May 28, 2012

Christian Schwarz is the head of the institute for Natural Church Development (NCD) in Germany.1 Schwarz, and an increasing numbers of denominational leaders, church growth practitioners and ministers, believe that he has devised a system that measures the relative health of churches. He claims this system grew out of a research study of one thousand churches from thirty-two countries. His basic premise is that when churches exceed a minimum level of quality in eight key factors2 they will grow in much the same way a tree grows when all of its needs are being adequately met. The stated intent of Schwarz’s research is to discover biblical growth principles which are universally transplantable across cultural barriers. In order to create a suitable environment in which these “growth automatisms,3 can be released, old paradigms must be discarded and a new biotic paradigm installed in their place. Schwarz’s biotic paradigm would replace the impotent technocratic and spiritualistic paradigms which hinder the natural development of churches.4 J. I. Packer defines a paradigm as

a large-scale hypothesis about reality that is presupposed and taken for granted as a basis for interpreting data and determining values, goals and procedures. One’s paradigm determines one’s mind-set, shaping one’s thinking by giving it direction and establishing boundaries and limits beyond which belief may not go.5

For those who uphold biblical inerrancy the ultimate test for Schwarz’s biotic paradigm is its consistency with the teachings of Scripture. If his paradigm supplants the intended meaning of Scripture then his biotic theory has failed.

Due to the limited scope of this paper, a full discussion of Schwarz’s biotic theory will not be reviewed. Rather this paper shall focus on the underlying hermeneutic assumptions behind Schwarz’s biotic paradigm. This paper will demonstrate that the hermeneutic of Christian Schwarz’s NCD is fatally flawed due to his insistence that it be connected to his theological paradigm which assumes the neo-orthodox view of scriptural revelation. This assumption affects his epistemology, enabling him to refer to Scripture as his most important source. When one considers, however, the neo-orthodox position which highlights the importance of experiencing revelation through the text, his hermeneutic distorts the intended meaning of the author and completely rejects any correspondence view of truth.

The most often quoted theologian which Schwarz cites is Emil Brunner. In Truth as Encounter Brunner defined revelation as presence where he wrote: “The Lordship and love of God can be communicated in no other way than by God’s self-giving.”6 Not mere information but God’s personal presence is communicated during the encounter. The goal of this revelation is the establishment of a relationship with God. This revelation is both historical, in that it occurs in space and time, and personal, in that its content is the person of God rather than doctrines concerning God. Since God Himself is communicated in the revelatory act, any propositional form of revelation reduces God to an object rather than a person, or to use Brunner’s word, a subject. Acceptance of Brunner’s view enables Schwarz to readily accept a radical view of the reader response theory whereby Schwarz, the reader, can determine the meaning of the text while setting aside propositions or doctrines contained within the text.

Why Study NCD?

Before NCD’s sources and claims can be adequately analyzed one must first consider the discipline of church growth from which it has emerged. Church growth has long wrestled with the appropriate limits to its own pragmatism. Most church growth theorists have sought to be biblical while recognizing that the Scripture does not contain prescriptions from which every aspect of church life must come. For example, there are numerous methodologies employed by churches in order to spread the gospel message which did not exist in Biblical times (gospel tracts, advertising, video presentations, web sites, etc.).

If one believes the scriptural foundation of NCD is less than advertized, the research supporting it contestable, and its observations from nature overstated, then why is it worthy of study? First, Schwarz argues that a shift in the theological presuppositions of church leaders is essential for his methodologies to be effective. He states, “. . . the theological paradigm that stands in the background of what we call Natural church development is incompatible with conventional theological thought patterns.” 7 Second, NCD is gaining popularity in church growth circles worldwide. Schwarz’s web site claims that his materials are already available or will be available by the year’s end in native languages in sixty-two nations.8 In North America the impact which NCD is having in churches is steadily increasing. This model is being utilized by the Willow Creek Association of Canada,9 Union Theological Seminary & Presbyterian School of Christian Education,10 Wyoming diocese of the Episcopal Church,11 and Southern Baptist State Conventions in Kentucky, Georgia, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, Texas, and Southern California.12 Numerous consultants are paying hundreds of dollars to be trained in this method.13 Numerous churches have already discovered their quality rating and are working on improving their minimum factor (some for the second and third time). Few, however, have critically reviewed NCD’s neo-orthodox theology. The faculty of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary accepted in 1999 a Doctor of Ministry Project on implementing NCD in a local Baptist church. 14 A thesis presented to the faculty of the Pastoral Ministries department at Dallas Theological Seminary does not even consider theology in its analysis or list Paradigm Shift, Schwarz’s book of theology, in the bibliography.15

Might these people simply be examples of pragmatic theorists accepting the methodology of NCD and not its theology? This is a possibility, although Schwarz himself demands that adherents accept both his methodology and theology together. Bob Logan, the chief distributor of NCD in America, as well as the chief trainer of consultants who place Schwarz’s methodologies into practice in local churches, seems to agree. At the first NCD consultant training held in America, Logan affirmed Schwarz’s call for a “third reformation.”16

Must every method employed to grow the church be explicitly mentioned in the Scriptures? Most would agree that not every method employed must be precisely stipulated in the Scriptures. How then does one balance methodologies that are true to scriptural principles while staying relevant in an ever-changing culture? Answers to questions like these within the discipline of church growth have been varied, and discovering the right rules from which to make these judgements has proven elusive. See Appendix A for further details regarding the search for a church growth hermeneutic.

Epistemological Dilemmas of Schwarz’s NCD

Schwarz claims that the principles of “natural church development [come] from three sources: 1) empirical research, 2) observing nature, and 3) studying Scripture,”17 with the Scripture serving as the supreme arbiter for truth. The empirical research for NCD is statistically invalid.18 It is based on observations, questionnaires, field experiments, interviews, and analysis of organizational charts and job descriptions 19 in churches through five changing research stages conducted over a ten-year period.20 The sources for the biological data undergirding his six biotic principles are not cited. Schwarz’s handling of Scripture is spurious due to his acceptance of a neo-orthodox view of revelation.

In Paradigm Shift, the theological underpinning for Natural Church Development, Schwarz argues that a shift in the theological presuppositions of church leaders is essential for his methodologies to be effective. One wonders why Schwarz, who can justify setting aside the propositions of Scripture, insists that his theological propositions must be wed to his methodology? Which of Schwarz’s sources necessitated such a radical shift in theology? Did his invalid empirical research reveal the necessity of this shift? Was it his random observation of nature? Did his eisegetic study of Scripture cause him to see the need for this shift of theology? The answers to these questions have revealed the truth about Schwarz’s hermeneutic, and they will further be demonstrated in the function of his epistemology.

In spite of all claims to the contrary, Schwarz’s concept of functionality, which is simply another name for pragmatism, and not Scripture, ultimately becomes his final arbiter for truth. Norman L. Geisler has pointed out several flaws to pragmatism as a theory for truth. He states,

First, the results or consequences of an action do not establish what is true but simply what happened to work. . . . Second, truth may be unrelated to results. The results may have been accidental, in which case there would be no more relation to truth than accidentally discovering a million dollars proves one is the rightful owner of it. And even if the results are not accidental but follow regularly from a given belief or action, it does not prove that that belief is true. Unlawful entry by picking a lock will work regularly, but that result does not demonstrate that this was either a right way to enter or that entry was the right result. But it worked. . . .Third, truth is more than the expedient. . . . The meaning of truth cannot be limited to the functional and practical. And if it were, we would have to determine whether it means what is meaningful for the individual or for the race. If the former, solipsism would follow; that is, truth would be entirely relative to the individual, to what is expedient for him at the moment.21

Geisler further points out pragmatism functions well as a test for falsity. All truth does work, but not everything that works is true. In his own words he warns, “However, it is both an ill-advised and fatal apologetic move to employ pragmatism as a total test for truth or as the test of a total world view because it reduces to relativism, fideism, or experientialism — all of which are inadequate to establish the truth of Christianity. . . .”22 Schwarz, however, continues steadfast into this supremacy of pragmatic methodology over exegetical theology.

This transformation becomes possible for Schwarz due in large part to his concept of “functional dogmatics.”23 Schwarz’s thesis is that “the concepts of truth and functionality are theologically closer together than appears.” 24 He posits that the criteria for determining whether or not a church is a true church should be the usefulness and effectiveness of its structures in bringing about church development. Schwarz admits that the “word ‘functionality’ does not occur in the Bible,”25 but he justifies his position by claiming that “the Bible as a whole teaches functional principles.”26 He rightly points out that church growth

uses a whole host of terms which are not found in the Bible, terms which it has either created itself or taken over from other disciplines . . . . People are afraid that this procedure will lead to an alienation of biblical contents by unbiblical categories. This is doubtless a real danger. . . . The only solution is to ask to what extent certain terms (whether biblical or not) reflect biblical concerns, views, and principles.” 27

Schwarz indicates that “the locus classicus of a functionality seen in terms of church development is 1 Corinthians 10:23.”28 From this text Schwarz deduces that one may conclude what is beneficial for the church by that which edifies it.

With this text operating as Schwarz’s biblical test for truth, he determines that,

Christian doctrine . . .is changeable, and must be changed over the years if it is to fulfill its task of serving the proclamation of the gospel in different historical and geographical contexts. No doctrine, not even the famous creeds developed in the history of the church, can ‘claim a canonical validity for the form of their statements in the sense that they claim to be a-historical, valid independent of time.’ Theological formulas — even such respectable concepts as the trinity or the doctrine of the two natures — must not be guarded as if they were a magical inheritance. Rather, we should constantly ask whether they demonstrably fulfill their purpose, which is to make the essence of biblical revelation clearer, rather than to obscure it. A statement which is helpful in one historical context can be decidedly counterproductive in another.

If all doctrine is open to change depending on the needs of the cultural context, then Schwarz is accepting a radical reader response theory. Schwarz has read the text and determined what it means for him and has now extrapolated this interpretation of the text to all Christian doctrine. Schwarz should be commended for his honesty. Many who hold these radical views commit the logical fallacy of prestige jargon by cloaking them in philosophical propositions which are difficult to follow so that people will not dare question their truthfulness.29 Schwarz, however, has come to the point and stated his position clearly. Furthermore, Schwarz has said that the single criteria by which every doctrine must be judged is its functionality. By functionality he means a Christian doctrine that does not have “the effect of stimulating the life and growth of the church as an organism.”30 This concept of functionality will vary within various contextual situations and as such “cannot be definitively laid down for all time.”

Stanley Grenz in A Primer on Postmodernism says “The central hallmark of postmodern expression is pluralism.”31 The degree to which Schwarz has become enamored with postmodernism is further displayed in his pluralistic assertions:

. . . different doctrines can be right at the same time (as they each serve God’s purposes in their given context). ‘The fact that — apart from the boundaries of this pluralism — there is a multitude of theologies and doctrinal positions has its legitimate justification in the fact that the gospel of God’s favor, which gives rise to our faith, is a message that is addressed to people, and that is directed to people of different identity in wholly different situations and times.’ Even in the New Testament, there is no uniform doctrine of Jesus Christ or the church, but rather, through divine providence, a variety of types of doctrine, which find their unity in Jesus Christ himself. Unity can never be sought in timelessly binding theological statements — that would be an unhistorical, unbiblical and (for church development) ineffective concept of unity — but only in the person of Jesus Christ. . . . 32

The philosophical system that enables mutually exclusive truths to be correct at the same time is pluralism. Without the possibility of absolute truth, why proclaim the gospel or appeal to the Scriptures at all? According to Schwarz’s statement above concerning different situations and times, the answer is the cultural context. Schwarz’s contextualization is willing to sacrifice doctrinal integrity in order to be functional in people’s lives with a God-encounter. Schwarz’s views place him “among the growing number of scholars around the world who are placing culture above Scripture, so that authority resides in culture rather than within the Bible.”33

The context of working within the Christian community causes one to need to utilize clearly-defined language. While Schwarz himself would not extend his argument beyond Christian terminology, the logical conclusion of his rationale leads to confusion when one does not understand the neo-orthodox definitions he implies in his vocabulary. Even within the context of Christian terminology, various theological positions refer to identical terms with differing meanings and even contradictory definitions. Such a theory of language ultimately leads to the evisceration of the claims of Christ. Schwarz’s own confusion on this point is illustrated by his statement,

I do not claim that the statements and definitions contained in this material are the absolute truth. . . . I am completely convinced that God wants us to make correct theological statements. But what is ‘correct’ is not formulated in some timeless, heavenly dogmatic work of reference. God is concerned instead that the tools we develop should serve his purposes as revealed to us in the Bible. 34

What one has in Paradigm Shift then is a theological paradigm that wants to maintain that God reveals himself to man through Scripture on one hand, while advancing utility as the chief means for its interpretation on the other.

Schwarz’s described his view of Scripture as,

the principle that Luther established regarding the authority of the Scriptures from the point of view of whether they ‘advance Christ’ is, in my opinion, a classic way of phrasing what we could call a functional approach to the Bible. Luther was the first theologian to put forward a biblical faith that could come to terms with critical Bible research, and is thus fundamentally different from the authoritarian, fundamentalistic view of the Bible which culminates in the dogma of verbal inspiration.35

Schwarz is stating that the Scriptures become authoritative if Christ is advanced. This seems to be a paraphrase of the classic neo-orthodox position that the Bible becomes the Word of God when it is revealed to the subject in the moment of existential crisis, or what Brunner called, encounter.

According to Schwarz, his approach differs from other church growth concepts in three important ways. First, he states “Natural church development rejects merely pragmatic and a-theological approaches (‘the end justifies the means’) and replaces them with a principle-oriented point of departure.”36 Second, he writes, “Natural church development has no quantitative approach (‘How do we get more people to attend services?’), but looks at the quality of church life as the key to church development.”37 Finally, according to Schwarz,”Natural church development does not attempt to ‘make’ church growth, but to release the growth automatisms, with which God Himself builds the church.”38 When taken with Schwarz’s stated position on biblical inspiration and his concept of functionality, all hope for consistency with the claim of upholding a biblical standard for truth is lost.

Schwarz’s use of sources is also particularly revealing. If Schwarz’s claim of biblical authority is, in fact, authentic, one would expect to find that Scripture would be his primary source. Indeed, an analysis of the source material in Paradigm Shift reveals Scripture to be Schwarz’s favorite source from which he cites biblical passages fifty-six times. The source which Schwarz refers to second most often is Schwarz himself. This self-recognition seems peculiar for someone who is purportedly penning a book of theology, particularly since Schwarz himself had “indicated that Paradigmenwechsel in der kirche is very theoretical and theological and that it would likely have a limited audience.”39 This belies the poor research methodology utilized by Schwarz throughout his works and further reveals the radical reader response nature of his hermeneutic. If one’s own response to the biblical text is determinative of the truth of the text’s message, then it makes perfect sense to refer to oneself almost as often as one refers to the biblical text.

The third source to which Schwarz appeals most often is C. Peter Wagner. Citing him some thirty times, Schwarz depends heavily on Wagner’s opinion. Wagner’s expertise in the field of church growth is recognizable, but his theological prowess is less so. Thom Rainer notes, “The seventies were also the time that Wagner began receiving the theology of the rapidly growing Pentecostals more warmly.”40

The source which Schwarz utilizes fourth most often is Emil Brunner, referencing his work twenty-six times. When one adds the number of references for the three neo-orthodox theologians Brunner, Barth, and Bultmann, together one finds that Schwarz refers to the neo-orthodox school of theology a total of thirty-six times. This equals the number of times Schwarz refers to his own writings, placing neo-orthodox theological references second only to Scripture. What does this mean? It could mean that Schwarz is engaged in attacking the position of those within the neo-orthodox camp in order to show their positions to be insufficient. A review of his use of these sources, however, reveals that this is not the case. It is significant to notice who or what one holds as one’s authority. Time after time Schwarz writes in notes, “I agree with the comment made by Emil Brunner . . . ,”41 or quotes him outright. This is more than guilt by association. Schwarz quotes Brunner so often because he agrees with him. Thus the underlying assumption for Schwarz’s paradigm for NCD is revealed to be neo-orthodox theology.

A case in point is Schwarz’s acceptance of Brunner’s existential concept of truth. Brunner taught that God could be known only through a subjective, personal encounter—the I-Thou relationship.42 In this communion God does not reveal Himself in truths or propositions but in His Person.43 Man, “I,” therefore, can only find meaning in relation to the “Thou.” All of civilization and culture is in the pursuit of the “Thou.” “Man always has God or an idol.”44 When man has this divine encounter with God, the “Thou,” the revelation experienced is personal and supercedes dogma, church, tradition, and Scripture. It is from this plateau of encounter that all of Brunner’s theology must be understood. Schwarz approvingly notes Brunner’s view of truth:

Emil Brunner is right to point out that the question of the ‘understanding of truth’ is never explicitly treated in the Bible. ‘If we collected all biblical passages in which the word truth occurs and analyzed them exegetically, we would be hardly one step closer to the goal of our study. Just as scripture hardly presents explicit doctrine of the concept of Scripture and hardly enlarges on the ‘doctrine of the Word of God,’ so we would also search in vain for a ‘doctrine of truth.’45

This acceptance of the existentialism of neo-orthodox epistemology is also revealed by Schwarz’s use of Brunner as the only common source utilized as he presents the case for his bipolar approach to theology. Schwarz quotes Brunner as warning against what he terms “danger to the right, dogmatism,”46 and against the “danger to the left, relativism.”47 This indicates that Schwarz accepts Brunner’s brand of neo-orthodoxy as the proper balance between these two extremes so feared by Schwarz as impediments to church development. 48

Hermeneutical Problems with NCD

The examination of Schwarz’s hermeneutic will comprise of, first, a look at his view of Scripture. Second, his use of metaphor will be explained. Finally, three examples from the Scriptures will be used to justify the three legs of the paradigm shift which he advocates for the theology of NCD’s adherents. While Schwarz has many good things to offer the discipline of church growth, his sources, and the corresponding weight he gives each, are suspect. His research methodology is problematic, and the scientific means utilized for his observation of nature leave much to be desired. The hermeneutic applied to the Scriptures by Schwarz is a radical reader response theory which enables him to refer to Scripture while setting its truths aside as he deems necessary.

An example of NCD’s hermeneutic becomes most apparent when one examines Schwarz’s discussion of Christian views of Scripture. The theological views of verbal inspiration and dictation are lumped together even though they are two different theories of inspiration.49 One assumes that Schwarz, who has set out to write a theology of natural church development, should know that they are different. Thus his writing on this point is unfair because he sets up a straw man argument. While arguing against verbal inspiration, he draws a false picture of it through describing it as direct dictation and then claims his reader should reject verbal inspiration, because an exaggerated and distorted picture of that position has been proven wrong. This logical fallacy is an argument by caricature which avoids dealing with the real issues by changing the opposition’s views.50 If he does not know that these distinct theories of inspiration are not identical, then his research and understanding are both faulty. In either case, the representations he makes of those who hold a verbal inspiration of Scripture are wrong.51 One gets the impression that he is seeking to create opposition to which he may successfully respond more than he is engaged in forming a reasoned theology for church growth.

Another area of interest in view of hermeneutics for preaching is the false dichotomy Schwarz creates between church growth and the value placed in Protestant theology on preaching. Schwarz says that “one of the major weaknesses of Protestant theology [is] that almost everything it has to say about growth is related to preaching.”52 According to Schwarz, proclamation is over-emphasized in the church. A false dichotomy is set up, however, when he suggests that there are those who assert that “church growth results automatically from the pastor’s pulpit lecture.”53 To this view he responds: “We should not underestimate the importance of verbal proclamation, but in terms of church development it is only one of many measures,”54 thus stating the position with which the vast majority of preachers agree. This again creates a straw man argument that does not engender confidence in the conclusions of Schwarz’s empirical research methodology.

By attacking the inspiration of Scripture and the role of preaching in the church, Schwarz opens a door through which his theories may be attacked, and individuals may cast off right doctrines from the church in the interest of pursuing growth principles. In fact, this is exactly what Schwarz calls for when he writes:

I have come to the conclusion that the greatest obstacle to strategic church development is not a lack of methodological know-how, but deep-rooted theological blockages. By this, I am not referring to ‘God-is-dead theology,’ nor to groups that contest the absolute claims of Jesus or advocate a syncretistic theology. I am talking about theological blockages in Christian groups whose doctrinal ‘correctness,’ is beyond question. The fact that some of the greatest obstacles to church development are to be found in these circles is, in my estimation, the real dilemma.55

Thus he is successful in attempting to fulfill his stated purpose of tearing down the greatest obstacle to church development which he claims is right doctrine.56

Schwarz removes all doubt that he accepts the neo-orthodox view of revelation when he accepts Brunner’s position. From Dogmatics he quotes, “Between the decisive objective content of revelation, Jesus Christ, and doctrine lies that subjective revelation event — or rather, that event which occurs in the subject — which we call faith.” 57 Schwarz does have some positive things to say about the biblical canon. He states that “the Bible is the decisive normative factor for the church of Jesus Christ in all its forms.”58 The problem is that he seems to accept the canon more on the grounds of its impression on the church than because of the absolute truths contained within it or of its source of inspiration, God.

By emphasizing only the growth metaphors taken from agriculture in the New Testament, Schwarz risks “absolutizing one set of metaphors, thus running the danger of reductionism.” 59 Schwarz only uses these metaphors because they fit his “biotic approach.” 60 In so doing he neglects other metaphors that would help him make his point. For example the leaven (Matt 13:33-35) demonstrates the same principle as the seed he uses to explain his “all by itself” principle. Using this metaphor would give his theory additional biblical support. He does not use it, however, because it does not fit into the matrix of his biotic principles. He uses only agricultural metaphors out of a mistaken belief which he attributes to science in that “the simpler such a model . . . the more rudimentary. . . the truer it will be.”61 Science, however, finds complexity more frequently than simplicity.62 It would appear that Schwarz is more interested in keeping his system simplistic than being comprehensive.63

The greatest deficit of Schwarz’s hermeneutic, however, is his use of Scripture to buttress the three legs of his NCD system: functionality, growth automatisms, and the “all by itself” principle. The best biblical support one can point to for Schwarz’s growth principles is that which undergirds his “all by itself”64 principle. Schwarz bases this principle on two biblical passages: the parable of the seed found in Mark 4:26-29 and Paul’s statement to the Corinthians that “God was causing the growth” of the Corinthian church in I Cor 3:6. Schwarz’s point is that “we should not attempt to ‘manufacture’ church growth, but rather to release the biotic potential which God has put into every church.”65 Schwarz believes Paul makes his point for him. He writes,

The locus classicus of this subject is found in the words of Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians: ‘I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For you are God’s fellow-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.’66

The point according to Schwarz is that God grows his church. When we observe the church growing, from our perspective it will appear to do so by itself.

The second Scripture Schwarz cites in support of this principle is the parable of the seed found in Mark 4:26-29. This is one of the growth parables. It suggests that the kingdom of God will grow in much the same way as a seed sown will sprout and yield a harvest in time. The process by which the harvest comes, however, is not known to the sower. Schwarz explains that,

This parable clearly shows what people can and should do, and what they cannot do. They should sow and harvest, they may sleep and rise. What they cannot ever do is this: they cannot bring forth the fruit. In the text, we will find the mysterious description of the earth producing fruit ‘by itself.’ Most commentators agree that this ‘by itself’ is the key for understanding this parable.67

Schwarz has based the “all by itself”concept on two biblical passages and has not violated the context of either. He has not, however, considered the other growth parables. 68 According to Osborne, when dealing with parables the task is to distinguish between “local color” (details not meant to carry spiritual meaning) and theologically-loaded details (those which do have allegorical significance).69 In this instance Schwarz appears to deal justly with the parable.

A key concept undergirding Schwarz’s bi-polar paradigm is his concept of functionality. He points out twice that I Cor 10:23 70 is “the locus classicus of a functionality as seen in terms of church development.”71 Schwarz sees a Hebrew parallelism in Paul’s words. He makes the point that the two words profitable and edify “are to interpret each other.”72 This raises several problems. First, before one finds Hebrew parallelism in the New Testament, one must first determine the genre of the passage in question. 1 Corinthians contains poetic passages, but this verse occurs within a didactic context warning the church against idolatry and asserting proper Christian order. If there is no poem, noting parallelism is problematic. If one grants Schwarz’s parallel, however, it is still poor hermeneutics to base a major theological position on only one passage ripped from its context. Yet this is exactly what Schwarz proceeds to do. He goes on to state,

The principle behind this verse shows the dimension in which functional ethics should move. . . First, the church of Jesus Christ should always strive for commitment to ethical questions . . . . Second, the adherence to rules and orders that a church sets up for itself should never be understood as an end in itself, only as a means to an end. . . . Third, following a specific ethical code must never be made a prerequisite of faith. . . . Fourth, no ethical code must be allowed to lead us to regard God’s will as static, as if God required the same of all Christians in all stages of their lives.73

Whatever the appropriate Christian ethic is, it is wrong to base one’s theology on a single verse, even if one employs a proper hermeneutic in interpreting that verse. Schwarz errs on both counts. He uses this verse as the locus classicus of his concept of functional dogmatics and thus builds a questionable doctrine on a faulty hermeneutic. He should have sought a more consistent and substantial foundation on which to erect the structure of his new theological paradigm.

Furthermore, Schwarz commits several violations regarding the rules for proper hermeneutics. In Jesus’ statement, “And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,”74 Schwarz once again totally ignores the context of the passage and the immediate context of the verse and insists that this text teaches that we are to diligently study

growth mechanisms. We are to study them, examine them, meditate on them and take our direction from them — all these aspects are included in the imperative verb from katamathete. And we are told that we need to do these things in order to understand the principles of the kingdom of God.75

Schwarz bases his view on the word study of ??????????? in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Schwarz is guilty once again of sloppy scholarship. He attempts to make the point which the source he cites explicitly condemns.

The context does not permit us to take the word in the sense that regarding the  ????? ??u  ????u will impart to us any specific knowledge of God. The invitation of Jesus to those who are anxious is designed to overcome their inner insecurity, which is based on a lack. Jesus points to the order of nature, which bears witness to the plenitude of possibilities and means at the disposal of the Creator. To the one who is able to see and perceive this can bring awareness that it befits him to put unbounded confidence in the Creator who has also made him. 76

This passage teaches that the child of God should not be anxious about the cares of this life, but trust in God’s sovereign care, instead.

Here Schwarz performs what Osborne notes is “the most frequently occurring error”77 of hermeneutics. In addition to ignoring the text’s context, Schwarz also violates Osborne’s warning against word fallacy. “We dare never study only occurrences of the particular term if our purpose is to trace the theology behind a word or phrase.”78 Osborne also notes that many demand that parables teach a single, major point; therefore each parable must be interpreted individually. This historical-grammatical approach does not give the interpreter permission to ignore minor points as the text dictates. There is no permission for interpreters to do whatever they wish with the details.79 Were Schwarz’s interpretation allowed by the text’s context, however, he would still be guilty of violating the hermeneutical principle of allowing “obscure passages . . . [to] give way to clear passages.”80 Schwarz is also guilty here, and throughout this work, of what Osborne refers to as a disjunctive fallacy presenting “two options as either-or, forcing the reader to make a choice.”81 The entire methodology of Schwarz’s bi-polar paradigm is to juxtapose his position as the central position between two extremes while forcing his reader to accept the reasonableness of his own position.

Conclusion

As has been demonstrated, Schwarz’s NCD theory is based on a neo-orthodox view of Scripture. The arguments advanced by Schwarz have a kernel of truth surrounded by liberal theology. He, however, denies absolute truth. While he should be commended for placing a theological paradigm with his church-growth methodology, those who take the authority and truth of Scripture seriously must reject his call for a paradigm shift in theology. By couching his theories in the language of a right doctrine, Schwarz has duped increasing numbers of consultants and churches into accepting his system. The fact remains that he does not accept the inerrancy of Scripture. In classic neo-orthodox fashion the Bible becomes the Word only in the subjective mind of the reader. Lest anyone think that this neo-orthodox theology is irrelevant to his pragmatic methodology, Schwarz himself claims that his theology is foundational to his methodology. He himself further articulated “The practical tools of natural church development will not help us until our thought patterns are in line with the theological paradigm which is in the background . . . .”82

The examination of Schwarz’s hermeneutic finds his view of Scripture as confusing main positions on inspiration. His use of metaphor is reductionist in order to fit his biotic paradigm. The hermeneutical practices applied to justify his three main pillars scripturally are determined to be inconsistent and illogical. His sources and the corresponding weight he has given each of them are disproportionate to his claims of biblical preeminence. His research methodology is incongruent with his stated claims for accuracy and precision. The hermeneutic applied to the Scriptures by Schwarz clearly highlights his radical reader response approach, which enables him to cite Scripture while setting its truths aside to suit his pragmatic needs.

While offering a remedy for Schwarz’s hermeneutic for church growth is beyond the bounds of this paper, three central principles should guide those who take seriously the inerrancy of Scripture, its commands, and its commission. First, the truth claims of the Scripture and the concept of absolute propositions for truth must never cease to be defended in our scholarship and, most importantly, in a postmodern world through the manner of our lives. Second, the practice of sound hermeneutics must continue in the use of the Scriptures from pulpit to pew. Those who believe the Scriptures to be God’s Word must take a commensurate level of care when attempting to interpret them. Evangelicals must endeavor to ensure that the principles and ideas which are drawn from the biblical texts, whether they release growth in Christ’s church or not, are first and foremost true. Third, the best book of church growth ever written is the church’s book, the Bible. Every principle transferred from the behavioral sciences, the fields of philosophy, or even theology, must first be examined in light of hermeneutical principles that concern themselves with ascertaining the author’s original meaning. If evangelicals wish to take the Word to the world, then evangelicals must be willing to defend the Word from the world. To reach the world from any foundation for truth other than the Christian Scriptures is not reaching the world for Christ and is therefore unwarranted and unacceptable.

End Notes

1. Little personal data is available about Schwarz.

2. The minimum factor is a score of 65 on the diagnostic questionnaire. The eight key factors are : 1. Empowering leadership. Leaders of growing churches concentrate on empowering other Christians for ministry. 2. Gift-oriented ministry.  Ministry tasks are distributed according to the spiritual gifts of the people. . . 3. Passionate Spirituality.  The spiritual lives of members are characterized by prayer and enthusiasm . . .4. Functional structures.  Form follows function.  The practices of the church are designed to be effective in the local where they exist.  5. Inspiring worship service.  Worship is inspiring and would be described by a majority as the high point of their week.  6. Holistic small groups.  Fellowship needs are meet through small groups that grow and divide regularly.  7. Need-oriented evangelism.  Activities relate to the needs of the target group which the church is trying to reach. 8. Loving relationships.  There is a high level of Christ’s love between members.

3. Christian A. Schwarz. Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches. (Carol Stream IL: ChurchSmart, 1998), 12. “The term ‘growth automatisms’ is at the heart of our definition of ‘natural church development.’”

4. Ibid., 14.  In technocratic (also referred to as institutionalistic) paradigms the significance of institutions, programs, methods, etc., is overestimated.  Spiritualistic paradigms underestimate the significance of institutions, programs, methods, etc.. The biotic paradigm is what Schwarz calls the theological approach underlying natural church development.

5. James I Packer. “From the Scriptures to the Sermon: The Problem of Paradigms.” Ashland Theological Journal 22 (1990): 54.

6. Emil, Brunner. Truth as Encounter. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), 100.

7. Schwarz, Christian A. Paradigm Shift in the Church: How Natural Church Development can Transform Theological Thinking. (Carol Stream IL: Church Smart Resources, 1999), 8.

8. Natural Church Development International [on-line], accessed 3 December 2001, http://www.cundp/international/international/.htm; Internet.

9. The Leadership Centre Willow Creek Association: Canada, [on-line], accessed 4 December 2001, http://www.gospelcom.net/growingleadership/leadershipedge/leadershipworking1.html; Internet.

10. Union PSCE News & Publications. [on-line] accessed 3 December 2001, http://www.union-psce.edu?news?NewsRelease?09-07-01-rl.shtml; Internet.

11. Natural Church Development Registration. [on-line] accessed 4 December 2001, http://www.wydiocese.org/ministry/NCD%20Registration.htm; Internet.

12. Telephone interview by author of secretary at ChurchSmart, NCD distributer in U.S. 2 December 2001. 1-800-253-4276.

13. “Natural Church Development Training,”[on-line] accessed 3 December 2001, http://www.churchsmaret.com/training/ncd_basic.htm; Internet.  For $95.00 one may attend a Natural Church Development Workshop.  This seminar is geared for pastors and church leaders.  Those attending study applications of the eight quality characteristics and six biotic principles theological foundations of NCD and how it can transform ones thinking, and vision casting for your church.  For $750.00 one may attend a Natural Church Development Basic Training and become a full-fledged NCD consultant.  This seminar is suggested for Denominational Executives and Church Consultants.  Participants should expect to receive comprehensive training on the NCD principles and process, learn how to administer and interpret the NCD survey, become familiar with the  scientific validity and reliability of the survey, and gain an appreciation for how to guide churches through implementing the NCD  system.   In addition to this training, each Church participating in the NCD system will need to pay a $100.00 processing fee for each code and workbook.  There is also an advanced training available for $200.00 for those denominational executives and church consultants who have already completed the basic training in which they receive skill training in coaching and consulting and the latest research data from Germany.

14. Terry W. Booth.  “Equipping a Representative Group of Leaders Of Amite Baptist Church of Denham Springs, Louisiana to Develop and Institute a Functional Strategy for Applying Selected Principles of Natural Church Development” (D. Min. Project, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999).  This project does not once critically consider Schwarz’s theological paradigm but accepts it on face value, enthusiastically.

15. R. Mark Robinson.  “An Evaluation and Implementation of the Natural Church Development Survey,” (Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000).

16. David C. Choi “Growing a Healthy Church: The Concept and Proposed Training Program of Natural Church Development” (D. Min. diss., Western Seminary, 2000), 19.

17. Schwarz. Natural Church Development, 13.

18. Christian A. Schwarz and Christoph Schalk. Implementation Guide to Natural Church Development. (Carol Stream, Illinois: ChurchSmart, 1998), 21. Schwarz does admit once that his instrument will not provide a completely objective measure of the church, he more often implies objective standards. By speaking of his approach to scientific research, (13). alluding to testing theory (231), listing the reliability of his questionnaire at an extremely high reliability of between 0.75 an 0.89,15 and including a discussion of correlation coefficients (234), he attempts to present this subjective questionnaire to his reader in favorable objective means.  Another example of his sloppy research methodology occurs in Schwarz, Natural Church Development, 78. He references twenty-three lists of characteristics of growing churches, yet there is no bibliographic material related to any of these various lists provided.

19. Christoph A. Schalk.  Organizational Diagnosis of Churches: The Statistical Development of the Natural Church Development Survey and its Relation to Organizational Psychology. Würzburg, Germany: Institute for Natural Church Development, 1999), 13-14.

20. Schwarz. Natural Church Development, 19.

21. Norman L. Geisler.  Christian Apologetics.  (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 113-114.

22. Schwarz. Natural Church Development, 19.

23 .Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 109.

24. Ibid., 66.

25. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 67.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid.

28. “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.  All things are lawful, but not all things edify.”   I Cor. 10:23 NASV.

29. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks.  Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.  (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 112-114.

30. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 109.

31. Stanley J. Grenz. A Primer on Postmodernism. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996 ), 20.

32. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 109.

33. Norman R. Gulley. “Reader-Response Theories in Postmodern Hermeneutics: A Challenge to Evangelical Theology,” in The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical Engagement, ed. David S. Dockery (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1995), 219.

34. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 110.

35. Ibid., 113.

36. Schwarz, Natural Church Development, 14.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Ronald W. Waters. “What Is Natural Church Development? An Introduction.” An Anabaptist Look at Natural Church Development: Presentations to the Second Annual Meeting of the Anabaptist Evangelism Council, February 20-21, 1999, Elgin, Illinois. (Joy, PA: New Life Ministries, 1999.), 7, note 3.

40. Thom S. Rainer.  The Book of Church Growth: History, Theology, and Principles.  (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 45.

41. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 33, note 2.

42. Emil, Brunner “Intellectual Autobiography of Emil Brunner,” Japan Christian Quarterly July (1955): 251.  “I came to the conclusion that the root of the whole problem was the question of anthropology.  Every political and social system grows out of a particular concept of man. . . my thinking was stimulated by Max Weber and, above all, in the sphere of philosophy, by Ferdinand Ebner and Martin Buber.  Here I saw the rationalistic thought-scheme of object and subject overcome by understanding the human person as basically related to the divine Thou and by distinction between the I-Thou world and the I-it world.”  Brunner does not accept everything Buber advances wholesalely, he does have differences, particularly with Buber’s views of Faith.  See Emil Brunner. “Excurus: Martin Buber’s Teaching on the Apostles’ Misunderstanding of Faith,” in The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics. Translated by David Cairns, Philadelphia (The Westminister Press., Vol. 3, 1962), 159-162.

43. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 564.

44. Emil Brunner. Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology. trans. Olive Wyon, (Philadelphia The Westminister Press., 1947), 25.

45. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 59, note 40.  See 61, note 49, “I like the term ‘truth as encounter.’ . . . coined by Emil Brunner, and which Brunner himself regarded as his most important contribution to theological epistemology,” 103.  See also 17, note 22.  Schwarz discusses briefly his view of the functions of the church.  While he can accept the “formula kerygma, koinonia, diakonia,” he prefers “to speak of the threefold effect that results from the kerygma.  This view he suggests rises out of “an abstract objectivism,” and not subjectivism.  The only subjectivism which he allows is “the effect it has [the kerygma] on the subject.”

46. Ibid., 104.

47. Ibid., 107.

48. Ibid., 23.

49. Verbal inspiration sees the human writer as one who has received a revelation and oversees the writing.  Hence, the message is wholly from God, but the humanity of the writer is included to enhance the message.  Both the divine and human concur in the same words, (I Cor 2:13).  The Bible is the objective and authoritative Word of God whether or not a person responds to it, (John 8:47; 12:48).  Those holding a dictation view of inspiration believe that men were merely taking divine dictation as they wrote the books of the Bible.  This model does assure that God’s message comes through, but it does not explain the human elements of the Scriptures, such as style differences, personal experiences related, and different languages used.

50. Geisler and Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason, 101.

51. Ibid., 117. Schwarz lumps everyone who upholds the verbal inspiration of Scripture into the same camp with fundamentalists who believe that the King James version “is ‘for church and theology the binding, and therefore verbally infallible biblical text . . .” 118.

52. Ibid., 203.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid., 7.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid., 101.

58. Ibid., 115.

59. Tom Yoder Neufield. “Natural Church Development and the New Testament: Comparison and Assessment.”  An Anabaptist Look at Natural Church Development: Presentations to the Second Annual Meeting of the Anabaptist Evangelism Council, February 20-21, 1999, Elgin, Illinois. (Joy, PA: New Life Ministries, 1999.), 13.

60. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 225.

61. Ibid.

62.  Physicists have long searched for a proof of the Grand Unification Theory.  Instead of simplicity, however they have found only increasing complexity.

63. The great banquet Luke 14:16-24; the ten virgins, Matt 25:1-13; the pearl of great price, Matt 13:45-46; the laborers, Matt 20:1-16.

64. Schwarz. Natural Church Development, 10.

65. Ibid.

66. Schwarz. Paradigm Shift, 256.

67. Schwarz. Natural Church Development, 12.

68. The Mustard Seed, (Mt. 13:31-32, Luke 13:19) The parable of the sower, (Matthew 13:4-23, Mark 4:13-20, Luke 8:4-15) The Parable of the harvest, (John 4:35, Matthew 9:37-38, Luke 10:2) The Tares, (Matthew 13:24-30) See Charles, van Engen. The Growth of the True Church : An Analysis of the Ecclesiology of Church Growth Theory., (Amsterdam Studies in Theology, vol. 3 , 1981), 422.

69. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 237.

70. 1 Corinthians 10:23 NASV  “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.  All things are lawful, but not all things edify.”

71. Schwarz. Paradigm Shift, 69.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid., 133-134.

74. Matthew 6:28. NASV

75. Schwarz. Natural Church Development, 9.

76. Kittel, Gerhard, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. and trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [TDNT], (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), s.v. “???????????.”

77. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 75.

78. Ibid., 74.

79. Ibid., 240.

80. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics. 3rd ed. rev. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970), 104.  See also Terry’s dictum, in Osborne Hermeneutical Spiral, 11.

81. Osborne. Hermeneutical Spiral, 74.

82. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift, 12.