Church Health Studies

Natural Church Development And The Reformed Faith
H. Carl Shank, Church Health Consultant

In my work as a church health consultant, I have met with over one hundred churches from various denominational preferences. These have included congregations from a Brethren background, a Baptist background, a charismatic background, a Lutheran background and a Reformed background. In my experience, each of these churches and denominational affiliations has benefited from using natural church development (NCD). NCD insights unique to each congregation are gleaned from a careful analysis of eight global and universal quality factors(1) or principles. These quality characteristics have been derived from a careful worldwide statistical analysis first done in the mid-1990s and recently updated in 2004 and beyond.(2) They have proved life-giving to many congregations.

Since these universal principles need on-the-spot application, Christian Schwarz, author and founder of NCD, has noted that NCD church health consultants are to “think interdenominationally, act denominationally.”(3) They are “bridge-builders” between the “universal principles of NCD and the concrete situation in a local church.”(4) Denominational application is therefore necessary and important. Application and analysis of natural church development in a Reformed, or Calvinistic, context is the subject of this paper.(5)

A Personal Testimony
In October 2005, I had the privilege of eating lunch with Christian Schwarz along with some consultants from ChurchSmart, Inc., and the Presbyterian Church in America.(6) He invited us to ask him questions that churches and denominational leaders had been asking about NCD. Since this was a mostly Reformed gathering of consultants, the question of biblical authority came up. Is NCD compatible with a Reformed understanding of the Bible and our standards? Does Schwarz’s continental Lutheran training and background detract from a high view of the Scriptures as the very Word of God? Schwarz made it abundantly clear in his verbal responses that he was a born-again Christian man who believed in the authority, canon and applicability of the Bible as the Word of God.

He also noted that there have been translation challenges in his books in moving from German to English, especially in some theological categories. He agreed to a need to clarify his point of view of Scripture as outlined and discussed in his Paradigm Shift in the Church. The face-to-face meeting was helpful in ascertaining his personal, Christian testimony and viewpoint.

NCD’s View of God
Natural church development sees our view of God to be the crucial reason for real hindrances to church development. Christian Schwarz puts it bluntly:

I am in no doubt that a wrong (e.g., institutionalistic or spiritualistic) ecclesiology certainly can lead to hindrances towards church development, but they are not the causes, they are merely the symptoms of a far more deep-seated defect: a wrong view of God. And where we do not understand the nature of God, however conscientiously we phrase the details of our ecclesiology, we cannot really understand the nature of the church. That is where I believe the problem lies.(7)

“Institutionalistic” formulations of God, according to Schwarz, partake of borrowed Hellenistic philosophical speculation where philosophical concepts about God (immanence and transcendence, for instance) are “projected onto biblical statements and threatens to engulf them.”(8) Thus, God’s truth becomes theoretical, abstract and unhistorical. This paradigm in the Christian world would say that a healthy Christian and a healthy church conform to certain doctrinal and ethical standards, practice correct formalistic rituals in worship and show they know God by the security of properly framed theological statements about God. Whether it is Roman Catholic “magical, object-based sacramentalism,” American “heteronomic fundamentalism” or church growth “technocratic input-output logic,” the fallacy is the same.(9) The living God becomes an abstract concept of truth.

“Spiritualistic” conceptions of God, on the other hand, are subjective, autonomous, other-worldly, irrational mysticism, according to Schwarz. Historically, “spiritualism” can be seen in Docetism, Gnosticism and Medieval mysticism. The spiritualistic believer and church, fed by unconditional freedom and the press for spontaneity, strongly oppose any attempts at a formulation of God. A healthy view of God according to the spiritualistic person or church is to press for a “magical type of supernaturalism” where the work of the Holy Spirit is translated, as the Reformed theologian, J.I. Packer, says into a quest for an “inward explosion rather than an inward communion” with God.(10)

Many theologians would agree with Schwarz against an unmitigated “spiritualistic” interpretation of God and with Schwarz’s desire to describe the knowledge of God as a deeply personal relationship between God and humankind, amply demonstrated in the marriage relationship imagery between the covenant God and his covenant people. Schwarz would move us to seeing God as a historical, personal, loving God. He is not the philosophical Being of the systematic theologian, nor the undefined Force of the spiritualistic free thinker. However, J.I. Packer and many other biblical theologians would strongly disagree with Schwarz’s theological construct, which is taken from the point of view of Emil Brunner.(11)

Today, vast stress is laid on the thought that God is personal, but this truth is so stated as to leave the impression that God is a person of the same sort as we are – weak, inadequate, ineffective, a little pathetic. But this is not the God of the Bible! Our personal life is a finite thing: it is limited in every direction, in space, in time, in knowledge, in power. But God is not so limited. He is eternal, infinite and almighty. He has us in his hands; but we never have Him in ours. Like us, He is personal; but unlike us, He is great. In all its constant stress on the reality of God’s personal concern for his people . . . the Bible never lets us lose sight of His majesty, and His unlimited dominion over all His creatures.(12)

Thus, professor John Frame, in his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, says

Propositional language is important to theology. Theology conveys information about God. The argument of Brunner and others that propositional knowledge weakens the personal character of relations is absurd. Gaining information about someone often deepens our relationship with him. Good theological language, however, is never merely propositional; it is simultaneously an expression of love and praise.(13)

What should be our view of God? God-centered, Reformed people and churches worship, proclaim and adore a personal God who is great! Contrary to Schwarz, the historical, systematic references to the “incommunicable” attributes or characteristics of God are not necessarily incorrect or misleading as long as they are grounded in the Word of God.(14) John the Apostle who wrote in his first letter that “God is love” (1 John 4:8, 16) also wrote “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and in his gospel that “God is spirit” (John 4:24).(15)

The Bible declares the “transcendent” mystery of God in his “separateness” from His creation while showing the “immanence” of God in caring for His creation. Consider, for instance, Psalm 139, which tells us of the unlimited and unrestrained nature of the presence and power of God. The referent point is the unerring and infinite majesty and greatness and power of God, not our personal relationship with Him. A proper reading of this Psalm leaves one in humble, grateful worship, celebration and adoration of God’s goodness, care and love. It forces me to see His wisdom and control in the daily routine of my life, in the thoughts of my mind, in the work of my hands and in the desires of my heart. It teaches me what justice should look like (vv. 19-22). It constantly humbles my mind, puts into God’s perspective my accomplishments, and daily drives me to seek forgiveness from the Most High.

Or, consider the Isaiah quote, “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:9). In fact, this is exactly why the gospel can be freely offered “without money and without cost” (v. 1) and why God can “freely pardon” (v. 7). His plan and exercise of redemption arise from His choice, His sovereign love, His condescending care and mercy.

The Apostle Paul in Acts 17 tells the Athenian philosophers that God is their Creator (“God who made the world and everything in it” v. 24) and distinct from His creation (“does not live in temples built by human hands, as if he needed anything”). He is Lord of all peoples everywhere in all times (“he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” v. 26). He will come as the Just Judge (v. 31), proven by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Then in Romans 11, Paul concludes his great doctrinal section of this letter by a doxological praise of God’s infinite knowledge, wisdom, and grace:

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?
Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen. (vv. 33-36)

Yes, God is a personal God, but He is also a great, majestic God! To be God-centered means we are always in a posture of dependent praise and adoration. It says we think God’s thoughts “after Him,” not on a level with Him, not in spite of Him, not parallel with Him, not independent of Him. All knowledge is already defined and all history has already been given by the One who knows the beginning, means and end of all things. Our response is earnest study, grateful praise, profound humility and absolute dependence.

Consequently, although Schwarz’ “personalistic” emphasis about God does not flow along the lines of typical Reformed thinking and study, he does indeed affirm the biblical God and His sovereign dealings with humankind. This can be seen especially in his discussion of 1 Corinthians 3.

The 1 Corinthians 3:6-9 Paradigm

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. (1 Corinthians 3:6-9, NIV)

Natural church development brings a refreshingly healthy viewpoint of these verses to bear on the nature of God and His relationship to His Church. Actually, Schwarz calls it a paradigm shift in understanding. Hence, this text not merely uses agricultural imagery but it gives us the model of church health and growth so often missed by advocates of the institutional model or the spiritualistic model. His model is a biotic one in which God as the “helmsman”(16) of creation and providence has provided His Church with “growth automatisms”(17) (cf. Mark 4:28) which in turn cause healthy development.

These verses then become, as Schwarz says, the locus classicus of natural church development. Reflecting upon the agricultural analogies in the text, certain principles of church health and growth become clear:

1. Like farmers, we cannot “make” the church grow in the final and ultimate analysis. God alone does that.(18) Farmers must absolutely and totally depend on the goodness and grace and hand of God for a good harvest. Often, a farmer who works hard can expect to have a greater harvest for his investment of energy, but such a harvest is in no way guaranteed. In the spiritual realm, our hard toil is necessary to produce a great spiritual harvest, but our toil in no way guarantees that harvest. All is of God, for His glory and honor, and will fulfill His purposes (cf. Acts 13:48). Dependent and earnest prayer must be the ground work for every spiritual harvest.
2. Like farmers, we need to know what we can and should do in the organic process of church health and growth. We can and should “plant” and “water.” We are “God’s fellow workers.”(19) But farmers need to plant and water in harmony with the laws of nature. Sowing seed at the wrong time, adding too much or too little fertilizer, ignoring the right “know-how” will give a poor harvest. In the spiritual realm, “hard work, commitment, and motivation are not all that is needed; the right know how is just as important.”(20)
3. Farmers know they must wait for the harvest. Organic processes take time – God’s time – for fruitfulness. So it is in the spiritual realm. Church health and growth take God’s time and timing for appropriate fruitfulness.
In addition to these observations from Schwarz, we can also textually observe the following:
4. A farmer’s work is usually completed well in advance of harvest. “Planting” and “watering” here are completed actions, while God’s activity in giving the increase continues on.(21) Properly applied principles of church health and growth not only usually have a delayed response, but they also have a continuing response in the life of the church. This is great news to those who apply the right principles but have few present results to show for it.
5. In large farms especially, neighboring farmers or a larger farm staff are often needed to work together. There must be essential unity between planter and waterer for great harvests to occur. For a great spiritual movement of God, the work of one pastor must be united with that of additional staff or neighboring churches.

Is NCD Biblical?
Three contexts are critical to understanding Christian Schwarz’ response to this very fundamental question. First, in the worldwide NCD website, www.ncd-international.org, Schwarz addresses the particular question: “How biblical is Natural Church Development?” His answer is framed by dealing with three options: (1) “Biblical” means the very terms “natural,” “minimum factor,” “three colors,” and so forth are quoted from Bible texts; OR (2) “Biblical” means NCD reflects biblical “concerns;” OR (3) Is there anything in NCD that contradicts Biblical concerns, principles or values?

His response to option (1) is that the terminology and other aspects of NCD will not fit such a wooden definition of biblicism. So, for the fundamentalist, NCD will be a disappointment, if not an outright heresy, since it fails to use Scriptural language and terminology for its tenets and practices. NCD will not atomistically quote verses from the Bible to back up its findings and tenets. Neither Schwarz nor Reformed churches believe that the Bible was “dropped out of heaven” in King James English or any other language. A Reformed view of inspiration takes serious note of the human writers and their individual styles of writing God’s Word in their contexts. Also, Reformed pastors and theologians have been using scholarly tools of “lower” criticism for years to ascertain the best reading of a certain verse or phrase or pericope in the Bible.

Schwarz says that “NCD is committed to being fully biblical according to options (2) and (3).” He writes “many of the newly coined terms and categories of NCD are vehicles that transport biblical principles.”(22) These answers are helpful, but not extensive enough for most Reformed pastors and people.

Second, Christian Schwarz uses terminology and concepts that most likely are foreign to many Reformed people, such as “functional (or bipolar) theology,” “all-by-itself principle,” “pneumatic functionality,” and so forth. He introduces these terms in seeking to create a third paradigm over against both rigid, legalistic, abstract “institutionalistic” formulations of God, the Bible and the Church, on the one hand, and the subjective, autonomous, other-worldly, irrational “spiritualistic” viewpoint on the other. He really is seeking to “revolutionize” the way we think about church, faith, fellowship and service. Consequently, to read Schwarz in one of these two paradigms will not suffice in understanding or appreciating what he is seeking to say.

Third, Schwarz has been trained and influenced heavily by modernistic German mainline theology and philosophy, and especially by the writings of Emil Brunner. He quotes Brunner quite freely in his Paradigm Shift in the Church and finds the warmth and practicality of Brunner refreshing in the German neo-orthodox theological landscape. Right away, a number of Reformed pastors will dismiss Schwarz and his paradigm as neo-orthodox or a derivative of it. That will raise enough red flags in a number of minds as to the biblical value and validity of his insights and the entire natural church development system so as to dismiss him and NCD out of hand.

However, we need to understand the context of theological and biblical studies in the current German theological system. For one thing, most scholars accept the findings and results of “literary (or higher) criticism.”(23) Unlike “lower (or textual) criticism,” higher criticism when applied to the Bible has led to disastrous results for the evangelical due to the arbitrary quest, for instance, of the “historical Jesus” over against the belief in the “Christ of faith.”

Then, theologians like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner have been looked to in the German theological context as “orthodox” theologians over against the fanciful neo-orthodoxy of, say, Rudolf Bultmann.(24) Moreover, Brunner has been praised as a very warm, personable pastor-teacher. Brunner has always been concerned that the church, especially the church in Germany, be freed from excessive institutionalism. It appears that Schwarz has adopted this anti-institutionalistic stance from Brunner and re-cast it for natural church development.

As I have studied Schwarz and worked closely with his materials and interacted with him on a one-on-one basis, I believe Reformed people and churches can glean much God-centered, Christ-honoring, practical and biblically verifiable advice and help from NCD. We could wish his background were more “classically” Reformed, and we need to certainly reject anti-Scriptural neo-orthodox undertones. However, these currents do not demand a wholesale rejection of the principles of NCD.

So, at least on the surface of discussion, Schwarz maintains a “functional” biblical theology (explained in the following section):

but this “functionality cannot be taken to mean that Christians can create new Bibles which better express what they (and here lies the danger) consider to be helpful for church development. . . The final norm for the church is undoubtedly Jesus Christ; but in order to know who Jesus Christ is, what he has done for us and what he expects of us, we need reliable information about him. To avoid the danger that verbal appeals to Christ should be combined with forms of degeneration . . . it was a wise and necessary decision to subject the church to a normative standard. The usefulness of the biblical canon for the development of faith, fellowship and service has been so clearly demonstrated throughout history that, for me, the pneumatic functionality of the Bible (in the truest sense of the term) is beyond question.”(25)

This response is both heartening and disturbing. It is heartening to read that the Bible is uniquely given and cannot be at will supplemented by human opinion or words, that he accepts the Church’s historic judgment concerning the canonicity of Scripture, and that he does believe in the necessary content of the Bible to tell us who Jesus Christ is and what He has done for humanity. What is disturbing, if not downright unclear in his book Paradigm Shift, is Schwarz’s conclusion that the Bible is “functionally” normative.

The real question, therefore, to be answered for Reformed people is this: “Is the Word of God written the verbal, authoritative, plenary inspired revelation of God?” Did God give objective, content-ful, as well as personal disclosure of Himself and his purposes in our space-time history in the written Scriptures? Or, in Brunner’s way of thinking, does the Bible “become” the Word and that which the Word of God breaks through in order to meet us as “I to Thou.”(26) This is difficult for Schwarz, having been so significantly influenced by Emil Brunner’s subjectivistic, dialectical tension between the Word of God and the written, historical biblical record.

I believe Schwarz struggles in his Paradigm book with the old theological and philosophical question of whether we can “reduce” the revelation of Jesus Christ to a written Book. This is an extensive topic in modern theology based upon a Kantian noumenal-phenomenal worldview which has influenced every German theologian from Schleiermacher and Ritschl to the present, despite variations in emphasis. Schwarz has been heavily influenced by Brunner’s anti-institutionalistic view of the church(27) and his view of faith in Christ, which he sees as different from faith as assent to doctrine.(28) So, Schwarz wants to distance himself from a slavish, narrowly conceived doctrinal position by which a person’s faith is defined and delineated. He is concerned that ortho-doxy does not replace ortho-praxy!

But Schwarz is not Brunner. Schwarz seeks to help the local church as a community of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ realize its sovereignly given, inherent health, and release those health principles into the life and teaching of the church so that it can grow more healthy.

Schwarz, as well, obviously believes the Bible is a normative standard to our faith and life. But, Schwarz approaches the Bible and questions of biblical authority and theology from a very different vantage point than most of American Reformed theologians, pastors and church people. Schwarz does not go beyond the canon of Scripture or outside the Bible for “authoritative” revelation. He accepts the Church’s historic standards about the Bible and its major theological tenets, such as the Trinity, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and so forth. However, his favorable quoting of Emil Brunner of “truth as encounter”(29) and his resistance of doctrinal formulations leave question marks for the Reformed believer. Let’s investigate Schwarz’s “functional” point of view.

Van Til’s Perspective
What are we to make of this “functional theology” paradigm? I believe Schwarz sincerely desires to be “biblical” in the best possible sense. To his detriment, however, Schwarz places his theological discussion in the neo-orthodox dialectical subjectivism of Emil Brunner. Cornelius Van Til, past Professor of Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary, has written

What has been said about Barth holds, with minor changes, also for Emil Brunner and for such other theologians as Reinhold Niehbuhr, Richard Niehbuhr, Nels Feree, John Mackay and Elmer George Homrighausen. In their theology, as in that of Barth, it is the autonomous religious consciousness that divides itself into two sections after the style of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The higher aspect addresses itself to the lower aspect and insists upon obedience to its voice. Thus men tell themselves that they have listened to and obeyed the voice of Jesus or of God, while they have only obeyed themselves.(37)

Brunner following Karl Barth, says Van Til, is still as Barth is, “controlled by some form of modern critical philosophy. And this means the mind of man is always thought of as contributing something ultimate to all the information it has and receives. Accordingly, the ‘absolutely other’ god of Barth remains absolute just so long as he is absolutely unknown.”

On the other hand, when this god does reveal himself his revelation is identical with what man can know apart from such a revelation. Thus there is absolute authority which either says nothing or when it says something it has lost its character as authority. And the fact that Barth thinks of revelation dialectically means in this connection only that his god is both absolutely hidden and absolutely revealed simultaneously. And this can be maintained only if the very idea of authority as orthodox Christianity conceives of it on the basis of the Creator-creature distinction has first been discarded. If this distinction is maintained there can be no such dialectical relationship between the hidden and the revealed character of God. In that case God cannot, to be sure, ever reveal himself exhaustively. The mind of man is finite and knows only by thinking God’s thoughts after him. But what it knows it then knows truly. It has at its disposal the revelation of God. This revelation does not hide God while it reveals him; it reveals him truly, though not exhaustively.(38)

I have quoted Van Til’s criticism of Barth, and by way of application, of Brunner, to critique Brunner, not Schwarz. While Schwarz has been schooled in dialectical, subjectivistic theology, I do not see him at all doubting God’s self-revelation in the Bible, even though he agrees with Brunner’s perspective of Jesus Christ as the centerpoint and norm of revelation. Schwarz seeks to maintain an “orthodox” perspective while criticizing dead, lifeless, institutional Christianity and creedalism. This has been affirmed by asking him some of these questions directly. And, many even in the Reformed camp may disagree with Van Til’s understanding of Brunner, who was not exactly where Barth was. No, Schwarz is not as clear or as objective as he can be, but his “functional theology’s” usefulness criterion can be helpful to Reformed churches lost in dead orthodoxy or rampant rationalism.

Functional Theology
Schwarz introduces what he calls “functional theology” by giving a diagram in the text.(30)

On the one hand, he desperately wants to avoid the restrictive and narrow legalism of those Christian circles that reduce faith to a mere recitation of certain creeds or convictions. Doctrine is seen as an end in and of itself. The church and its acts of faith become institutionalized, dogmatized and seen as all-inclusive.

On the other hand, Schwarz sets the NCD paradigm over against the anti-rational, relativistic, spiritualism seen in many churches who want a “direct word from God” about this or that, are suspicious of any formal doctrine or theology, and who see passion and prayer as unassailable answers to every problem and need the church may have.

“Functional dogmatics” according to Schwarz sees doctrine as that which “stimulates the life and growth of the church as an organism.”(31) Theology and doctrine are always addressed to people and find their unity in the Person of Jesus Christ. “Theological doctrine must be useful in helping personal faith to grow.”(32) He doesn’t, however, repudiate all doctrinal formulations or church forms by this “functional paradigm:”

This argument is in no way intended to suggest that church forms are a ‘random’ matter. Rather, I am concerned about a theologically reflected standard which does justice to the differences between people, cultures, mentalities, and styles of devotion, but which holds on to the commission that applies to all churches at all time to build up the church of Jesus Christ. The criterion for all churches should be whether faith, fellowship and service become a reality; whether God becomes manifest in them; whether the Holy Spirit works in them; whether their many forms and structures are such that love is facilitated and encouraged. In other words, the criterion for every institution should be how useful it is for building up the body of Christ. To the extent that it fulfills this criterion, it is a ‘true church.’(33)

Schwarz adamantly believes it is God alone who gives the growth and life to any church (1 Corinthians 3:6). This he calls “pneumatic functionality,” or the “all-by-itself” principle, a truth which God has built into every healthy congregation. Consequently, church health and growth are not due to a humanly conceived and devised plan with creedal justifications. And, lest we misunderstand his use of “functionality,” he definitively rejects terming it “pragmatism, functionalism or utilitarianism.”(34) Thus, right doctrine “stimulates” personal faith, love and witness, which in turn “produce” right ethics and thinking (See Illustration above).

Does this undermine the Bible? No, says Schwarz. “The difference between the biblical canon and the other eight institutional forms is a fundamental one. None of these eight elements can have a normative function for the church, but the Bible is the decisive normative factor for the church of Jesus Christ in all of its forms.”(35) The Bible has “absolute validity and authority over the church” given that we understand the “final norm for the church is undoubtedly Jesus Christ.”(36)

The Trinitarian Compass and The Trinity
In his most recent book, Color Your World with Natural Church Development, Schwarz has introduced what he believes is at the core of NCD – the “Trinitarian compass.” (See Diagram below)(39)

This diagram shows the most recent development of NCD to date. Schwarz believes that this understanding of the way we relate to God as persons and churches is key to releasing the “all-by-itself” dynamic of health ands balance in our churches.

The Trinitarian compass is not a restatement of the classic and historic doctrine of the Trinity. Schwarz clearly points out that “the focus of the classical doctrine is on the question of how the three persons of the Godhead relate to each other” while the “Trinitarian compass focuses on the question of how we (the believers) relate to the triune God.”(40) Schwarz maintains that he has not “changed” the doctrine of the Trinity.(41) He has only advanced a new paradigm that fits the purposes of NCD. “It seeks to build a bridge between the theological question about the nature of God, and the empirical question about change processes in a local church.”(42)

Thus, for instance, evangelical churches are generally in the “red” zone. They emphasize Christ and commitment. Many are unbalanced in NCD terms since they de-emphasize the Holy Spirit and God’s creative wisdom. This unbalance can lead to unbridled activism. Charismatic churches are generally in the “blue” zone. They emphasize inner healing, restored emotions and teach and preach a very emotive form of spiritual life. The danger, surprisingly enough, is that they have deficient structures for using their Spirit-given gifts for ministry! Liberal churches are usually in the “green” zone, emphasizing intellectual reflection, social concern and a wealth of openness to the arts. However, they need brought into balance in the areas of passionate spirituality and need-oriented evangelism. The point is that all people and churches need to move proactively toward the center of the compass for health and life.

Again, does this Trinitarian compass “fit” within the Reformed community and theology? I believe it does since it is working with a paradigm not really addressed in Reformed circles. It does not negate or deny a Trinitarian orthodoxy. In fact, it supports and reinforces such a paradigm by applying it to the life and health of churches.

What About the Eight Health Characteristics?
Empowering leadership, gift-oriented ministry, passionate spirituality, inspiring worship, functional structures, need-oriented evangelism, holistic small groups and loving relationships constitute Schwarz’ eight qualities or characteristics of a healthy church. The emphasis in NCD is not so much on the categories of leadership, ministry, and so forth, but on the descriptive word that gives them their NCD health status.

Hence, for instance, leadership may be evident in a congregation, but is it “empowering?” Do the pastoral leaders of the church “fit” with that particular congregation? Do the leaders at all and any level delegate and share ministry with and in the body? Do they lead through a God-centered vision of what the church should become? Do leaders, from the pastor through the nursery supervisor, lead through mentoring and equipping? Do they empower or get in the way of necessary change?

In each health category, Schwarz asks the hard questions that force a congregation to examine themselves in a pro-active, thoroughly biblical and practical manner. The issue in spiritual gifts, for instance, is not just grasping an intellectual understanding of biblical gift categories, but whether the gifts of the people are being released in a significant, holistic way in the church body that makes the church a viable “Ephesians 4” congregation. In functional structures, which Schwarz maintains is at the heart of many church related problems, especially in charismatic or holiness-grounded churches, the question is, do the organizations, boards, committees and so forth of a congregation actually advance the vision and cause God has given that church? Or, do they inhibit, undermine, block or debilitate the kingdom vision God has given the church? How well do these often man-made structures facilitate God’s agenda for His Church?

Evangelism in NCD terms must be “need-oriented” to be healthy. A healthy church not merely looks at its theology of evangelism, or its methods of evangelism or its programs of evangelism. It thoroughly exegetes the non-Christian people and their needs, desires and philosophies God has placed in front of the church people and their witness. It asks the very practical question of how are seekers integrated into the life and witness and community of the body? It stresses the biblical model of discipleship and community rather than just counting heads (or hands) for Jesus.

Relationships are to be loving, filled with grace and justice. Again, this is a “balance” found in the biblical teaching and development of how people relate to each other in healthy ways. Matthew 6 and 18, in terms of loving confrontation and conflict resolution, are to be part of the relational health of a church body and not something handled by an institutionalistic judicial system that “forces” discipline into the church system.

Worship must be inspiring to be healthy. Music is to be God-centered and celebrative. NCD avoids the “worship wars” saying that the issue is not stylistic, but rather is God glorified and does He “show up” when the people gather for worship? Is he “manifestly present,” in other words, or are we just reciting liturgical formulas, reading Scripture by rote, singing hymns or choruses without engaging God’s Word in song, and preaching and hearing preaching but not making it applicable, powerfully anointed, and life transforming? Healthy worship brings us to the throne of God’s awesome and loving presence and transforms our thoughts, words, deeds and desires. This is what NCD is after in worship.

Group life must be “holistic” to be healthy. The whole person needs to be addressed by a church’s group ministry. Are the small groups of the church a place where people can be authentic, transparent, honest and open with one another and with God’s Word? Are they just social occasions, or does real life transformation and biblical discipleship take place? Are new people seamlessly integrated into the church’s groups, or are they still “outsiders” who don’t belong? Do groups naturally multiply as they grow and develop, or do they become institutionalized, solidified and not open to change and development? These are not just pragmatic concerns to NCD. They are concretely and verifiably biblical. They are necessary to church health and vitality.

Spirituality is to be “passionate” to be thoroughly God-honoring and biblical. God, after all, wants all of us submitted to His Lordship in our lives, thoughts, words, deeds and desires. Are spiritual disciplines practiced by both the individual Christian and entire church body? Are people’s lives so infused with God’s Spirit and presence, and so submitted to His sovereign Lordship that this kind of life becomes contagious and powerfully appealing, or even appalling, to those outside the faith?

Are these eight characteristics sufficient for church health? Some have written and suggested they are not, and that we need to add other characteristics(43) or modify the eight.(44) The real problem with these kinds of procedures is that they lack verifiable, universal analysis and rationale. They are regionally based, or denominationally driven or founded upon too small a statistical sampling to be seriously considered along with NCD. No other church health initiative or program or ministry has the undeniable statistical and factual basis and evidence as NCD.

But what about the tried-and-true historic marks of a “true” church – the Word of God truly preached and taught (Beza, Calvin, and others), and the sacraments (or elements) faithfully administered (Calvin and Zanchius) and faithful exercise of church discipline (Ursinus, Heidegger)? What is assumed sometimes when these essentials are discussed in Reformed circles is that affirming them means the church will somehow automatically experience blessing and health from God. However, historical theology tells us that ever since the fourth century, these marks have been central to the biblical definition of a true church, not the biblical health of that church. John Calvin, for instance, used these marks as an apology against rampant unbiblical Papal institutionalism in his time.(45)

The point of the eight universal characteristics is to bring us as Reformed people and churches back to our God-centered, transformational, Spirit-empowered biblical roots. This is not pietism re-visited. This is what God wants His Church to be and become.

Nine Marks of A Healthy Church: An NCD Critique
Dr. Mark Dever of the Center for Church Reform has written a booklet, Nine Marks of A Healthy Church.(46) Since this is a distinctly modern and Reformed analysis of church health, it is helpful to place Dever’s nine marks over against NCD’s eight quality characteristics.

Dever’s purpose for his book is as follows:

This little book is a tool to change churches. In it I suggest nine distinguishing marks of a healthy church. These are not the only attributes of a healthy church. They are not everything one would want to say about a church. They are not even necessarily the most important things about a church. . . . The nine attributes discussed here are marks that may set a church apart, that may distinguish a sound, healthy, biblical church from many of its sickly sisters.(47)

He does add some more disclaimers. For instance, he admits that “neither correct polity nor courageous preaching, neither sacrificial giving nor doctrinal orthodoxy can ensure that a church will flourish.”(48) So, at least formally, he agrees with Schwarz’ contention in NCD that proper orthodoxy or institutional purity is no guarantee of church health. He admits that even the best churches often fall short of the ideal, that Christians and churches must not give up the struggle to become healthier, and that seminaries are not the answer either.

However, his nine marks have a different starting point than NCD’s eight characteristics. He starts, and ends, with what he believes is a list of health characteristics that arise out of a proper biblical theology, namely a theology that has all the marks of historic Reformed church life and definition. His nine marks include expositional preaching of the Word of God, a biblical theology, with leaders “who have a biblical and experimental grasp of the sovereignty of God and a commitment to sound doctrine, in its full, biblical glory,”(49) knowledge of and sharing of the biblical gospel,(50) a true, God-centered view of conversion,(51) a biblical understanding and practice of evangelism,(52) a biblical understanding of church membership with its practices, privileges and responsibilities,(53) the regular practice of biblical church discipline,(54) a pervasive concern for Christian growth and discipleship,(55) and finally the “practice of recognizing godly, discerning, trusted laymen as elders,” or biblical eldership.(56)

Dever adds in the Appendix a “Typical Covenant of A Healthy Church,” stressing the practice of biblical and loving relationships, along with striving together for “the continuance of a faithful evangelical ministry in this church as we sustain its worship, ordinances, disciplines and doctrines.”(57)

Several noticeable things stand out in Dever’s understanding of church health. First, it is doctrinally proscribed and baptistically defined. He is an avowed Baptist pastor and theologian with his church’s confessional statement being the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith.(58) He is a champion of local church autonomy and authority, vested in the congregation and administered by church elders. Thus, many other Reformed churches and denominations would question his understanding of “biblical” when he uses that term so frequently to distinguish healthy churches from sickly ones.

Dever’s healthy churches are first and foremost Calvinistic in theology, presuppositions and preaching and teaching. Non-Calvinistic churches would be by deduction “unhealthy” because they are “unbiblical” in theology, methodology and practice. Additionally, Presbyterian and other Reformed denominational groups would have much to say about this “narrowing” of ecclesiology and doctrine, to say the least.

NCD’s main criticism of what Dever has defined as church health would be two-fold. First, his definition of “church health” is a narrowly defined doctrinal prescription, opening him up to the just charge of reductionism. He reduces church health to a set of orthodox (in his eyes) doctrines (Baptistic Calvinism), church organization (regenerate, baptized, covenanting, knowledgeable self-governing people with a plurality of elders), and selective church practices (expository preaching and teaching, rigorous membership and church discipline requirements). Actually, I am in agreement with much of Dever’s God-centeredness in evangelism and soundness of doctrine and practice. But, it is very clear that spiritually alive, growing, biblically defined (i.e., healthy) churches exist outside of his narrowly defined parameters.

The second and telling NCD criticism would be simply this: Where is the evidence? More particularly, besides his own church and a few he could name perhaps, how does he know other churches are unhealthy, or that even his own church has healthy worship, healthy gift-discovery and use, healthy group life, healthy assimilation and passionate spirituality? He and others may say that he simply has not chosen to discuss these marks. On the other hand, why did he choose these nine in particular? Christian Schwarz would say, Where is the statistical and supporting evidence to back up his theological claims?

Conclusion
What shall we make of Schwarz’s paradigm and the Reformed faith? I believe we need to read Schwarz in the context of Schwarz. We need to see his “functional theology” paradigm for what it is – a way to address the unhealthy forms and problems in our churches and to help them move toward health and God-centered vitality and power.

Schwarz does uphold historic Christian doctrines and standards, including the Bible as the Word of God. Despite his neo-orthodox dialectical training and background in Brunner and German Lutheranism, he is a true, born-again evangelical Christian who is moving on a personal pilgrimage in his own faith and life. What he has thought about and discovered through intensive statistical analysis and in-depth study and reflection about church health and growth can only help Reformed churches thrive and prosper.

H. Carl Shank
July 2006

Endnotes

(1) These eight quality factors have been explained by Christian Schwarz in his popular book, Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches, ChurchSmart Resources, 1996. They include empowering leadership, gift-based ministry, functional structures, inspiring worship, passionate spirituality, need-oriented evangelism, holistic small groups and loving relationships.
(2) The first study, completed in the mid-1990s, gave statistical results from surveys given to 1,000 churches from 32 countries, covering 18 language groups, spanning 6 continents and involving 220 denominations and a total of 4.3 million respondents. The second updated study completed nine years later covered 40,000 churches which have done three or more surveys in a period of 31 months. Not only were the fundamental eight health qualities as universal principles further verified, but church growth rate increased by 51%, transfer growth decreased while conversion growth increased, and the quality of church life improved in all eight health categories. (From Christian Schwarz, Natural Church Development Seminar, Chicago, 1998 and Color Your World Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2005.)
(3) Christian A. Schwarz, Paradigm Shift in the Church, ChurchSmart Resources, 1999, p. 79.
(4) Christian Schwarz, Color Your World with Natural Church Development, ChurchSmart Resources, 2005, p. 159.
(5) The author graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary (M. Div. 1973; Th. M in Systematics 1979; Spurgeon Sabbatical at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, 2004 and 2005) and has served Orthodox Presbyterian churches in an associate as well as a senior pastoral role. He has written a number of articles and papers on various theological topics, and has been recognized by ChurchSmart Resources (the U.S. wing of NCD) as one of their premier church health consultants for the Northeastern part of the U.S.
(6) This was part of his worldwide tour giving an NCD update and introduction of his newest book, Color Your World With Natural Church Development.
(7) Paradigm Shift, p. 49.
(8) Paradigm Shift, p. 50. “Immanence” and “transcendence” in theology have reference to what are called the “incommunicable” attributes, or characteristics, of God. Historically, evangelical theologians when referring to God’s “transcendence” talk about God transcending all time, space and history, not subject to their limitations. He is distinct from, and Lord over all. Yet, God also fills every part of time, space and history with his presence, without being identified with or subsumed by his creation. This is God’s “immanence.” Schwarz’s problem is that all of these terms and distinctions are built on a Greek and Medieval philosophical base, not on what the Word of God reveals or says.
(9) Schwarz seeks to distinguish the “-ism’s” from the true expression of a valid theological or biblical term. He says, “I will only use the suffix “-ism” when I am referring to the perverted ideological form. The term “sacramental,” for instance, refers to the legitimate use of “sacraments” as a means to encourage and strengthen faith. By contrast, I use the terms “sacramentalism” and “sacramentalist” to describe the illegitimate attempt to assign to the sacraments a beneficial function in their own right, irrespective of the faith of the person involved. The same applies by analogy to the other “-isms.” (Paradigm Shift, p. 44)
(10) J.I. Packer, Knowing God, InterVarsity Press, 1973, p. 199. Schwarz further sees this spiritualistic tendency as a movement toward dualism.
(11) Schwarz approvingly uses the theological construct of Emil Brunner in his discussion of spiritualism, institutionalism and the knowledge of God (cf. Paradigm Shift, pp. 24-64). Emil Brunner (1889–1966) was a neo-orthodox theologian in the camp of Karl Barth and others. Professor of systematic theology at the University of Zurich and an ordained church pastor in the Swiss Reformed Church, Brunner sought to “personalize” the orthodox faith and and deliver German reformational theology from lifeless institutionalism and state-mandated religion. Brunner sought to tenuously live between Barthianism and Bultmannian existentialism. “Brunner suggested that a test question to apply to any doctrine of the Christian life would be whether it accommodates a theology of prayer” (George S. Hendry, “An Appraisal of Brunner’s Theology,” Theology Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, January 1963).
(12) J.I. Packer, Knowing God, p. 74.
(13) John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God: A Theology of Lordship, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987, p. 321.
(14) “Incommunicable” refers to those attributes or characteristics of God that belong to God alone and which man, because he is a creature, cannot share with the Creator God. These historically include God’s independence (self-existence and self-sufficiency), His immutability (entire freedom from change), His infinity (inclusive of His eternity and omnipresence), and His simplicity (freedom from any conflicting desires in His nature). “Communicable” attributes are those that humankind share in a creaturely way of correspondence, such as freedom, goodness, truth, holiness, righteousness, wisdom and justice. Thus, man is made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26f).
(15) The Greek text of the verse indicates that the translation should be “God is spirit,” (cf. NIV, NASB, RSV) rather than the translation, “God is a spirit” (KJV).
(16) Kybernetes is the Greek term from which we get “cybernetics.” Far from being a computer or engineering term, the word has an organic, natural basis. God as the “kybernetes,” or “helmsman,” of creation has by His wisdom (cf. Proverbs 1:5) and power placed in His creation, including His Church, certain “cybernetic” or “biotic” processes that give His created order meaning and inherent power. (See Schwarz, Paradigm Shift in the Church, p. 233, ft. nt. 1.)
(17) Natural church development seizes upon the term “all by itself” ( automatic) in Mark 4:28, citing that verse as an instance of God’s wise and biotic ordering of the creation to accomplish His ends for it. Schwarz says, “The starting point of natural church development is similar to that of secular cybernetics which is the quest to discover and apply growth automatisms in the work of the church.” (Paradigm Shift, p. 237)
(18) The adversative in these verses is severe (“but") God . . .” (vv. 6, 7).
(19) Not “partners with God” as the New Living Translation has it. The Greek text does not support such a translation or understanding.
(20) Paradigm Shift, p. 256.
(21) The verb for “God who made it grow” is in the imperfect tense, whereas those for planting and watering are aorist in verse 6.
(22) Quoted from the website, www.ncd-international.org/community/page069a.html.
(23) Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German Biblical scholars. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), in the next generation, David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), in the mid-nineteenth century, analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times, in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter are the intellectual descendants of John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Hegel, and the French rationalists. ((Wikipedia, Online Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism)
(24) An excellent critical analysis of Bultmann’s form criticism is given by Donald Guthrie, “Form Criticism and Its Developments,” New Testament Introduction, IV Press, 1970, 188-219.
(25) Paradigm Shift, p. 116.
(26) “Such ‘personalistic’ emphasis, via the influence of Jewish existentialist Martin Buber, has played a prominent role in concepts of divine revelation in this century, especially for example, in the thought of Emil Brunner, John Baille, and to a lesser extent in Barth and Thomas Torrance.” (John D. Morrison, “Scripture as Word of God: Evangelical Assumption or Evangelical Question,” Trinity Journal, 20:2 (Fall 1999), pp. 165-190, Ft. Nt. 3)
(27) George S. Hendry critiques Brunner’s thesis that “the identification of the church with the ecclesia of the New Testament is a gigantic and disastrous misunderstanding, for the ecclesia is a fellowship of persons who are united by the Spirit through faith in Christ, never a juridical society or corporation of the sort it has become in both Catholicism and Protestantism.” (“An Appraisal of Brunner’s Theology,” Theology Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, January 1963)
(28) “Brunner contends, much like Harnack, that the Reformers’ subservience to the dogmatic tradition led them to obscure their own distinctive insights into the nature of faith by combining faith in Christ and faith in doctrine under the same rubric.” (Ibid.)
(29) Paradigm Shift, p. 103.
(30) Diagrams to Schwarz are very important. His method of writing is to draw the diagrams that best illustrate his concepts and then write the text around these diagrams. Hence, a close inspection of the diagrams of his books and writings are crucial to understanding him. This particular diagram is found in Paradigm Shift, p. 102. A more comprehensive diagram is given on p. 99.

(31) Paradigm Shift, p. 109.
(32) Paradigm Shift, p. 104.
(33) Paradigm Shift, p. 73.
(34) Paradigm Shift, p. 74.
(35) Paradigm Shift, p. 115.
(36) Ibid.
(37) Cornelius Van Til, Apologetics, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1966, p. 85.
(38) Van Til, pp. 84, 85.
(39) Schwarz, Color Your World, p. 53.
(40) Color Your World, p. 69.
(41) “In reality, I haven’t substituted anything; I haven’t added anything; and I haven’t refused anything. The impression can only arise when people operate under the assumption that both paradigms address the same question, and that I have taken the classical formulations and changed them to fit my purposes.” (Color Your World, p. 70.)
(42) Color Your World, p. 70.
(43) Other books and studies that have focused on church health and development have generally agreed with Schwarz’s eight essential principles. Some, like Bob Logan’s book, Beyond Church Growth (Revell, 1987) have also mentioned churches that reproduce, which Schwarz maintains is an action step of healthy growth. Stephen Macchia’s, Becoming A Healthy Church: Ten Characteristics (Baker, 1999), adds stewardship and networking with the larger Body of Christ, which can be also seen as natural developments of the eight essentials.
(44) Some denominations, such as the Brethren in Christ (www.bic-church.org) and the Evangelical Free Church of America (www.efca.org), have adopted modified church health principles or characteristics which they feel more conveniently fit their particular church history or make-up.
(45) See, for example, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Ch. VII, Section 23: “Does there exist in Rome any church or bishopric at all?” where he says in reference to these marks of a true church: “Surely the Church is recognized by certain marks, and ‘bishopric’ is the name of an office. I am not now speaking of the people but of the government, which ought perpetually to be conspicuous in the Church. Where, then, is a ministry such as the institution of Christ requires? Let us remember what was formerly said of the duty of presbyters and bishops. If we bring the office of cardinals to that test, we will acknowledge that they are nothing less than presbyters. But I should like to know what one quality of a bishop the Pope himself has? The first point in the office of a bishop is to instruct the people in the word of God; the second and next to it is to administer the sacraments; the third is to admonish and exhort, to correct those who are in fault, and restrain the people by holy discipline. Which of these things does he do? Nay, which of these things does he pretend to do? Let them say, then, on what ground they will have him to be regarded as a bishop, who does not even in semblance touch any part of the duty with his little finger.” (John T. McNeill, ed., and Ford Lewis Battles, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. XXI, Phila: The Westminster Press, 1960, pp. 1142-3.)
(46) I am using the version supplied on the internet at www.churchreform.org. An expanded version is available that has been printed by Crossway, 2000.
(47) Dever, p. 7.
(48) Dever, pp. 7,8.
(49) Dever, pp. 14–17.
(50) Dever, pp. 19, 20.
(51) Dever, pp. 22–24.
(52) Dever, pp. 26–28.
(53) Dever, pp. 30–34.
(54) Dever, pp. 36–39.
(55) Dever, pp. 41–44.
(56) Dever, pp. 45–50.
(57) Dever, pp. 53, 54.
(58) Dever, p. 22. This is a confession built upon a moderate Calvinistic Baptist stance which became the basis for the original Southern Baptist Statement of Faith (1925 and a weaker version 1963). The Philadelphia Confession of Faith from the London Confession of Faith in 1689 was a similar Calvinistic Baptist document by which the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches aligned itself in 1933 and again in 1971. The Philadelphia Confession is the confessional statement of most of the group of churches in the northeast known as “Reformed Baptists.” These confessional statements are very similar in content. They are also derivatives of the historic Westminster Confession of Faith in many doctrinal areas, with the exception of the doctrine of the universal church, baptism and church polity. Interestingly, these confessional statements also point to the Calvinistic heritage of many of the Baptist associations around today.