Might this be another critique of the focus on Kingdom?

I wonder this because I tend toward Kingdom proclamation and the observation this morning has raised questions in my own mind.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Also, Willard makes the case that the kingdom exists from the beginning. The Kingdom “God’s reign” was a central message of the Old Testament. Jesus’ message (which would still seem valid today) was that “the kingdom has come near,” that is, we can now participate in it in a fuller sense.

For the most part, I see EC’s emphasis as a healthy and much needed correction. For too long, the preaching of truth was separated from the doing of truth. It’s just that we have such a tendency to swing the pendulum.

Could be my experience talking. The evangelical church I grew up in focused on knowledge to the extent that a pastor who wanted to start “doing the truth” was run out of the place. I followed, by the way (at the tender age of 19), but apparently the experience has warped my perception. I spoke a bit too much before thinking. I stand corrected.

I’m not mentioning this to brag on my church (though I do think very highly of where its leadership is leading it and am blessed to attend such a church) but to say that if the EC is based on a protest against traditional churches’ lack of “doing the truth,” perhaps many in the EC just haven’t looked closely enough. Painting with such a wide brush is irresponsible at best, and spiritually destructive at worst. After all, the Body is called to unity, one thing that the EC seems to forget in lambasting traditional evangelicalism.

Theology–AKA truth–is both content and practice. Practice includes behaviors and affections. The specific expressions of practice change with culture. What remains constant is trusting and following God.

Practice includes behaviors/affections of persons and communities. We follow Christ as individuals and as a church. It must be both. Practice also includes behaviors/affections in the church and the community.

I realize this is quite general. I’m not sure if the specifics are as important as balance: content and practice, individual and corporate, and inside and outside.

As I see it, that is “doing the truth.”

Case in point, here is Doug Pagitt on Way of the Master radio.
http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1007/WOTMR-10-22-07-Hour1.mp3

Pagitt is not only weak and/or ignorant in his theology, he’s clearly heretical in saying that there is no difference between the afterlife of a Christian and a Muslim.

Pagitt, since you’re all about reading each verse for itself, what does Jesus’ statement that He is “the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me” mean to you?

There is an ongoing thread on the discussion board about this interview. I think both of the people involved were awful.

It is accurate in some circles–maybe in the specific churches against which they are protesting. There are evangelical churches that are so concerned about accurate content in theology that they neglect the downtrodden in their neighborhood or who fail to speak up for justice, preferring rather to complain to one another about how terrible things are. On the other hand, most evangelical churches do not fit into this category.

So, I would say that the broad brush strokes against the evangelical church are unwarranted. Likewise, though, painting all of EC with the critique against specific individuals is unwarranted. I’m not sure EC is uniform enough for broad stroke criticisms of their theology. From what I’ve seen in my research, read in their writings, and heard in podcasts and conferences, they are all over the map. This being said, we ought to hold their feet to the fire, just as we would any brother or sister.

One of my primary questions at this point is, what do most ECs hold in common and how wide is the range of opinion within these commonalities?