At least, that’s my opinion. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I admit that mine could be wrong. But I don’t think it is… 🙂

Last post, I reflected on how many Methodists approve of Andy Stanley’s methods for church growth, yet reject his message. I, on the other hand, agree with Andy Stanley’s message, but disagree with his methods.

Here’s the cool thing–it’s ok if we disagree about methods; we can still work together in ministry as part of God’s family and team. In fact, maybe it takes all kinds of methods to reach all kinds of people. This shouldn’t separate us as brothers and sisters. All of us have different opinions on what methods to use to reach lost people. For example, at my last church, we had disagreements on methods, and that will probably always be the case wherever I find myself, because we all have different opinions. Regardless of these differing opinions on methods, it’s ok as long as we remain united in message. In fact, that’s the mantra of the “contemporary churches” out there: We’re changing the methods, not the message.

Even though it can be difficult to work in an environment where there are differing opinions on methods, it’s definitely possible–and even rewarding, from my experience. We learn from each other and begin thinking harder about why we do what we do. We are challenged to test whether our methods are Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy. Sometimes conflicting methods can both be just as Scriptural, practical, effective, and healthy–it’s just a matter of deciding what methods we want to utilize in our local setting. Sometimes that’s not the case, and we discover a better way to “do ministry” that is more Scriptural, practical, effective, and/or healthy. Either way, I have found it invigorating and healthy to be involved in a setting where there isn’t always agreement on the methods.

But what happens when we’re not changing just the methods, but also the message? That’s when unity can no longer happen. It’s why even though I disagree with Andy Stanley, and think he’s mistaken, it’s only on the methods–not his message, and I’m ok with that. It’s why I was originally happy to serve at my last church, even though we disagreed on methods, but later was unable to do so after discovering that the pastor and others in leadership disagreed with me on core issues of the Gospel (One quick example: we disagreed that people who haven’t become Christians are lost and headed for eternal destruction).

To make it more clear what I’m trying to say, let’s look at three different churches:

• Church A wants to reach the unchurched and decides to do it in the way Andy Stanley’s church “does it.” Church A agrees with Andy Stanley that the communities around them are lost and headed to eternal destruction, unless they come to know Christ as their Savior and Lord. Because they are so passionate about seeing the world reconciled to Christ, they model their church after Andy Stanley’s.
• Church B wants to reach the unchurched as well, and also decides to do it in the way Andy Stanley’s church “does it.” Yet, Church B disagrees with Andy Stanley that the communities around them are necessarily “lost “and headed for “eternal” destruction, even if those people don’t find themselves Christians. Instead, Church B is simply trying to reach the unchurched simply in order to help the unchurched live more like the teachings of Jesus . Church B believes that Jesus best models the way God wants us to live our lives while on this earth, and therefore wants to help others in their community live this way as well so they can have true happiness on earth. All of this talk about eternity, salvation, heaven/hell is too intolerant and doesn’t fully appreciate the goodness found in all religions and peoples.
• Church C wants to reach the unchurched as well, but disagrees with the way Andy Stanley’s church “does it.” While it agrees with Andy Stanley that the communities around them are lost and headed to eternal destruction, unless they come to know Christ as their Savior and Lord, they believe that the best way to fulfill the Great Commission isn’t by trying to get the unchurched to attend church, but rather by training and sending the churched to go out to the unchurched.

Church C would be my choice of church. Even though I disagree with the methods, I could link arms and hearts with Church A. But Church B, even though it looks like Church A, is unacceptable. Not only have they changed the “methods” to be more appealing to the unchurched, they have unfortunately changed the message of the Gospel to be more appealing to the unchurched.

So even though I think Andy Stanley is mistaken, it’s only on the smaller issues, not on the important issue–The Gospel.  In my next post, Part 2, I’ll share why I disagree with Andy Stanley’s methods. But before doing so, I wanted to write this post to explain why my disagreements, although quite major in practice and philosophy, are small enough for me to be able to stand beside him and his church and call him a respected brother in Christ. In fact, if I had the opportunity to serve under him, I might learn more about his philosophy/methods and then change several of my opinion of his methods that I will be sharing in my next post.

That’s the difference between disagreeing with the methods  vs. disagreeing with the message. My opinions on methods may change over time (and definitely have already), but not my opinion on the message of the Gospel.

Let’s always be open to changing our methods, and always be open to people whose methods are different from ours. In these matters, tolerance is healthy and respectable.I would hope Andy Stanley would respect my methods/philosophy, although he would say I am the one that is mistaken, as they are different from his.

But if there is disagreement on the core message of the Gospel–that is another matter entirely.