By Lynn and Sarah LeslieThe Shepherding Movement Comes of Age
January, 2004
| Home | Articles | Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven? | Re-Inventing the Church |
There is a new twist in the old Shepherding Movement and it is coming
soon to your church, if it hasn’t already. This new twist is presented to
pastors wrapped in silver gilding, and looks quite reasonable and rational.
Should a discerning pastor, or one who steeps himself in the Word, take a
second look, the gild disappears and in its place will appear rust and
corrosion.
Across the country, parishioners are now being challenged to take oaths,
perform vows and sign covenants. These things would have been unheard of in
generations past for one simple reason. These things used to be forbidden,
or only permitted under the gravest of circumstances. A few decades ago
churches founded their beliefs sturdily upon the rocks of historical creeds,
documents that have withstood the test of time and human whim, and which
have imparted to each new generation an understanding of the major tenets of
the Gospel faith. Now, in our latter days of dumbed-down Christianity, a
minimal number of people in the pews know the creeds, have studied them, or
even know about them!
And it is no wonder. A few years ago a pastor told a particularly grievous
story. He had attended a meeting with pastors from his conservative
denomination. At the meeting the men were handed paper and pencils and asked
to come up with their own creeds. This pastor was duly horrified!
Courageously he stood to speak against this. The great historical creeds of
Christianity, he stated, were wrought in the fires of persecution, under
great seriousness and solemn efforts to preserve the Truth of the Gospel.
Wasn’t this a frivolous, touchy-feely kind of exercise? Should a handful of
men in an auditorium even dare to presume to be able to come up with such a
ponderous document in a few short minutes with paper and pencil, he asked.
His protest, sadly, was greeted with scorn and ridicule.
"As a servant of God in The Valley Church, I want to unite with my fellow servant leaders at this time to undertake commitments appropriate for leadership. These commitments are made in the first place between me and the Lord, and in the second place between me and this community. Realizing that I may fail at times to fully keep these commitments, I think it is important that I purpose in my heart and confirm publicly my desire to keep them. Although this covenant may be changed in coming years this is where we presently stand as a church."
A list of “Spiritual Commitments” includes a daily prayer life; regular time
in God’s Word; active involvement in a small group (usually a cell group);
responding obediently to God’s discipline; purposing to discover, develop
and use spiritual gifts; living a moral life, maintaining a healthy family
life; attending church services; tithing; and supporting the leadership.
Most church covenants emphasize the word “all” or “everyone” in their
statements such as “Everyone involved in a weekly or ongoing ministry” or
“everyone involved in discipleship experience.” No one is excepted.
Each church covenant includes a section pertaining to resolution of
conflict. These examples are noteworthy in their extreme application of
Matthew 18, in which the parishioner must agree to never speak “evil” of
anyone or any leader in the church, including “negative” or “critical”
statements about church policies or doctrines. Also, the conclusion of any
dispute will be resolved by the leadership of the church, and the
parishioner must agree beforehand to submit to their discipline.
Membership is described as the “gateway to leadership.” Everyone is presumed
a potential leader. Aspiring leaders must make additional commitments,
usually called “responsibilities,” which have to do with evangelism,
promoting church programs, discipling others, agreeing to be held
accountable, and undergoing periodic “continuing education.”
There is a signature line and a date at the bottom of these covenants for
people to sign, indicating their commitment to abide by this new church
structure. Some churches require that their members sign the covenant
yearly. Others only require it upon membership. Some churches require strict
adherence to the oaths, and promise that they will hold the members
accountable. Other churches leave wiggle room for people who fail. One
church states:
“While nothing is set in stone, nor do we track your fulfillment of the covenant items, this Covenant does give you an idea of the level of commitment we consider membership to be here.”
Some churches reveal that their covenants may change, although it is not specified whether the parishioners will be able to participate in this process, or be given a chance to re-sign the oath at that time."
The use of New Age terminology is often mixed with biblical-sounding language. One church explains why it is necessary for its parishioners to sign a “pledge”:
“…a pledge is a solemn promise (which is an indication of future excellence) characterized by deep thought. That is exactly the kind of spiritual practice I would have us engage in! To make a pledge is to enter into an agreement, and to agree is to be of one mind. A pledge holds more potential than I ever realized…. Let us consider making and keeping agreements that express that harmony and oneness.”
Another church explains that their “collective consciousness on social issues” is “not enforced legalistically but members agree to embrace them….” Yet another church states that a “membership covenant implies a clear ownership of the core values, beliefs, vision, and mission that function as the DNA of congregational life embedded into every leader” for a “shared identity.”
A few churches, which were originally founded upon a congregational model,
give slightly more freedom to lay people in leadership and decision-making
roles. However, this new church structure is markedly characterized by the
demise of congregational forms of church governance. In fact, some churches
have re-written their bylaws, and make them part of the actual church
covenant which must be signed. In these cases the parishioner is then
signing a legal contract as well as joining a church body.
ThatChurch!
is probably the scariest example of the new covenant, found on a
brief internet search:
“Congregational members do not have the right to vote in business matters of the church….All governmental authority in the church shall be vested in the Director of Ministries, the Board of Directors, and the Leadership Team as set forth in the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Church.”
The leaders can prescribe that members take any courses of
study at any time. Members are accepted into the church at the sole
discretion of the “Director of Ministries” and must fulfill
“responsibilities” such as “follow and support the leadership of this church
as they follow the Lord.” In exchange they are offered “rights and
privileges” which include permission to attend worship services; entitlement
to receive Christian teaching, personal pastoral care, and prayer support;
and opportunities to grow in the Lord.
In an ominous revivification of the shepherding movement, ThatChurch!’s
bylaws indicate, “Grounds for discipline will be determined by the
leadership of the church.” Many paragraphs later, after incredibly detailed
explanations of how disciplinary functions will be carried out, it becomes
evident that the church leaders retain the right to bar members from the
“rights and privileges” listed earlier in their bylaws. But, it isn’t over
yet. Each member must consent in advance “to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the church in resolving any matter involving church discipline.” Further,
there is an elaborate explanation of mediation/arbitration and “outcome” of
such discipline, including agreeing to “specifically and expressly [waive]
any right to sue in a civil court on any matter covered herein.”
Rick Warren Driving the Church
Dr. Robert Klenck, an orthopedic surgeon, has been speaking out at
conferences around the country about the origination of this new covenant
agenda. He explains that Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose-Driven Church, has
sold over a million copies and that over 150,000 pastors and church leaders
have been trained in his model.1 Rick Warren was mentored by Peter Drucker,
a corporate management guru with strong ties to the New Age/New World Order.
Drucker “influenced the start and growth of Saddleback Church.”2
Drucker has dedicated much effort into bringing the church into conformance
with the “systems” model of governance, which is known as Total Quality
Management in the corporate world. In this model, parishioners are
“customers.” The focus shifts to “outcomes” which means that people will
have to be held “accountable” for “performance.” Certain rewards (“rights”)
and “responsibilities” accompany these outcomes, and a small group structure
like cell groups is a perfect way to ensure that people are meeting these
“outcomes.” These “outcomes” or expectations are driven by people, not by
the Lord or His Word. By implication, if one doesn’t meet the “outcomes,”
there may be “penalties” such as the ones prescribed by ThatChurch!
According to Klenck there are rapidly developing networks for “21st century
churches” and “best practice churches.” These networks are databasing
churches and parishioners. Chief among the organizations spearheading this
change is the Leadership Network, which provides “technical assistance” for
orchestrated “continuous” change in churches, fitting churches neatly into
the business model.
Peter Drucker grew up under the influence of the German philosophies of the
1800s. His “systems” theories are based on “General Systems Theory” (GST)
which is esoteric, derived from a merger of social Darwinism and eastern
mysticism. GST believes that man is evolving to a higher-order. In order for
this to occur, man must become unified and of one consciousness. Drucker
developed the theory of a 3-legged stool – Corporate, State and “private
sector” (Church). The first half of his long life (he is 94 years old) was
devoted to merging Corporate and State into one “system.” The second half of
his life has been devoted to merging Church with Corporate, and Church with
State into one comprehensive system. He has been wildly successful.
Drucker is a communitarian, which is a modern “communist” who has
effectually distanced their views from the old communists. In his
communitarian model of governance, the State is in reality the only leg of
the stool. The Corporate and the Church subsume their identities and
comfortably merge with State into one comprehensive “system” of governance
for mankind. Drucker’s ideas gave rise to the faith-based institution
movement of the last decade.
Indeed, it is noteworthy that the highest concentration of the new
“covenant” style churches can be found in the faith-based arena. The federal
bills in Washington that originally began dispersing funds to churches that
were doing welfare reform, job training, etc. required that these churches
exhibit “ecumenicity.” Churches receiving federal dollars must be held
“accountable” One significant way to achieve this goal is to transform the
churches into the Corporate/State mode of governance, using the “systems”
model.
It is not uncommon, therefore, to find that faith-based, government-financed
“covenant” churches are requiring even more of their members. Members at one
such church in Pennsylvania must participate in daily e-mails from the
pastor, evening worship several nights a week, daily intercession
activities, cell group activities, and up to 5 hours per week of “community
service” in any of over a dozen state-funded, community-based “ministries.”
Churches like this one have become “centers” for State charity work. They
then become “accountable” to the “State” for the monies that they receive.
When one signs an oath to uphold the covenant of this type of church, they
are also agreeing to uphold the State/Church relationship!
What Does God’s Word Say?
"Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:33-37)
"But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." (James 5:12)
According to Webster’s, a “covenant” is a “binding, and solemn agreement
made by two or more individuals, parties, etc. do to or keep from doing a
specified thing.” Covenants can be legally binding contracts. “Covenant” can
also mean “an agreement among members of a church to defend and maintain its
doctrines, polity, faith, etc.” Covenants are supposed to be irrevocable,
unchanging and binding on those who made it. It is the strongest expression
of a relationship.
An “oath” is a “ritualistic declaration, typically based on an appeal to God
or a god,or to some revered person or object, that one will speak the truth,
keep a promise, remain faithful, etc.” An oath, therefore, is a sworn
promise to keep the terms of a covenant or agreement. The oath is a verbal
statement or pledge to keep the covenant. Related to the word “oath” are the
words “vow” and “pledge.”
The issue of taking oaths came up a few years ago when the men of Promise
Keepers were making seven promises. It is possible that PK broke the ground
on this matter, desensitizing Christians to the whole idea of taking an
oath. On the one hand, the “promises,” like those of PK, seemed like 7
“suggestions” and trivialized the whole idea of keeping commandments. On the
other hand, it is important to realize that in the spirit world, there is
great significance to these matters. There are rituals that accompany these
activities, and it is believed that curses accompany broken covenants or
failure to keep an oath or vow. Pagans would invoke the name of a deity to
set evil in motion. Secret societies such as freemasons require oaths. This
explains one major reason why the Lord Himself would state the issue so
strongly in His Sermon on the Mount.
Historically, Christians have agreed with these Scriptures and opposed
oath-taking. These verses from Scripture were considered to be so vital for
a Christian that at the time of the Reformation both the Anabaptist and
Reformed branches of the church addressed them in their creeds. From the
Reformed branch, from which arose churches such as Congregational, Lutheran,
Anglican and Presbyterian, came the Westminster Confession of Faith, Article
22:
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows.
"I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
"II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence; therefore to swear vainly or rashly by that glorious and dreadful name, or to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament, as well as under the Old, so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters ought to be taken.
"III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth. Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.
"IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It can not oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt: nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics or infidels.
"V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.
"VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for obtaining of what we want; whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties, or to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
"VII. No man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promise or ability from God. In which respects, monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself."
Especially note Sections VI and VII, in which oaths were to be voluntary, a personal matter of conscience, unto God alone, not contrary to the Word of God, and in utter dependence upon God to keep. Also of relevance is Article 20, Section II, which pertains to blind obedience, destruction of liberty of conscience, and loss of reason:
"II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith on worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."
The new oaths and covenants run counter to the historical Reformed church on many counts. Whereas previously the Ten Commandments would have been taught, now they are replaced by new church laws which are subjective and potentially heretical. Previously these churches would have taught that Christ won on the cross liberty from the laws of men, and that the conscience is subject to God alone. The Reformed church used to teach that man lives by faith, and through His strength man is able to keep His commands. Now a new structure has been erected, with man-made laws, and man-directed accountability.
The Anabaptist branch of the Church, from which came Baptists, the Pentecostals, and modern evangelicals, historically took a stronger stand and opposed taking oaths altogether. The Anabaptist beliefs can best be summarized by the Dordrecht Confession of Faith (1632):
"XV. Of the Swearing of Oaths
Concerning the swearing of oaths we believe and confess that the Lord Christ has set aside and forbidden the same to His disciples, that they should not swear at all, but that yea should be yea, and nay, nay; from which we understand that all oaths, high and low, are forbidden, and that instead of them we are to confirm all our promises and obligations, yea, all our declarations and testimonies of any matter, only with our word yea, in that which is yea, and with nay, in that which is nay; yet, that we must always, in all matters, and with everyone, adhere to, keep, follow, and fulfill the same, as though we had confirmed it with a solemn oath. And if we do this, we trust that no one, not even the Magistracy itself, will have just reason to lay a greater burden on our mind and conscience. Matt. 5:34, 35; Jas. 5:12; II Cor. 1:17."
The Schleithheim Confession (1527), Article 7 states, in part:
"Seventh. We are agreed as follows concerning the oath: The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or making promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God's Name, but only in truth, not falsely. Christ, who teaches the perfection of the Law, prohibits all swearing to His [followers], whether true or false, -- neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by our head, -- and that for the reason which He shortly thereafter gives, For you are not able to make one hair white or black. So you see it is for this reason that all swearing is forbidden: we cannot fulfill that which we promise when we swear, for we cannot change [even] the very least thing on us."
Even today the conservative Mennonites and Amish descendants of the original
Anabaptists will not take an oath, but will instead “affirm.” Churches used
to teach, even a generation ago, that any words that served no useful
function should not be spoken, that it was wrong to “curse” (oaths, swear
words), and that “minced oaths” were sinful (“Gosh,” “Gee,” “darn,” etc.).
It used to be taught that even portions of oaths, such as “Well, I’ll be…”
or “So help me…” were wrong to speak. In today’s loose climate of speech,
action, and morality it is no wonder that oaths have now gained a foothold.
Remember when a man’s word was “as good as gold”? Few remember or adhere to
the old ways of integrity, honesty and forthrightness.
The Trouble With Taking Oaths
Shall men take an oath or make a promise that they have no intention of
keeping? Shall they sign on to a covenant that they may break? Not only is
this forbidden by Scripture, but in days past this would have been
dishonorable and disgraceful act. One Christian writer, Paul Shirk, in his
book, Come Out of Her My People, has expressed it well:
"We…however much we swear, can never guarantee a course of action, therefore we say, 'if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that,' for we know not what may be on the morrow.
"Our yes and no should represent the honest intentions of the heart and will, but above that we risk falling into condemnation (James 5:12) for our inability to perform an oath. Originally the oath was used to commit the will to the proper course of action; now, men that have the Spirit of Truth are to simply affirm it with a “yes” and stand by their word."3
Matthew Henry, in his Commentaries on James 5:12, addressed this topic:
"…those who swear commonly and profanely the name of God do hereby put Him upon the level with every common thing. Profane swearing was customary among the Jews. Some of the looser sort of those who were called Christians might be guilty also of this. But why above all things is swearing forbidden? Because it strikes most directly at the honor of God and throws contempt upon His name and authority. …Let it suffice you to confirm or deny a thing, and stand to your word, and be true to it, so as to give no occasion for your being suspected of falsehood. Then you will be kept from the condemnation of backing what you say or promise by rash oaths, and from profaning the name of God to justify yourselves."
The new oaths and covenants put a pressure on church people – a pressure
that comes, not from God but from man. Peer orientation, fear factors, and
the demands to conform or meet expectations prevail. The focus is on
self-mastery, not God-directed discipline. Some will do the bare minimum
just to “get by.” For others, good deeds that were formerly done in secret,
arising out of love and compassion, are now done openly and boldly so that
leaders will see and approve.
This new “gospel” of “works” requires one to neglect the unseen duties of
life. One must perform visible deeds in order to meet requirements of
“accountability” – even to the detriment of their God-given
responsibilities. Women will especially suffer under this odious system,
developed by corporate businessmen and perpetuated by institutional church
men. Caring for elderly parents, nursing babies, chasing toddlers, raising
handicapped children, homeschooling, or other family-oriented personal deeds
of self-sacrifice and love which are performed on a hourly basis every day
of the week, will go unnoticed and unrewarded in this new “system.”
Fulfilling the onerous requirements and obligations of these types of
covenants will be well-nigh impossible for those who are elderly, infirm, or
duty-bound to others. Should these churches establish two tiers of
membership – one for the “do-ers” and the other for the “be-ers”? Or are
those who are less able or unable to meet the stringent requirements
unwelcome?
Indeed there is a certain elitism about the new church structure. Pastors
who are true shepherds, quietly feeding their flocks on the hillsides of
life, ministering to their births, deaths, illnesses and crises, can’t
compete in this new system where everything is “purpose-driven.” This new
style of church is for the Type-A personality who is “driven” by “results.”
Everything is programmed according to modern business methods The little
church in the vale isn’t good enough anymore – everything has turned into a
“volunteer mobilization unit.”
A Still Small Word
There may be a reason for the upsurge in oaths and covenants. It may have to
do with the agenda of Peter Drucker and his management gurus who wish to
transform the Church into the likeness of the Corporation and the State.
Historically, “citizens were required to take an oath of fealty. Starting
from the year 1066, every English male took an oath of allegiance to the
King of England. When the Protestants had established their power in England
in 1688, additional oaths were required denouncing the Pope’s authority and
the doctrine of transubstantiation.”4 In other words, States have required
oaths and the Churches, whenever or wherever they have reigned supremely,
have required oaths.
"Wherever the nationally established Christian religions have taken root they have tried to use religious oaths as a means to bind the wills and consciences of men to their own expediency and have used various methods to argue that Christ never meant what he plainly said concerning the taking of oaths."5
Oaths and covenants are a new form of legalism entering the church like a
flood. They require more of us than Scripture requires. It is a horrible new
form of bondage, accomplished in the name of a new church for the 21st
century. This is a “transformation” not a “reformation.” It would return the
church to the dark ages of oppressive State Church. This movement did not
arise from God, but from the rapacious desires of evil men.
If you have been caught up in this whole extravaganza, and are marching in
this parade, it is time to slow down, stop and reflect. If you have taken an
oath to one of these new covenants, you can repent. The Gospel of the Lord
Jesus Christ does not require so much of us:
“The Lord do so to me, and more also,” is God’s form of Old Testament oaths – a binding of judgment upon the soul. From this shackle the Lord frees us when He asks us to “Swear not at all.” If free from condemnation, why should we invite the judgment by taking the oath? (S.F. Coffman)
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
"Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work." (2 Thess. 2:16-17)
Endnotes:
1. For solid documentation on Peter Drucker and his work with Rick Warren and others in the church growth movement, readers are referred to Readings In the Dialectic: Papers Presented at The Institution for Authority Research Diaprax Conferences, “How Diaprax Manifests Itself in the Church (Growth Movement),” Dr. Robert E. Klenck. This booklet is available for $15 plus shipping from the Institution for Authority Research, Box 233, Herndon, KS 67739, iardeangotcher@yahoo.com.
2. Http://www.fullydevoted.blogspot.com/2002_12_15_fullydevoted_archive.html, p. 3.
3. Come Out of Her My People by Paul Shirk, page 164. This book, which is a scholarly apologetic work which effectively counters modern dominionist theology, is available from
Discernment Ministries (PO Box 254, High Bridge, NJ 08829 - 0254) for $11.00 plus postage.|
Home | Articles | Re-Inventing the Church | Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven? |