The Problem(s) with NCD
January 25, 2007 by cavman
We started working with the Natural Church Development program. In many ways, it makes sense on the surface. But we began to see things that eroded our confidence in NCD, particularly things that Christian Schwarz has written.
1. NCD claims to essentially be theologically-neutral. It seeks to help you be a healthy church within your theological tradition. But would Paul agree? Based on his letters to Timothy, I’d say healthy/sound doctrine is essential to a healthy/sound church. Theology does matter. A church can have great systems and growing out the wazoo, but if they teach error having to do with the gospel, they are leading all their people astray and possibly to destruction.
2. The questions asked in the NCD survey were largely subjective, and therefore the answers are largely subjective (which is why I wish From Embers to a Flame didn’t use them). People aren’t asked about the role & use of Scripture, fidelity to biblical doctrine, how much prayer takes place etc. The few objective questions had to do with the number of friendships you had inside and outside of the church- not how those relationships related to discipleship and evangelism (it takes more than relationships with non-Christians to make you an evangelist).
3. He’s a sociologist, from Germany. This means that theology is not his primary discipline. And it looks like most of the theology he reads is from Continental scholars tainted by liberal scholasticism. For instance, he views plenary verbal inspiriation as if we think the Bible was dictated to the apostles. His view of Scripture is quite low. This also impacts his understanding (or lack thereof) of original sin which results in his rejection of the doctrines of grace I find so fundamental to understanding the gospel. So, he’s quite unfamiliar with British and American theology founded on the Reformation. His bibliography is laden with Barth, Brunner, Bultmann & Tillich. What few English speaking authors he has are mostly ministry, not theology, related. And lots of Peter Wagner.
4. He’s overly ecumenical. When he chides Rome, it is for its institutionalism not its theology. NCD’s use in Catholic parishes is endorsed/applauded by Schwarz. Remember, theology doesn’t really matter in his view (though we’ll see this is not quite true).
5. He seems to be greatly influenced by Hegelian philosophy. The light didn’t come on for this one at first. I saw his 2 poles (vitality & structure) as a form of tension that we have to keep in balance. It helped me to see how people on either of the extremes will view you as embracing the other extreme rather than noticing that you affirm aspects of their position (the need for spiritual vitality or structure). BUT, his book Paradigm Shift in the Church: How Natural Church Development Can Transform Theological Thinking appears to go beyond that to more of a thesis + antithesis = synthesis model. This makes sense since he’s a German sociologist. Additional reading will be necessary.
Now I’m starting to see more clearly why some people in my denomination have a problem with Schwarz and NCD. As I continue to read I suspect more read flags will emerge. Oddly, I haven’t heard of any other denominations raising any of these issues (we aren’t used to being on the forefront of anything). Or are we just missing something?
Dear Cavmen,
I have spent a lot of time researching the phenomenon of the CGM and ALL the ofshoots it seems amazing that as one starts and it is already in its full bloom another marketing sociological profile is being developed. For the purpose of helping us do Church better.
Yet in this process I feel starved.
I havent been to a decent Church service and passionate faithful Preaching of God’s Word in so long I have almost forgotten what I sounds and feels like.
I cannot for the life of me understand (except from what Scripture says, the only Book making sence of this madness) why those who know the Scriptures could actually not see the pitfalls.
Anyway I would like to commend you on your perception (Discernment), this is yet another extension of the same ol same ol…devil inspired sheep led by goat scenerio.
God bless
Linton Holm
Hi Cavman.
Just responding to this:
“1. NCD claims to essentially be theologically-neutral. It seeks to help you be a healthy church within your theological tradition. But would Paul agree? Based on his letters to Timothy, I’d say healthy/sound doctrine is essential to a healthy/sound church. Theology does matter.”
I’ve read a number of reviews criticising Schwartz for being uninterested in the theology of the churches he works with. My further research into his work doesn’t bear this out. His stance appears to be that as people engage in the NCD process, they interact with the Trinitarian theology of the process and perhaps lose their liberalism (or fundamentalism).
Anyway, he could equally retort that most books of systematic theology ignore principles of church development in favour of an abstract and decontextualised orthodoxy. How do we communicate theological truth to people without healthy churches?
T-man,
You get some mixed messages with NCD. Theologically, they say the system works within your own theology.
His bipolarity does suggest some changes in theology as you work through the process.
Though some theologies are truer than others, he never lays out a summary of what might be a truer theology. And the my denomination has problems with his problems with Reformed Theology.
Systematic Theology should depend on Biblical Theology so it is not decontextualized and keeps it in touch with God’s purpose for revealing that particular truth.
I love the way the Westminster Shorter (and Longer) Catechism start. It is a great way to contextualize theology- it’s purpose is to help us glorify God and enjoy Him forever. As Frame says, it has application. As we apply our doctrines, they should have application to worship, church growth, personal growth, social justice etc (see Poythres’ book on Interpreting Scripture). To lay out all the applications in a book on systematic theology would be to write one honking huge book, that would, perhaps, we lost in its own historical context (for the theologian can’t see too far beyond what has been and what is).