Emerging Church archive at Zeal For Truth

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Archive for the 'Emerging Church' Category

Emerging Impulses: Multiple Views on Atonement

Published by Jasen Tracy November 5, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 21 Comments

Note: This is the last planned article in the series

A common criticism of the Emerging Church is that they deny, or underemphasize, the penal substitution theory of atonement. Penal substitution basically states that Christ was punished in our place, thus serving justice and allowing God to forgive people.

Emerging Church on Penal Substitution
It is incomplete: In response to such statements, some in the Emerging Church object that others overemphasize substitutionary theory of atonement and ignore other important aspects of atonement. Such a view is too narrow an understanding of atonement and of Christianity in general, they allege. For instance, Brian McLaren has written this on the subject:

I think the gospel is a many faceted diamond, and atonement is only one facet, and legal models of atonement (which predominate in western Christianity) are only one small portion of that one facet. … So, rather than focusing on an alternative theory of atonement, I’d suggest we ponder the meaning and mission of the kingdom of God.

It is Not Historical
Those seeking a wider understanding of atonement often support their position from church history. They would point out that penal substitution was not the preferred understanding of atonement for the Early Church. There was a mix of ideas about atonement in the Early Church, but most held to something much closer to Christus Victor that penal substitution. Penal Subistution did not become the major view until the 11th century, when it was popularized by Anselm.

Emerging Church on Atonement
I have not read anywhere where an Emerging Church leader has denied the truth of penal substitution. As seen above however, some think that it fails to do justice to the complete biblical picture of atonement.

A few emerging Church leaders have written favorably about the Christus Victor view of atonement. Jason Clark (an Emergent U.K. leader) writes:

In essence Christus Victor is the explanation that atonement is about the incarnation of Jesus into this world, and of participation and sharing in the suffering of humanity, taking them to the cross, so that God triumphs over evil and all of creation is restored and recreated.

He states than some later theologians misrepresented this view and turned it into the ransom theory - which states that Christ’s death served as a ransom to Satan. The point of Christus Victor however, is that Christ defeated sin and death.

That is not to say that anyone is teaching Christus Victor as the sole (or best) theory of atonement. The idea is still that no single theory can do justice to atonement. Besides the two already mentioned, other theories of atonement that are biblically sound and need to be included to have a complete picture of atonement include: recapitulation theory taught by Irenaeus and the moral influence theory taught by Abelard.

Overall, I’d say that for all sides this is largely a debate among theologians and book writers, and not so much on the “man on the street” level.

Philosophy, Theology, And The Church

Published by Bryan October 30, 2007 in Religion, Emerging Church and Philosophy. 14 Comments

As a philosophy student, I often have conversations with friends regarding the place of philosophy in the Church. This week the topic has been on my mind once again after one of my philosophy professors commented in class about the lack of theologians doing philosophy on the academic level today. I was able to bring up the counter example of John Milbank right away, and after some thought Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolferstroff. There are a few others but not many.

Christian today don’t care about philosophy. I hate to say it but it’s true. Have you heard of these three people I mentioned? Have you read anything by them? I’m studying philosophy and although I know a bit about two of them (I know nothing about one of them besides the name), have read a book about Milbank’s Radical Orthodox movement, and listened to an interview with him, I myself don’t know much at all about the current “Christian philosophical scene.”

Reactionary Theology
The only place for philosophy among most evangelicals is when it is proved wrong by Christian apologists. We have more then enough of these in the church; those people who are not willing to give a sympathetic reading to any philosopher, but instead read what other Christians have written about them, and then go on the offensive against them. There have been some good Christian apologists who understand the philosophical systems out there and can interact with them, but walk into a Christian bookstore and the books your likely to see are usually surface treatments of philosophy that take a few potshots at a particular philosopher and then assumes nothing by them (or their followers) could ever be said back in response.

I’m not sure if this is a result of the lack of interest of philosophy in the church, or if the lack of interest in philosophy in the church has caused it’s superficial treatment among Christian academia. One thing for sure however is that if you mention philosophy in many churches you get weird stares.

I don’t bother trying to discuss philosophy with people in my church anymore, it seemed like a loosing battle. When I tell them that one of my majors is philosophy I often hear; “Why would you ever take that?” which in and of itself is not an usual comment as most people in and outside the church don’t understand the allure of a degree that will not directly lead to employment, but when it’s said in the church there is the hint of disgust with the whole discipline.

A similar disgust exists with theology. Although in this case it is less pronounced it is still noticeably there. It manifests itself in comments such as; “Well I don’t care what who and who said, I just know what my bible says.” or “You can believe whatever you want, but I’ll follow the bible on this…” The idea that a well thought out, logical, position on a biblical doctrine doesn’t matter. Somehow if one reads theologians and thinks through biblical doctrines they will cease to take the scriptures seriously and be lead astray by men. Christians should attempt to understand scripture in a vacuum.

I don’t want to get into all the things that is wrong with this view (as if someone can interpret anything in a vacuum) but to point out that this fear of both philosophy and theology is founded on the fact that the church has come to believe that it will lead away from the truth of scripture and to the lies of man. There is a general sense the all “academic” disciplines (theology, philosophy, history, science…etc.) will lead a person away from the truth.

An Anti-Intellectual Environment
This view has lead to the shattering of the church along the academic line. Many who are within these disciplines feel (and likely are) removed from the rest of their church. I’m speaking of philosophy and theology here since they are my areas of interest, but those in the universities who are studying sciences face a similar fate. The Christian who studies biology is continually questioned as to their “orthodoxy” on creation/evolution and is always eyed with suspicion that their science may replace their bible. There is of course reason for the church to be cautious about academia, but it’s gone past caution into full bore paranoia in many cases. Christians should be leaders in all these fields, but instead the church more often then not shows through its attitude that it wants a separation from them.

Because of my studies I have spent a lot of time questioning the Christian faith. Since I began to study theology on my own my theology has been shifting away from the typical baptist theology I began in and toward a more Reformed/Anglican/Emerging Church understanding (when I understand exactly what that means I’ll write about it), and my philosophy classes at University have often caused me to question common Christian answers to really complex problems.

As I’m struggling with philosophical and theological questions I should go to my church and ask for advice, but rarely do I do that anymore. When I do the questions are often dismissed, brushed over, or at worst cause a heated exchange as they don’t understand how I could even be questioning such a thing. This does not hold true for everyone in my church, there are some I can discuss theology with, but I keep the circle of people that I do discuss with small and often shy away from discussing the underlying questions that I struggle with. Sometimes this is to protect myself (if my theology is moving away from what my church teaches) and sometimes this is to protect others (I don’t think they have ever considered this before and have no idea what this kind of question will do to their faith). This all however leads to a real rupture in community. The church is the place where theology should be done, where philosophy should be discussed, and where questions from all disciplines should be looked at. The anti-intellectual environment in many evangelical churches has stopped this.

The Intellectual Divide
I’m not sure how this rupture within the church can be fixed. It’s a question I have spent a lot of time thinking on over the past few years because it’s a personal and practical question. If I feel out of place in the local church, that the questions I am asking are not ones that the local church wants to hear or wants to try to find answers for, will I ever be at home in that church? If the local church wants a “no creed but Christ” attitude, and is willing to look with suspicion on those who embrace academic disciplines that may lead to looking at the world in different ways, can there ever be true community?

There is an intellectual divide in evangelical churches. I know I am not alone in feeling it, others I attend University with feel it as well. After years of thinking on the topic I’m still not sure how to go about trying to fix it. At least the Emerging Church is willing to ask questions and seek answers, even if some in the movement get the wrong ones. If there is one thing evangelicals can learn from the Emerging Church, it’s the importance of asking questions and being able to have open discussions on nearly every subject without passing judgment while the conversation is still ongoing.

Emerging Impulses: Kingdom Focus

Published by Jasen Tracy October 29, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 15 Comments

One thing that characterizes many in the Emerging Church is the amount of attention they pay to the kingdom of God. Note that the kingdom of God (the term used in Mark and Luke) and the kingdom of heaven (the term used in Matthew) refer to the same thing. This kingdom focus seems appropriate in the light of Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Definition
According to Dallas Willard, the Lord’s Prayer provides a short definition of the Kingdom of God. “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” means that the Kingdom of God is where God’s will is done. God’s kingdom is in full force in heaven, but on earth, it is permitted to be partially absent.

The main teaching of Jesus was the kingdom of God. He proclaimed the kingdom to have come (Luke 11:20). This kingdom has been entered into by people (Col 1:13), and is in the midst of human life (Luke 17:21). It is then, a present reality we can participate in, and not just a future reality. Although the kingdom is here, there is also the truth that it is not yet. That is, the kingdom will be fulfilled completely at the second coming of Christ.

In the Emerging Church
There is a high emphasis on the kingdom of God in the Emerging Church. Some see this emphasis as being the single most agreed upon position in the notoriously diverse Emerging Church.

Jesus’ message of the kingdom, is held to not only to be the good news of personal salvation and a promised future in heaven, but also a call to be agents for God’s kingdom here and now. This involves not only the task of making disciples, but also working for peace, justice, and mercy in the world today. It is living for the values of God’s kingdom rather than for any of man’s values.

In practice, this kingdom focus involves a great deal of what has commonly been called social work. This is the fulfillment of the command to love our neighbors. Besides the idea of the kingdom of God, motivation for these practices is commonly drawn for the Old Testaments prophets. For example, take Isaiah 58:6-7:

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Criticism
Criticism of the Emerging Church’s focus on the Kingdom of God (from American Evangelicals) appears to come from two main areas. The first, are those who worry that the focus on the kingdom of God will produce a social gospel that minimizes or ignores the idea of individual salvation. The second set of objections come from certain quarters of strict dispensational premillennialism.

The first objection is a valid concern. As Tim Keller notes, churches have a hard time integrating both the individual (evangelism) and corporate (working for justice and peace) practices, although there is no particular reason why this should be. It probably exists somewhere, but I can say that I have not seen the neglect for individual salvation in the Emerging Church that so worries people. The idea that it is hard to hold to both the individual and corporate aspects is baffling to some in the Emerging Church, who wonder how that can be since the motivation to do both come from the same place, love of God and love of neighbor.

The concerns of some dispensational premillennialists are that the Emerging church’s focus on the kingdom of God amounts to postmillennialism, and that it leads to an errant hope that society on earth can improve. The optimism for social change (or at least the potential) in the Emerging Church does resemble that of postmillennialism. However, there is a wide diversity of views on the millennium in the Emerging Church, the main position is probably that of preferring not to take a position on the issue (other than to affirm that Christ will return).

Emerging Impulses: Narrative Theology

Published by Jasen Tracy October 22, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 21 Comments

Narrative theology is the idea that “Christian theology’s use of the Bible should focus on a narrative representation of the faith rather than the development of a set of propositions deduced from the data of revelation.¹” Theologians in the Neo-orthodox and Post-liberal traditions developed it in the 20th century.

The Bible is seen as the story of God’s interaction with his people. This does not mean that the Bible doesn’t make propositional truth claims, but that the primary purpose of scripture is to record the relationship between God and his people (and how we today can continue in this story) more than detailing a systematic theology. One result of this, is that narrative theology is less likely to pull verse out of context to support doctrinal positions.

Narrative Theology in the Emerging Church
Perhaps the most obvious influence of narrative theology in the Emerging Church is the distrust and relatively low regard for systematic theology that many have. This is because systematic theologies tend to say more than what scripture actually says, and sometimes produces a very logically consistent theology that doesn’t do justice to the nuances in scripture.

Another influence of narrative theology is that it strengthens the value of community. In modern times, people have to often made Christianity into an individual faith, but the Bible’s story of God’s relationship to his people reminds us that community is essential.

The last influence from narrative theology I wish to mention is an increased attention to the story texts in scripture, especially the Gospels. As other groups (unwittingly) emphasize the propositional parts of scripture, especially the Pauline letters, many in the Emerging Church tend to focus more on the gospels. One important aspect of this, is the much greater attention paid to Jesus’ teaching concerning the Kingdom of Heaven than it typically receives from Evangelical circles.

Changing Church Part. 6

Published by Bryan October 16, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 4 Comments

This is the final part of the Changing Church series. For reference see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Due to the size of this topic, the previous entries in this series have been all over the place. We began in the first part by identifying that a shift is taking place and pointing to some examples of that shift particularly in the Emerging Church. Then in part 2 we looked at how the historical church can be used as a critique of the modern church, and finally we have been examining some ways the evangelical church has begun to embrace its past; looking at its history (part 3), using creeds (part 4), and prayer (part 5). In this entry we will return to the to the beginning of the series and attempt to wrap it up by examining an underlying reason for this shift from an a-historical evangelical tradition to the embracing of a historical understanding of the church.

Reconnecting with Church History
Although there have been various efforts in the last couple hundred years to reconnect with church history, the current trend that we have been discussing has, for the most part, been the recent emerging church attempt. Why has the Emerging Church spearheaded such a movement? I believe there are two answers to this question.

The first was dealt with in the second post in this series; they use earlier church tradition to critique the current evangelical landscape. However, this is still only a surface level answer. There are many ways to critique the current evangelicalism without bringing in church history to the extent some in the Emerging Church wish to. Dissatisfied Evangelicals have critiqued the Evangelical churches philosophy, practices and theology often without really offering a historic critique. The deeper answer appears to lie in part with the postmodern worldview that the emerging church has (depending who you believe and look at) either adapted or is responding to.

The Post-Modern Issue
In a recent entry on this blog, Jasen discussed the relationship between post-modernism and the Emergining Church. Although it is difficult to understand what one means when they say “postmodern” these days, for the purposes of this entry I will define it simply as: “The lack of faith in meta-narratives” which follows Lyotard’s famous definition. What does this mean? Taken in a descriptive sense it means that people no longer believe in grand-overarching stories of the world. No longer for many people, particularly those younger, does communism or capitalism make sense of the world anymore. They are recognized as stories that try to make sense of the world, but can not be held universally true.

Christianity is a meta-narrative. It is a grand story that explains how the world works for everything and everyone, and because of this, it is facing a new attack. The point here is not to judge if the rejection of meta-narratives is correct, but to simply point out that this is a current challenge to Christianity. It is also not to judge if the response to this current attack on Christianity is correct. Christianity has always been under intellectual attack, and has always been devising responses. Some of these responses have done damage to the faith (consider the removing the mystical from Christianity in response to modernity), while others have often upheld it (the scientific research into Christianity also in response to modernity).

If people have begun to believe that there is no over-arching story of how the world works, but all stories are local, what are the Christian faithful to do? How are they to respond to this? There are two possibilities; one is to fight against post-modernist assumptions and show that Christianity is the only true and valid meta-narrative , or one can embrace the destruction of meta-narratives and yet try to maintain their Christian faith.

Moving Forward
If one chooses the second, as many (but not all) in the Emerging Church have done, how can they proceed? One way would be to make Christianity local. Remove it from it’s worldwide position and place it in the local context. This process was begun by Stanley Grenz (See his Renewing The Centre) who sought to make the local church the locus of Christianity. It is still unclear at this point what exactly the results of placing the local church at the forefront of Christianity will entail, but if one puts the focus on the local church, what is each church’s connection to the others? Placing emphasis on the local church disconnects it from the universal church which is how evangelicals view churches as connected.

A way to solve this, is to emphasize the historical connection between churches. This keeps Christianity local in context, but allows for meaningful connection with other local Churches around the world. Although some types of Christianity have done this throughout their history (think of Eastern Orthodox), the evangelical tradition has never emphasized its history as a way of connecting their local churches; it has always relied on a universal notion of the church to create unity.

This, I believe, is the underlying reason for the growing historical interest in the traditions of the church among evangelicals. The need to find a connection to the universal church has come to the forefront for evangelicals, and with the new challenge of post-modernism - evangelicals can no longer fall back to the common line that the universal church provides this connection. For a Christian movement that has never had a robust theology of the church, this new need to discover/create (depending on your view) this process will be slow and difficult. But it has begun and will move forward as long as people continue to lack faith in meta-narratives.

Emerging Impulses: Postmodernism

Published by Jasen Tracy October 8, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 9 Comments

I’m probably not the best one to write on this impulse, but the series would not be complete without it. Postmodern philosophy is a bit over my head. In any case, it’s not like everyone in the Emerging Church follows (or has even heard of) Jacques Derrida.

Those in the Emerging Church are more concerned with “Post-modernity,” which is roughly the culture that is resulting from the trickle down effect of postmodern philosophy. In addition, there is a realization that current ways of articulating and defending Christianity which many employ may in fact have more to do with the influence of modern philosophy, such as Foundationalism, than with actual biblical Christianity.

Postmodernism in the Emerging Church
I think I’ll let professor and famed “Jesus Creed” blogger Scot McKnight do most of the explaining. He’s written an excellent piece concerning the Emerging Church and Postmodernism, which can be found here. McKnight says that postmodernism does not reject truth, but rejects the idea that meta-narratives can be proved by rational and objective means. A meta-narrative is a “comprehensive explanation of reality,” which I think can be regarded, in terms more might be familiar with, as a systematic worldview. McKnight compares this to Augustine’s, “I believe in order to understand.” It’s similar to pressuppositional apologetics‘ defense of the need of circular reasoning when arguing for an ultimate authority.

Instead of absolute proofs, McKnight says that the “Emerging Movement form of post-modernity operates with a ‘proper confidence’ or a ‘chastened epistemology.’” Basically, this results in a view that acknowledges that all human knowledge is limited, that it is only God who is absolute truth, and that it is only God who can completely understand absolute truth. It is “by trusting in God, and by living in the way of Jesus, and by living out as a community of faith” that truth is found by Emerging types who are postmodernist (which not all are).

Just as no one asks for a rational proof for love, Christianity does not need to be (and cannot be according to some) proved in a rational, objective fashion. The focus for emerging types is not on proof, but on faith and trust in God. As McKnight wrote,

I know Jesus died for me not because I can prove it but because I trust God’s work in Jesus Christ. That is the only kind of proof I can offer for love. I love, therefore, I know I love and am loved.

Changing Church: Part 5

Published by Bryan October 2, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 17 Comments

This is part 5 of a 6 part series

Recently I finished the book Praying With The Church by Scot McKnight. The book is a look at different traditions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and roughly protestant ecumenical) of communal prayer. It’s an important book because it seeks to introduce protestants from non-liturgical traditions (Baptists, Charismatics, E-Free Church…etc) to a type of highly liturgical prayer.

Within the vast majority of evangelical protestant churches, prayer is strictly an individual endeavor. Yes, many churches have prayer meetings where the church gathers to pray, but the prayers that are offered are all individual prayers. Each person prays what is “on their heart,” others may agree and nod, or pray along similar lines, but it is really praying alone in a group. There is nothing wrong with this type of prayer of course, as McKnight makes clear, there is a time and place for it, but it has become the only type of prayer many protestants know.

Historical Corporate Prayer
If one is serious about looking at church history, one must look at the type of prayers offered up by past generations; both their content and their form. It is clear that praying alone in a group as we do now has not been the only way the church has historically prayed. Set prayers, at set times, is a tradition reaching back into Judaism and was employed right from the early church to today. Yet for fear of participating in “vain repetitions” and being “too Catholic” the majority of evangelical protestants have given up this tradition long ago. But should we have?

Much like reading through and reciting the creeds of the church can connect one to the past (as discussed in the last entry) so too can prayers anchor a person in the historic church. One of the major shaping factors of any group is its practice. This is even more true with prayer. I’ve heard the expression before from evangelicals that “you are what you pray” meaning that your prayer life will direct the type of person you become. If that is the case I want to be one who is conscious of my history.

The daily prayers of various traditions not only teach us a lot about where they come from - they go beyond academic knowledge and offer us new ways of looking at God outside of our tradition. Today in our churches, prayers of every kind are often offered up “off the cuff.” Little thought is put into the words used to describe God, man, and our relationship, often leading to clumsy wording that listeners find hard to follow or at worst promote incorrect teaching.

One of the beauties of set prayers is that a tradition has often wrestled with these prayers for ages. They are detailed, theologically set out prayers that one should have no problem learning from. Emphasis put on the central themes of scripture (Christ, sin, repentance, gospel) and not on whatever the preacher feels the congregation needs today (which is important but must be balanced with the whole of scripture).

Vain Repetitions or Consistent Communication?
The evangelical argument against set prayers is that they constitute “vain reputations”, but does repeating the same prayers each morning (with some changes) make for vain reputations? If we think about the words, and mean them is that vain?

There is a danger yes, one may start to only say them without thinking and without meaning them, but doesn’t that same danger exist with “off the cuff” prayers? If one has been in the church for a few years, you know how to formulate a prayer that sounds good, means nothing, and keeps the people around you happy. Vain reputations is not a scourge only on set prayers but exists on all types of prayers: it should not be an excuse to discount one type but instead to redouble the efforts to mean what you pray and think about it.

To go into detail about how to begin praying set prayers is beyond the scope of this post. McKnight’s book seems to be a good place to start. I myself have begun this past week to attend Anglican morning prayers each Friday for, among other reasons, to learn more about this tradition and develop the habit of praying with those who have come before me in the church. I loved the experience this past week.

Emerging Impulses: Rejecting Fundamentalism

Published by Jasen Tracy October 1, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 31 Comments

Several Emerging Church leaders were raised in Fundamentalist churches. This includes Brian McLaren, who has admitted that as a result of his experiences, he is harder on Fundamentalists than he is on other Christian groups. More generally, there is no doubt that a reaction against Fundamentalism has played a role in the development of the Emerging Church.

The Fundamentals
Originally, Fundamentalist referred to those in the early 20th century that sought to defend what they viewed as the fundamentals of the Christian faith against attack from Christian liberals and modernists. Precisely what the fundamentals were varied slightly, but they generally included most of the following: the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the historical authenticity of miracles and the imminent return of Christ.

On these doctrines the Emerging Church ranges from people like Dan Kimball, who is in essential agreement with the list, only preferring words such as “infallible” and “authoritative” instead of “inerrant” and preferring to leave the specific timing of Christ’s return as an issue on which disagreement is acceptable (which would place him squarely with many conservative Evangelicals) to people like McLaren, who also doesn’t like using “inerrant” (seeing that as a term resulting more from modernistic philosophy than from scripture itself), rejects the idea that substitutionary atonement is the sole way of picturing atonement (more on this in a future article) and has been highly critical of premillenial dispensationalism. However, no Emerging Church leader has, to my knowledge, rejected the virgin birth, the deity and bodily resurrection of Christ or the authenticity of miracles.

But by rejecting Fundamentalism, I don’t mean what is commonly called theology, but the legalism, separatist tendencies, mean-spiritedness, and conservative political activism, that has too often typified it.

Legalism
One issue for concern is Fundamentalism’s (real and/or perceived) legalism. Absolute prohibitions against such things as drinking alcohol, smoking, and dancing have often marked Fundamentalism, but are soundly rejected by Emerging types. Not only are they seen as fostering a poor “rule-keeping” approach to Christianity, the rules themselves are non-Biblical or even at times anti-Biblical.

Separatist Tendency
Traditionally, Fundamentalists stressed separation from the world. This began to decline after the rise of Neo-Evangelicalism beginning in the 1950’s. It’s influence can still be seen in Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical circles, by people who only listen to Christian music, insist on sending their kids to Christian schools or in home schooling them, only supporting Christian bookstores, etc. A rather hardline stance can be seen here [link plays music]. I think I’ve covered in other impulses why the Emerging Church rejects this view.

Mean-Spiritedness
From the despicable actions of extremists like Fred Phelps, to mainstream Fundamentalists, such as the recently deceased Jerry Falwell (who made statements saying groups such as “pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians” helped the September 11th attacks happen and labeling the people of a gay church as “brute beats”), the public face of Fundamentalism has often come across as hateful. Homosexuals in particular appear to be a group that Fundamentalists have a problem, following the old adage of “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

Besides such mean-spiritedness, those in the Emerging church take issues with how Fundamentalists harp on certain sins, in effect making some of them to be qualitatively worse sins than others.

Conservative Political Activism
Starting in the 1970’s, Fundamentalists started to make a strong impact in American politics, marking a departure from their traditional separatism, under which politics were often ignored. With the rise of such groups as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, Fundamentalists, along with many Evangelicals, made a large impact on politics indeed. Fundamentalist have in fact become so entrenched in political causes, that many have come to see political, and not religious issues, as their defining characteristics.

Other Christian groups, including many in the Emerging Church, have worried that this political emphasis can lead to a synergistic religion, wherein love for God and country, as well as Christianity and conservative politics are blended. Some have called for Christians to have a “purple” politics, in which they are not united squarely with either conservative or liberal politics. It is a concern, though, that some in the Emerging Church, such as Brian McLaren, may be in danger of combining Christianity with liberal politics.

How Christians should act politically in a democracy is not an easy question, but I do think it would be a step forward if we could stop making assumptions about people’s spiritual life based on their politics, which unfortunately happens far to often.

Questions from a Skeptic

Published by Darius T September 26, 2007 in General, Religion and Emerging Church. 30 Comments

Considering that the emerging church movement (EC) is a popular topic on this blog and that the articles written thus far have not appeared to be critical of or even acknowledge some of the more questionable aspects of the EC, I felt that for my first (and maybe last, depending on how this goes) guest article, I would address some of my perceptions of the weaknesses of the EC. If I am unnecessarily hard on the EC (hopefully that is not the case), it is partly because I wish to balance those who are unnecessarily easy on it. If I get another opportunity to post on here, I hope to share a review of D.A. Carson’s book, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.

Until then, and without any mention of he who shall not be named in fear of political spammers (nope, I’m not referring to Alan Keyes)… here is a video of Solomon’s Porch, one of the premier emerging churches in the country, located in Minneapolis. Presumably, this video was filmed and edited by Solomon’s Porch (SP from now on) members with the intention that all that is shown is representative of SP’s beliefs and church structure.

Since the video mostly entails short snippets of quotes from different members of the church (including Doug Pagitt, its leader and founder), it is difficult for a viewer to do much more than “read between the lines” of what is said. With that in mind, I have decided that the best way to begin a discussion of the potential worries I have with SP (and other ECs) is to pose some questions in response to what is heard on the video.

We just knew that the way that we had done Christianity all of our lives was no longer a viable option anymore. - Unidentified man

Why was your Christianity not viable? And if this new way is no longer “viable” and is biblically-justifiable, shouldn’t this apply to all Christians? If so, why? If not, what makes it right for SP but not the rest of the Church?

Solomon’s Porch began in Jan. 2000 and it’s a church… - Pagitt

What is your definition of a “church” (in particular, in the context used here, the small “c” version)? And what should be the ultimate goal and “target audience” of a church? I would say that a Christian “church” is a gathering of believers in Jesus that allows for fellowship, teaching from the Scriptures, and worship of the Triune God. Thus, the goal would be to facilitate the abovementioned functions with a “target audience” of Christ-confessing believers.

Ultimately, community that is Christian needs to be a community of love. - Pagitt

I concur. However, how do you define love? Is it defined as only encouraging, “nice” behavior toward others or does love also involve reproach, Godly criticism, and correction?

For example, there is no statement of belief at this church or statement of faith. There is not like a set-in-stone theological writing that everyone in this church has to adhere to. Because everyone does have different ideas and all of those ideas are important and valued. It is very cooperative that way.” - Unidentified woman

A statement of faith is probably not always necessary, but having no theological beliefs to which to hold is preferable?? Does this mean that not every member of Solomon’s Porch has to adhere to the Bible and its teachings? Or what about the cardinal Christian doctrines, like the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus, and the atonement (to name a few)? Also, what if someone has a wrong idea about God? Why is that valued? How does this compare to the Bible’s constant teaching that there is no place in the church for wrong ideas about God (Titus 1, 2 John 1:10, etc.), implying that not all “ideas are important and valued.”

Things run into far more trouble when there is a strong authority structure because they always go bad. Look at government, the history of governments, the history of countries, look at the history of monarchies, you look at the history of the church. The larger and more powerful and dominant the structure is, the more deeply flawed it will become… Okay, so our community meets in the round, so we face each other. And if we say we believe that people matter and that the spirit of God moves in people, that there is no person that has a privileged place to speak about God in our community over anyone else, that everyone has the right to speak for God, then we should try to level the structure and the playing field as much as possible so that can happen. - Pagitt

It would seem that in protesting strong authority, you have neglected the inherent problems of a weak authority structure and the fact that many New Testament apostles specifically set up authority structures to defend against false teaching and to strengthen the congregation. How do you defend against heresy or weak theology at SP with supposedly no authority structure? What if someone stands up and says that Jesus didn’t really die as a ransom for our sins; rather, He died to give us a perfect example of love. Or if someone claims that the Trinity doesn’t exist? Is there someone who will speak loving correction to those errors? Or is it left to each person to figure out for him or herself what is true?

How does everyone having “the right to speak for God” jive with what the Word says in Romans about everyone in the Body having different gifts? After all, some are given the gift to teach, and have been trained in and studied the Bible at length, while others are gifted in other ways and have not done the type of study necessary to teach the Scriptures to others. Where in Scripture do you find support for this anti-authority ideal?

Early on, people got together and said, “Hey, should we do communion?” Yeah, let’s do communion. How should we do communion? I’ve heard the kingdom of God is supposed to be like a house party, so let’s do communion like a house party. - Unidentified man

When you “do communion,” where is the focus? Is it primarily on the community of believers or is it on Christ and His sacrifice?

All that hokie “What Would Jesus Do” stuff came from a very good spot. If Jesus were walking in the flesh, if this has been the time that he had been incarnated, what would be the issues that would be on his plate? I believe that you better bet it would be racism, and it would be environment, and it would be globalization, and it would be feeding the masses, and it would be these sorts of things. - Unidentified woman

Where does repentance of sins and worship of a holy God fall? Sixth, seventh? Ok, perhaps I’m being too harsh. But I am definitely sensing a pattern here where the primary aspects of the gospel are being ignored or pushed aside for the peripheral. As for the issues listed, what Biblical text lends you to believe that they would be significant to Jesus? After all, Jesus didn’t even bother to mention fighting against slavery, and were that still going on today, don’t you think that would be more important than protecting the environment? Instead, Jesus seemed to focus on repentance (Mark 1:15), caring for the downtrodden on an individual level, following God with your heart, etc.

I see the Bible changing, I don’t see it as stagnant. So for us as a community of Christians to say you need to believe this one thing and hold it tightly and make sure it is never questioned. That’s a real waste of energy with all things we could be doing in the world. - Unidentified woman

To me this is the silliest and possibly most troubling quote in the video. Two things. One, why is the Bible changing now when it seemed to not be changing when Jesus walked the earth? After all, didn’t Jesus constantly refer back to thousand-year-old Scriptures to correct people? Did Jesus think they were changing? Perhaps I misunderstand; what exactly about the Bible is changing? Second, here we are again, protesting an exaggeration of the truth and not understanding what the Scriptures teach. After all, didn’t Jesus spend a monumental amount of his energy correcting people’s wrong ideas and making sure that they believed correctly? Does not Titus 1:11 say that false teachers “must be silenced”? Or 2 John 1:10 inform us that we are not to welcome false teachers into our homes?

We deal injustice happening around us and within us. It’s that sense of entering into the mess and being okay with the fact that we’re pretty screwed up in actuality. - Unidentified woman

At what point do we leave the mess behind as a community of believers and “be perfect as [our] heavenly Father is perfect?”

I have no agenda to grow and convince people of things that they don’t want to be convinced of. That seems to be the least gracious, kind, and loving thing you can do; to go disturb someone who chooses not to be disturbed. I think places like ours are maybe hope-producing for people who are already disturbed and hope that there is another option. - Pagitt

Perhaps something else was meant here, but isn’t this the EXACT OPPOSITE of the gospel? By this definition, wasn’t Jesus very ungracious, unkind, and unloving when he told the rich young ruler that he had to sell all of his possessions to make it to heaven? After all, the young man obviously didn’t want to be convinced of that. Would you say that your church is more for pre-Christians who want to dabble on the edges of Christianity, trying it out for a season before deciding whether or not to stay with that religion, instead of Christians who are looking to grow deeper in their walk with the Lord?

I am genuinely interested in answers to these questions. Hopefully, via the comment section, this can initiate some good discussion regarding this article and video. Ultimately, my interest is not to aim “friendly fire” onto fellow believers, but that Jesus and His holy Word would prevail.

Emerging Impulses: Community

Published by Jasen Tracy September 24, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 10 Comments

Emerging churches tend to place a high value on community. For the many dictionary enthusiasts, I’ll point out that it is definition 3b I’m using: “Sharing, participation, and fellowship.” According to Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger in their book, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures -

Emerging churches destroy the Christendom idea that church is a place, a meeting or a time. Church is a way of life, a rhythm, a community, a movement.

Emerging Church types recognize that it’s not possible to live a true Christian life apart from sharing life with a group of people who are seeking to live in the way of Jesus. Emerging churches often meet in small groups, not only to have Bible study and prayer, but also to just spend time together in general.

Small groups are not new to the American church scene, and not all emerging churches have them. However, Emerging churches tend to have small groups more often and place more emphasis on them than other churches do, often to the point that it’s in the small groups where “church” really takes place. This demonstrates the trend in some Emerging churches to de-emphasize the importance of the Sunday morning service (the center, if not the sole, event of many churches). This is done in order to focus more on other events throughout the week, such as the previously mentioned small groups and activities that seek to connect the church with the non-believing communities they find themselves in.

Community is not just something that is merely surface level, but it seeks to be authentic, allowing people to be honest and open about themselves and the problems they are facing. In some churches, especially those influenced by prosperity “gospel,” people find this difficult to do. Emerging churches highly value this type of transparency.

This sense of community is not merely important for the sake of the people of the church, but it is also the best witness to the non-believing world. As Lesslie Newbigin put it:

How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross? I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it.

Zeal For Truth