pursue its functions to accomplish its purpose" (117). He spends an entire chapter unpacking that definition and defending its usefulness.

In the last section of the book, Malphurs encourages the church to serve the surrounding community as an expression of faithfulness to Jesus (127-34). He also challenges churches to think through issues of form and function. Critics of new-model churches should avoid sweeping generalizations and the impugning of others' motives (151-9). The final chapter offers tips to pastors thinking of leading their church to develop new models and methods (163-80).

Strengths

Malphurs offers many suggestions that deserve consideration from pastors and church leaders today. He is right to critique some of the critics of the new models, especially when that criticism has been unfounded, exaggerated, or unloving.

He is also correct to make distinctions between principles and patterns, or description and prescription, as we attempt to be faithful to the biblical portrait of New Testament Christian belief and practice. Malphurs clearly demonstrates a passion for biblical faithfulness, and he ably critiques both the new model churches and the traditionalists for their shortcomings, while spurring us on to love and good deeds.

Further Questions

Despite the strengths of Malphurs' work, there are a number of questions raised by his proposals that are not answered satisfactorily in this book.

Essentials and Non-essentials

First, one must wonder how Malphurs distinguishes between "essentials" and "nonessentials." This kind of terminology can be easily misunderstood. Albert Mohler's categorization into issues of "first-level" and "second-level" seems better. Mohler sees a hierarchy of doctrines flowing down from the central truths of the gospel. Malphurs' categorization of "essentials" and "nonessentials" ultimately leads him to steadfastness on issues of gospel primacy and wide flexibility on everything else.

In the end, there is little room left for denominational distinctives. Malphurs writes:

I don’t believe that I would deny membership in my church to brothers or sisters in Christ who differ over the nonessentials unless their belief was disruptive (53).

How does this work out in practice? Since Malphurs considers baptism to be a "nonessential," does that mean that local churches should adopt a variety of positions on baptism? It appears so, since Malphurs later writes:

The church may practice immersion but should be willing to adopt another form if an individual requests it or his or her situation merits it (63).

This kind of freedom will inevitably lead to church conflict or to the downplaying and neglect of very important Christian practices. Baptists believe that baptism is not a merely a function that can take place in a variety of forms. Immersion is baptism.

It appears that Malphurs would still encourage his readers to take a firm position on certain nonessentials. He later writes:

Liberty says that it is okay to take a firm position on the nonessentials, but we must recognize that we are in the realm of interpretive tradition (137).

But what if this argument is turned back against Malphurs’ entire proposal? His position on liberty and nonessentials would necessarily be included in the "nonessential" category of doctrines, which means that he too is in the realm of interpretive tradition and cannot make a firm case from Scripture for the views he holds.

Can the form ever compromise the function?

Regarding forms and practices, Malphurs is generally correct. We do have freedom to use different practices and forms.

But he gives us little help in determining when forms affect the function, or when practices change the doctrine. How do we know when our contextualization has led to compromise?

Malphurs’ evaluation comes from asking questions like "What practices and forms best serve our constituency or the people we desire to teach?" Likewise, he asks, "What forms is God currently using and blessing?" (85). These are good questions, but Malphurs never defines "blessing." How do we know what "success" is and "blessing" is?

Here is a case in point. If a church that is seeing numerical growth has offered two different styles of worship for different generations, should others churches in the area follow the same pattern? Or should we consider what our inability to worship with people of different generations is communicating to a watching world? At what point do we question our definition of "success" and look past initial results to the unintended implications of our actions?

Malphurs is right to see forms as changing, but he gives us little advice in understanding at what point the form compromises the function. He uses the Lord’s Supper as an example (90), arguing that crackers or bread, wine or grape juice can be used. The forms change, but the substance of the function remains the same.

But how far can this be taken? Can a group use kool-aid and cookies on the beach and consider this the Lord’s Supper? I suspect that Malphurs would say "no," but unfortunately, I do not know the reasons he would give for saying that such a drastic change in form is unacceptable.

The Culture-Adapting Church? Or the Culture-Creating Church?

Malphurs advocates "contextualization, which attempts to plant or reestablish churches within people’s cultural context and to communicate the gospel in language and practices that are understandable so that the biblical message is clear" (105). Certainly some level of contextualization is necessary. The gospel must be communicated in ways that contemporary people understand.
 

But Malphurs’ emphasis on contextualization takes the cue from culture, making it seem that the church should always adapt to culture, rather than seeing the church as an organism that creates a culture of its own.

Churches should, of course, be sensitive to those who are not believers. But a church service should be a culturally alienating experience for unbelievers. We are a distinct people with a distinct vocabulary.

Who else gets together and sings to an invisible Being?

Who else eats bread and drinks wine together in commemoration of a dying Savior?

The church is supposed to exist as a counter-culture, which means that those who do not believe will not and should not feel completely at home in a Christian church service.

Lordship Salvation

The biggest problem with Malphurs’ theological outlook is his rejection of "lordship salvation." He writes:

Some believe that the gospel includes a commitment before salvation to let Jesus control one’s life after salvation. This is the lordship salvation view. Others correctly point out that this view mixes salvation with sanctification and adds works to the gospel, which is a false gospel (148).

By divorcing Jesus’ identity as Savior from his identity as Lord, Malphurs should not be surprised to see a growing proportion of unchurched people. Surprisingly, Malphurs considers this group, even perhaps the majority as "deeply committed believers" (21).

The idea that one can be a deeply committed believer and yet have no relationship with the body of Christ is troublesome. This statement signals that further theological issues in relation to Malphurs’ proposals need to be discussed.

Conclusion

Aubrey Malphurs’ passion for the church and the expansion of God’s kingdom is on full display in A New Kind of Church. This book should be read and considered by pastors and church leaders seeking to be biblically faithful and culturally relevant. Despite some flaws, this book asks good questions, makes good points, and will surely provoke important conversations on the nature and manner of the church’s missional identity.