This is the second of two posts, the first of which provided a high level overview of North Point’s ministry model and philosophy of ministry.
If you’re familiar with NP’s approach and still have concerns, let me just say that I have no problem with that. Neither would any of the North Point folks I know, since NP cultivates a culture of listening to outsiders and working on their ministry and not just in it (practices #5 and #7 respectively, in 7 Practices of Effective Ministry).
I do have a problem, however, when folks make knee jerk judgments or accusations. Especially when they haven’t taken the time to consider whether their judgments have any basis in reality. I realize that anyone can be guilty of making snap judgment. And I appreciate the spirit of some who are open to hearing more and entering into dialogue, even if they disagree. But I really have to question the motives and tactics of those who sit in the seat of the scoffer, taking pot shots at those who are following God’s lead to the best of their ability. The question I have for them is, “Do you take as critical a look at your own traditions, your own beliefs/assumptions, your own practices, your own results, and your own ministry model (or lack thereof) as you do of others?”
If not, I encourage you to do so. Let me also be clear that I’m not advocating NP’s model as THE model (see my earlier post on that subject). So in that vein, I’d love to hear your thoughts and opinions, so comment away!
That being said, let’s take a look at some of the criticisms that were levied. I’ve summarized and grouped these into six major categories, and have included my own comments/responses in brackets/italics [ ] as well. The categories and my responses are not meant to be all inclusive – rather, they’re simply my attempt to bring some balance and perspective back into this discussion that will hopefully lead to more productive dialogue.
The Consumerism/Fast Food critique – the church is here to challenge the culture, not cater to consumer demands; we need to feed people spiritual meat, not pop-culture junk food, etc. [Agreed, but don’t think this was the point of Eddie’s analogy – wondering how many folks actually read Eddie’s original post? For all the Spurlock/Super Size Me fans out there, the Out of Ur folks brought up McDonald's via the "McChurch" concept, not NP. Eddie’s point no. 4 actually speaks against the consumerist “Happy Meal Toy” concept of entertaining kids and feeding them crap – speaks rather to NP’s emphasis on partnering with parents to help bring about real spiritual growth and life change in their kids.]
The Corporate/Business Model critique – churches shouldn’t be copying the world’s models, structures, or systems; churches should be led by the Holy Spirit, not run like a business, etc. [So when Chick-fil-A corporately adopts the position that “Great Leaders Serve” based upon biblical principles, is this now a “worldly” principle or a “biblical” one? And when businesses place an emphasis on aligning their vision with their strategy, so that their words and actions match up, is this a “worldly” principle? IMHO, many church leaders have an anti-business bias that Jesus himself didn’t seem to share (consider that Jesus was a carpenter for most of his life before going into ministry – his parables/stories are littered with marketplace references – he was astonished by the faith of a Roman centurion, whose military experiences led him to recognize Jesus's authority in a way that none of God's "chosen people" had -- he hung out more with fisherman, tax gatherers, and other “sinners” than he did with religious leaders, who were his chief critics). Churches would do well to recognize and learn from leaders in any realm who consistently deliver on their promises. In fact, a chief problem plaguing many churches today is the disconnect that exists between belief and action, mission and strategy.]
The Megachurch/Bigger is Better critique – just because megachurches are bigger, doesn’t make them better; they’re greedy, egocentric, power hungry, wasteful, self-centered, and bent on world domination or building their empire [Being bigger doesn’t make a church inherently evil either. In fact, one of the keys to NP's success is their disciplined ability to focus on doing less things, but doing those things extremely well. The drive to plant churches is also fueled by the desire to share what they've learned, and see more people enter into a growing relationship with Christ. Rather than sticking church planters out there on their own, the idea is to reduce the time it would normally take each plant to become a self-sustaining, autonomous church. Eddie’s point no. 9, for example, speaks to the benefits a planter has in being relieved of the burden of sermon preparation. As for the charges of greed, etc., these are heart conditions that can grip any individual, whether they're in a megachurch or elsewhere -- NP actually promotes a culture of giving and generosity, along with personal resposibility/accountability]
The Attractional/Institutional Church critique – our mission is one of going and sending, rather than attracting and bringing; we’re called to make disciples, not church members [I get the whole modern to post-modern shift, or the move from Christendom/Churchianity to a more incarnational and missional mindset – key for me is that this is a both/and for NP, not an either/or. The reality is that many folks can still be reached via the attractional environments NP creates. The success of these environments, however, is dependent upon NP’s ability to cultivate influence with outsiders – not simply inviting folks to come, but also investing in their lives outside the walls of the church. This is something every member is encouraged to do, and it's also the reason NP spawns leaders with a vision to plant churches or ministries in areas where people have yet to be reached for Christ.]
The Formula/Systematic Process Critique – we’re called to follow the Holy Spirit, not a set formula or process; growth is up to God [Sometimes following the Holy Spirit means following in the footsteps of those who’ve gone before you, learning from them, and putting what you’ve learned into practice. NP’s strategic partners are not clones – they’re autonomous churches, whose leaders freely chose to adopt NP’s model in their church plant. A key strength this model affords is an aligned mission and strategy, with a healthy dose of systems thinking that provides accountability and challenges leaders to evaluate the effectiveness of their ministry practices within their own specific context (see my past post on The Path Principle and Systems Thinking for more info). In terms of growth, while growth is certainly up to God, God calls us to participate in his mission by preparing the soil, planting seeds, watering, and creating environments that are favorable for growth.]
The Hyperreality/Anti-Technology Critique – video preaching is not biblical; it creates a cult of personality; people don’t need a hologram, but a real pastor they can meet and talk with [The “not biblical” label is all too often placed on things we’re not comfortable with – this to me is more a reflection of personal taste than a valid critique; re: the cult of personality, this originates from the hearts of the people involved, and not the medium I would argue. The fake vs. real pastor argument is an interesting one. I would argue that the truth of God’s word is not bound to any flesh and blood person. God’s word itself, which was written by divinely inspired men, is nevertheless recorded information. I doubt anyone would argue that Paul’s letters or the gospels themselves lack power or credibility since we no longer have access to the original authors. I for one have greatly benefited from the teachings of numerous pastors whose messages were recorded and rebroadcast for my later benefit. In terms of NP’s partners, the fact of the matter is that pastors like Eddie Johnson actually have more time to devote to pastoral care, since they do not have to bear the burden of being a teaching pastor as well. One could argue in this case, that video preaching actually enhances pastoral care.]
That’s my $.02 for now. What are your thoughts?
[I'd like to also highlight a response made to the Slate article by Jim West, lead pastor of Colonial Presbyterian Church in Kansas City, MO -- I think it's dead on -- you can check that out here]
