Step back in line whippersnapper!

There is a bit of a kerfuffle in the blogosphere over a comment made by John MacArthur. Dr. MacArthur took offense something in Darrin Patrick’s book Church Planter: The Man, The Message, The Mission . Dr. MacArthur found something Darrin said to be a dangerous call for “radical individualism”. Because he expressed his concerns during an interview, there has been a bit of a stir and led to a couple of competing camps so Dr. MacArthur posted a follow-up to clarify what he said: Radical Individualism: A Good Trait for Young Pastors? Here is a snippet:

Meanwhile, let me clarify my remark: I was not questioning Darrin’s personal orthodoxy – his theology is clear in the book. The issue is rather the danger of developing a unique theology and a radically individualistic philosophy of church leadership. When one’s “own theological beliefs” are self-styled and unique, those beliefs need to be questioned. Protecting the soundness of our theological convictions is a commitment that we all must make. It is increasingly clear that the vanguard of evangelical Christianity is intent upon actively promoting change at every level within the church, and young men in particular should not be encouraged to think radical individualism is a positive mindset for church leadership and ministry style.

Good ecclesiology demands that there exist an awareness of, appreciation for, and deliberate connection to the flow of redemptive history. Patrick’s statement, it seems to me, is quite out of harmony with Paul’s charge to Timothy: “What you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2). The goal certainly should not be to encourage young pastors to distrust or remodel what they have learned from faithful men. (emphasis in original)

That is a pretty strong reprimand, one that suggests a rejection of the historical stream in the church. Of course for about 1000 years or so the “flow of redemptive history” was running through Rome and controlled by the pope. I would also say that we actually do need change at every level within the church and that this change is about five hundred years overdue. But I digress.

What exactly did Darrin Patrick say that lead to this charge of undermining the flow of redemptive history and radical individualism? Dr. MacArthur helpfully reprinted the quote for us and here it is (prepare yourself for this shocking statement):

“One of the common errors of young men who surrender to ministry is to simply adopt the model of a church that they have experienced or idolized. A similar mistake is to blindly accept the ministry philosophy and practice of a ministry hero. The man who is experiencing head confirmation is thoughtful about his own philosophy of ministry, his own ministry style, his own theological beliefs, his own unique gifts, abilities, and desires. In short, there is uniqueness to the way he wants to do ministry.”

THAT is radical individualism? The idea that a young man should not simply accept the practice and philosophy of ministry that a man they look up to holds? To me what Darrin is saying makes perfect sense. The men that I respect, a list that includes Dr. MacArthur, should desire that those who appreciate their ministry also search the Scriptures to see if these things are true. Just because Dr. MacArthur or Al Mohler or Charles Spurgeon or John Calvin spoke on a topic doesn’t place that topic on a shelf labeled “Settled Matters: Do Not Touch”. Calvin was wrong on a number of issue ranging from baptism to the relation between the church and the state. That doesn’t make what he wrote unprofitable but it does mean that just because Calvin or Sproul or Edwards or Dever says something, we shouldn't accept it without question. I have not read Darrin Patrick’s book but I think that is what he is saying and it seems to me that a lot of young leaders are trying to replicate the model of ministry utilized by their favorite hero-theologian because they assume that if Dr. X does it this way, it must be right.

With all due respect, I think that what MacArthur is saying is far more dangerous than Mr. Patrick’s brief blurb in a book on church planting. There are many “settled” theological issues that are anything but. It strikes me that in many places, especially in matters of ecclesiology, we are expected to just accept what we have been told the Bible says and not question the prevailing traditional interpretation. Dr. MacArthur said: When one’s “own theological beliefs” are self-styled and unique, those beliefs need to be questioned.. I would suggest that when one’s theological beliefs are tradition based and inherited, they likewise need to be questioned.

What this seems to encourage is young leaders in the church who only frame their theology and especially ecclesiology based on what older men have taught. This perpetuates the model of ministry that we so often associate with "church" and is rampant in reformed circles. Often a topic is broached through the framework of a) is this interpretation of the topic “reformed”?, b) how does this fit in with our confession? and c) what did *insert name of famous theologian here* teach about this issue? There is a serious issue of theological incest among this camp where the same men read books written the same small pool of authors who often recommend books written by one another and no one dares ask a question for fear of being tossed off the Reformed reservation. That is theologically unhealthy and leads to theologically immature believers.

I am not suggesting that we reinvent the theological wheel over and over again nor am I suggesting that because something is new, it is right. What I am saying is that the church would be a lot healthier if we didn’t merely absorb what our pet theologian says without first struggling with and studying through the issues ourselves.

If Martin Luther had believed as MacArthur seems to be implying we should, we would all still be bowing the knee before a pope and trying to earn our justification by works. Praise God for intellectually curious men who turn to Scripture, not an ecclesiastical authority, for the answers to the great questions in the church.