"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

A chain-smoking TV journalist named Edward R. Murrow leveled these words against the medium that made him the most trusted news anchor of the 20th century. For Murrow, television was a neutral medium--holding the potential of both grandeur and debasement. Several decades later, Neil Postman went a step further in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, arguing that television is a trivializing medium--one that does not merely deceive us, but inoculates us to the truth.

If so, we must ask whether television is a worthwhile medium for disseminating the gospel in 21st-century America. For many, the jury’s still out. Christian TV producer Phil Cooke generated an interesting response when he recently asked the question on his blog, “What will it take to fix Christian television?”

Though many criticize it for the scandalous fund-raising techniques it takes to keep some programs on the air, this was not the main complaint against Christian TV voiced in the informal poll and accompanying comments. The No. 1 problem was a perceived “lack of creativity.” Blog commenters cited the fact that most Christian programming is a monologue (preaching and teaching), in stark contrast to the interactive entertainment that is increasingly popular on mainstream TV.

Add to this the declining appetite for TV news (which shares Christian TV’s “monologic” qualities)—particularly among younger viewers. As a 2004 study from The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press points out, only “a third of the public (34 percent) regularly watches one of the nightly network news broadcasts on CBS, ABC or NBC. The total audience for these broadcasts shrunk by about half between 1993 and 2000.”

But I don't think a lack of creativity or growing competition from secular channels are Christian TV's biggest problem. The biggest problem is a general decline in trust that people have for mainstream media outlets—particularly TV. Speaking from my own experience, I'm actually less likely to believe something once I've seen it on TV. Like many, I prefer to pick and choose from a combination of media sources—online, radio and TV—and then make my own judgments.

So, if TV in general has lost its “cultural capital”, what does that mean for Christian TV? How do you communicate a transcendent message through a medium that everyone associates with triviality, consumerism and even deception. As Marshall McLuhan said, "The medium is the message." If no one takes the medium seriously anymore, what does that say about the message?

For me, it emphasizes the importance of the local church and personal evangelism. The "one-eyed preacher" in our living rooms will never replace the flesh-and-blood pastors who invest their lives in their congregations on a daily basis. Anyone who would subcontract his spiritual health--or the fate of the lost--to the same machine that brought ALF into our homes should probably have his head examined.

Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today

# posted by Matt Green : 4:30 PM  12 comments links to this post

This week, a documentary about a Pentecostal kids' camp hits the silver screen--and blogs, news sites, and message boards are already buzzing. Blogger/writer/preacher Rich Tatum had a chance to see a pre-release of the film and gives us a sneak peek of Jesus Camp. Check out a trailer of the film in a previous post here at The Ministry Report.

This week, a documentary about a Pentecostal kids' camp hits the silver screen--and the weblogs, news sites, and message boards are already buzzing. Unfortunately, most of the commentary is inspired by a film that strives for objectivity but fails so miserably that unbelievers, Evangelicals and Pentecostals alike will leave the movie feeling angry, embarrassed or both. I'm here to help.

Just to illustrate how polarizing a supposedly objective film can be, check out a few headlines from online news portals. Think of these as a sort of "controversy barometer":

• "Is Jesus Camp camp objective? Or unfair?"
• "Jesus Camp mocks evangelical Christianity."
• "Evangelicals run away from Jesus Camp."
  
• "Little terrors on rampage in Jesus Camp."
• "Jesus Camp will leave no viewer on the fence."
• "Film shows youths training to fight for Jesus."

• "The most chilling horror movie of the year isn't Hostel or The Descent: it's Jesus Camp."

• Becky Fischer, the camp director, is a fourth-generation Pentecostal minister with roots in the Word of Faith movement. For her, this film is the neatest thing since wireless mics--it's a direct fulfillment of prophecy. She is an effective children's evangelist, but she does not represent me. She doesn't represent all Evangelicals, all kids' ministers, or even all Pentecostals. Becky represents ... well, Becky--and nobody else.
• The film misleads by simply portraying this as an Evangelical camp. But you don't usually find, say, Southern Baptist guest ministers wielding a "big ole Holy Ghost hammer" while laying waste to the "power of the enemy over government."
• In the film, "Pentecostal" is synonymous with "Evangelical," which is synonymous with "Fundamentalist," which is, not surprisingly, synonymous with "Taliban," "terrorist," "psychopath" and "illiterate buffoon." (Fortunately, nobody uttered the word "Charismatic" for the entire film, so you guys are off the hook.)
• Liberal sneers have been generously sprinkled throughout the entire film, with running commentary by Air America talk show host Mike Papantonio and his Greek chorus of call-in guests. Papantonio's straw-man arguments against Evangelicalism would be funny if he weren't so paranoid. Apparently, Evangelicals are laying waste to the earth, waging war against the innocent and destroying democracy, liberty and the American way. Seriously.
• You will hear creepy music whenever the directors want you to be disturbed. Note: Be sure to act appropriately mortified when they cue the music or your fellow moviegoers will sniff you out as an Evangelical and strip-search you for belt-bombs. When a kid is speaking in tongues, the music alerts you to be afraid--very afraid. Unless, of course, you realize the film makers are intentionally manipulating the emotional content of what the camera recorded.
• You will hear kids say the darnedest things. But, somehow the fact that these are kids escapes the attention of everybody in the film. (When, I ask, did we elect children to be our spokesman for faith?) But the filmmakers capture every oddball statement with glee. For example, we learn from Rachael that "Churches that God likes to go to are churches where they're jumpin' up and down, shouting his name, and just praising him." Presumably, then God wouldn't be found dead in a hospice chapel.
• You will not see the exorcism the filmmakers graciously left out. But you will hear tongues, and see shaking "falling out" and "hookin' up with the Spirit." You will see crying, weeping and wailing. You will see Ted Haggard (minus the wailing). In fact, you will see a very humorous and endearing Ted Haggard--until he seemingly closes a prayer with the battle-cry, "It's massive warfare every day. Let the battle begin!" (Note to self: Never let anyone who promises to be "fair" edit my altar calls, my sermons, or my prayers.)

# posted by Matt Green : 7:55 PM  30 comments links to this post

Let's do away with the term “theologian." Why? The idea that certain members of the body of Christ are theologians while the rest are non-theologians is traditional thinking embedded in the old wineskins of the church.

First, those called to lead the church and to equip the saints for the work of ministry are called apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (see Eph. 4:11). Theologians are not on the list. In fact, the word “theologian” isn't even in the concordance.

Yet, the church has a long tradition of recognizing, and even honoring, theologians as a rather elite category of leaders. This is related to the unfortunate habit of separating clergy from laity or the idea that those who are employed by the church are “in ministry,” while believers in the workplace do something on a lower spiritual level. While many scold us for this antiquated terminology, few are raising the related question as to whether the category of “theologian” fits the new wineskin. I, for one, don’t think it does.

I recently found myself in the loop of what I would regard as a high-level, intelligent discussion of certain important issues related to prophetic ministry. What exactly the issues were does not relate to the point I am making at the moment. However, two respected prophets were going head-to-head in a fairly cordial but notably animated email dialog. Both were accusing the other of teaching something that had not been cleared by “the theologians.”

Who Are “Theologians?”

What gives meright to comment on this? For starters, I have four graduate degrees in religion, three of them from institutions called “theological seminaries.” Those on the faculties of such institutions include professional theologians. I have enrolled in and passed courses taught by many of them. I know theologians well.

I taught in one of these theological seminaries for more than 30 years. My seminary was different from some others, however, in that it has three schools, a School of Theology, a School of Psychology, and a School of World Mission (now Intercultural Studies). I, along with thirteen others, was a member of the missions faculty. Although we each had specialties, our broad field was missiology. The School of Theology faculty never tired of reminding us missionaries (It was required that each faculty member have field missionary experience.) that, whatever we were, we were not theologians. In fact, each candidate for a new faculty position in missions was required to pass a theological examination administered by the School of Theology. The theologians turned away more than one potential faculty appointment because of a theological disagreement.

If nothing else, we were forced to recognize the difference between theologians and non-theologians. The theologians saw themselves as the elite guardians of the truth. Their assignment was to make sure that the doctrines espoused by the seminary remained pure and uncontaminated. In their minds, we missionaries did not have the skills which the theologians had developed, and consequently we were regarded as mere practitioners, not serious thinkers.

The Office of Theologian

The habit of placing theologians on a spiritual pedestal developed before the Protestant Reformation and the Reformation changed it but little. The Catholic Church has a recognized office of theologian. The Protestant church does not have an office of theologian as such, but the same function was entrusted to professors of theology in the universities and later in theological seminaries. In the Catholic Church and in the old-line Protestant churches, the notion of referring a controversial matter to the theologians was normal procedure. Everyone knew who the theologians were.

Such is not true, however, among the churches moving in the stream of the New Apostolic Reformation. We do not have an ecclesiastical office of theologian nor do we have recognized functional equivalents. We do not agree that an elite group of individuals who happen to have advanced academic degrees in theology should be recognized as our doctrinal police force. Take the typical vertical apostolic network for an example. In an apostolic network the person in charge of maintaining the DNA of the network is the lead apostle, who consults with those he or she chooses, and no one else.

When I was teaching in seminary, I was coerced by the institution to refer certain matters to the theologians, which I of course did, but much to my personal grief. I began teaching signs and wonders and students began getting healed and delivered right in class. The theologians declared that it was inappropriate to heal the sick and cast out demons in a seminary classroom. They forced me to cancel the class for a time. Then I began teaching about territorial spirits and strategic-level spiritual warfare. This time I was called before the Faculty Senate to undergo a heresy trial. Fortunately for me I had been granted academic tenure years ago, and the theologians finally had to back down on the grounds of violating my academic freedom.

Theologians Disagree

A danger of referring things to the theologians resides in the fact that theologians more frequently than not disagree with each other. They make their living by critically picking apart what other theologians write and writing things that hopefully other theologians will criticize. I know a whole denomination that had its theologians discuss demons and issue a definitive doctrinal paper that Christian believers could not be demonized. Some respected theologians have declared that the dead cannot be raised. A theological paper was issued not long go by theologians who concluded that the offices of apostle and prophet are not for the church today. One theologian became very popular when he advocated contemporary prophetic ministry, then lost popularity when he taught that women should not be in leadership in the church.

My point is that mature, distinguished professional theologians can, and often will, quench the Hoy Spirit if the Holy Spirit happens to pull them out of their comfort zones.

When I suggest that we say good bye to theologians, I am not saying that we should do away with theology. What is theology? Theology is, pure and simple, a human attempt to explain God’s word and God’s works in a reasonable and systematic way. On a broader level, every active believer can explain God’s works and God’s word, whether a logos word from Scripture or a rhema word from direct revelation, However, on a higher level such as the points that were being debated by the two prophets I mentioned earlier, God will choose and assign certain leaders to clarify the issues theologically.

Apostle-Teacher

If we go back to Ephesians 4:11, the two offices that will most likely be God’s choice in resolving complex theological issues will be teachers and apostles. The teachers have the ability to research, study, analyze, and systematize the issues. The apostles have the ability to weigh the matters, to judge, to refine, and to sense the proper timing for speaking out. God has given some individuals both the gift of teacher and the gift of apostle, and in many cases the body of Christ has recognized the gifts and has awarded them the dual office of apostle-teacher. I am familiar with this gift mix because for years I have functioned both as a teacher and as an apostle.

Knowing this, I am able to understand the reasoning of some people who refer to me as a “theologian,” despite the fact that no professional theologian, either Catholic or Protestant, would regard me as a peer. Charisma magazine did a story on me which they titled, “Theologian of the Spirit.” A recent news report referred to me as “theologian C. Peter Wagner.” I sincerely appreciated both of these because I know it was the journalists’ way of commending me and recognizing that God has revealed to me certain useful theological insights. But I still wish we didn’t have to use the old wineskin terminology “theologian.”

Back to the debate on nuances of prophetic ministry. I was brought into the loop because of the hope that I could provide theological clarity. To be honest, however, when I started reading the emails I found the prophets using terminology that I had never heard and discussing issues that had never entered my mind. I was in no position to make mature, informed judgments. I might have been able to if I decided to spend hours and hours and days and days in researching the subject. But I didn’t sense an assignment from God to do that. I said, “If you’re debating the biblical government of the church, count me in. But if you’re trying to figure out what prophets should see or should not see in the invisible world, someone else is going to have to help you.” The upshot is that another apostle who has specialized in the matters being discussed and who is respected by both sides is now handling it. But let’s not call him a “theologian.” He is an apostle-teacher.

Those of us attempting to receive the new wine in new wineskins will be better off if we say good bye to theologians.

C. Peter Wagner
Wagner Leadership Institute
Colorado Springs, Colorado

# posted by Matt Green : 9:16 AM  65 comments links to this post