Trick-or-Treat? What Does It Mean to be Unified in Christ?

 

Frankly, I don't follow Christianity Today (CT) any more. I use to care greatly about what they thought and published but since my "rebirth" from my evangelical stupor over the past dozen years and more I have found CT, its contributors, and its selective readings of today's theological issues, topics, and ideas, naïve at best, and dissembling at worst. 

dis·sem·ble

 

/dɪˈsɛm bəl/  verb, dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling.

verb (used with object)
 

1. to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of: to dissemble one's incompetence in business.

2. to put on the appearance of; feign: to dissemble innocence.

3. Obsolete . to let pass unnoticed; ignore.

 

Today's article from October 22nd more than proves my point. Here, Christena Cleveland gives an agreeable argument for the necessity of embracing Christian unity in its diversity of cultural ideas, theology, and adaptation of Christianity, uplifting difference and dissimilarity as admiral marks of any mature organization, religion, or faith. And in reply comes CT's officious proclamation under an amanuensis (sic, a person employed to write what another dictates, or to copy what has been written by another; a secretary.) that these ideas are agreeable to a point before marking off uncrossable sanctioned barriers. Barriers which, if crossed, makes a Christian anathema to their (evangelical) faith, to be described in whispered tones of being (or becoming) a false prophet carrying an unchristian gospel only worthy of biblical rebuke, reproof, condemnation, judgment and wrath. Where such a one is to be abandoned from the hallowed halls of the body of Christ unless an acceptable level of "homogeneity" is restored in balance with the general beliefs and tenets of evangelicalism's main ideas and message.

 

Hence, while Cleveland argues for the idea of unity within an enlarged Christian fellowship beyond the more restrictive definitions of its borders and boundaries, CT's reviewer rejects this auspicious idea by warning that it is a ruse, or a trick, to get Christians to betray their faith:

 

"While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not." - CT

 

In effect, to bear the attitude of a general Christian acceptance of a (non-evangelic) brother or sister falls under the Halloween-like guise of conveying a godly "love and unity" which is basically a slick authorial "trick" or rubric that would open up any culpable reader to the dangers of moving away from the bastions of evangelical Christendom. The reviewer goes on to suggest that to take the author's attitudinal perspective would be like departing from the "narrow road" cautiously travelled unto an exiting off-ramp leading to a "larger road" of certain spiritual death, misleading ideas, and a disingenuous Gospel. Though the idea is good, it is not good enough when it leads to unsanctioned biblical ideas and teachings.

 

"Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived." - CT

 

In sanctimonious unction the reviewer than proclaims the preferred "contextual" reading of 1 John 4 by qualifying Jesus' admonition to love one another with the apostle John's further admonition to hold to Jesus' incarnation (v.15)... or, in modern evangelical parlance, to only love those who are of the same doctrinal "brotherhood." Suggesting that all other Jesus-followers are not of God, but false and untrue. To this arena of demarcation we then get the unstated rubric of the three kinds of biblical "love" in the Bible - eros, phileo, and agape (translated: deeply passionate love; brotherly love within the church's fellowship; and godly love for those outside the church; as it is normally described).

 

The idea being here of carefully qualifying who is "in" or "not in" the true church's fellowship. And in this sense, to beware of deceptive ruses suggesting indiscriminately love in Christ as a binding blinder so that its participants become unaware of the false gospel that it conveys. A gospel bourne of false prophets and teachers. Not that this reviewer suggests that Cleveland is a charlatan, just that her idea contributes to the unqualified idea of an indiscriminate love that can be hazardous to evangelicalism's stricter theological walls of "biblical truth." Choosing always for truth over love, rather than love over truth. For those who wish this latter course, beware the larger consequences of becoming proselytized to a more worldly, less "Christianized" ideas beyond one's current fellowship. It is a message of fear. And unduly so as I will explain.

 

For the "trick" here is actually a "treat" not cooked in a witch's brew of discord and canker, but in the delights of discovering a newer, unbounded land of freedom shed of its religious blinders and deceptions. Which brings me to my reasons for leaving the attitudinal boundaries of my more restrictive evangelicalism, to a broader definition of what my Christian faith should bear. Yes, I believe in an incarnate Christ. It is one of the bedrocks of my faith. But I no longer qualify my faith by an adherence to evangelicalism's ideas of strict inerrancy, spontaneous creation, a dipolar God, a gospel of wrath, judgment, and exclusivity, nor any other dozens of qualifiers.

 

I have decided to "progress" beyond my formerly closed theological boundaries to a more open center-set nexus of a Jesus-centered faith. That is, a faith in which Jesus is first, and not my beliefs about my Christian religion first. To be marked as a Jesus follower rather than a follower of my temple, my church, my dogma, doctrine, or religious tribe. It is less rigid, more reflective, more open and accepting of postmodernism, and of science in general. It grants to biblical studies a historical, narrative theology and multi-vocal biblical hermeneutic, that leads out in unconditional, non-qualifying love that is inclusive and not exclusive. That serves others and not itself. And does not lead out in judgment and condemnation, or by denominational drivers or doctrinal barriers.

 

It is postmodern, emergent, and progressive in traditional Christian orthodoxies by updating one-and-all with today's newer research and biblical discoveries. Importantly, it is willing to critique its former idea of itself by deconstructive and reconstructive philosophical elements. Is unafraid of its doubts about God, His Word, or of the church in general. Does not have the incessant demand of needing answers and solutions to every event or mystery uncovered in the Bible or within our lives (that is, it tries to be non-apologetic realizing that all apologies but support their own narrower epistemologies even as I am doing now in this apology for my faith :/ ). Is critical of itself, its epistemologies, and its pride, and is properly confessional where, and when, this is possible. It is active in Christian love and reclamation of people in humanitarian projects; this Earth in ecological restoration; and in philosophic discussions. At the last, it is an apocalyptic Christian faith that doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but to become in our midst."

 

Though CT's reviewer likes the idea of unity within the Church it must be a unified church around his own ideas of what the Christian faith is - as set out in its dogmas and doctrines. By this admission, unity is a good thing, but it can also be a lamentable thing should it disrupt and destroy the fabric of evangelicalism as it is presently understood by its official organs of media dissemination (churches, schools, seminaries, and so forth).In the process, it refuses genuine discussion and openness to biblical movement and sway, preaching fear instead of hope; blind allegiance to its binding agencies; and exclusion to any unlike itself. It has become its own templed bastion similar to the Pharisaical Jewish laws and teachings in Jesus' day needing its pillars broken, and dividing curtain ripped in twain, that the Word of God's good news can be released to all of mankind, and not to the elected few.

 

So then, what does it mean to be unified in Christ? Is it a trick, or is it a treat? For many Christians they see it as a trick. But for some, they have unexpectedly discovered it to be a great, sumptuous treat that will last far beyond the sugar-rush of evangelical doctrine. It is become a hollowed celebration of freedom and not a Halloween of dungeons and dragons, if I may misuse the adage. To those few adventurers, be worthy of your exploration to God's unknown lands of bounty awaiting you. As Joshua's spies soon discovered, they dwelt in a land of "milk and honey," though they rightfully feared the "giants" of their day. For such explorers our giants have become bound Christian tradition against a rampant atheism set abroad and about. It will take the wisdom of God to search out and reclaim by the power of His Spirit in loving proclaim.

 

R.E. Slater

October 31, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden
Forces that Keep Us Apart

 

 

 

Why Don't We Recognize God's Gift of Diversity?http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/channel/comments/allreviews.html?id=112413&type=article

 

by Paul Louis Metzger

October 22, 2013

Comments

 

Christena Cleveland examines the cultural differences

that frustrate the quest for Christian unity.

 

Christians value Jesus' prayer that they—his followers—may be as one (John 17:22–23). But valuing Christian unity is not the same as realizing it. Sometimes we settle for bland homogeneity rather than delighting in the church's mix of cultures, ethnicities, and social backgrounds. Those like me who work deliberately to cultivate Christian unity face trials and failures along the way. Despite our good intentions, we end up getting mean and nasty, or just plain weary, hurt, and discouraged. Why?

 

Individual personalities, faults, and sins are not the only factors. Group dynamics also make a difference. "Sometimes," according to social psychologist Christena Cleveland, "we are affected in hidden ways by those around us. The values and perceptions of the groups with which we identify can have a covert effect on us."

 

Where can we turn for assistance? In Disunity in Christ: Uncovering the Hidden Forces That Keep Us Apart (InterVarsity Press), Cleveland helps readers view people of diverse cultural backgrounds as God's gifts, not thorns in the flesh. She provides invaluable insights, practical recommendations, and tools to help the Christian community identify and address the dynamics that fracture Christ's body.

 

Cleveland's analysis tackles difficult questions about the social forces that frustrate our quest for unity. What leads people to associate with those who are similar, while distancing themselves from diverse others? What causes us to categorize other groups in distorted ways? How do social identity and self-esteem play into group perceptions of others? How do "cultural threats" lead us to approach other groups with hostility? And how do cultural influences shape beliefs and practices in limiting and divisive ways?

 

Cleveland does not discount substantive ideological and cultural differences or deny how hard it is to discard our various "labels." She agrees that principles and theological convictions are important. But "the trick is to wisely use our Christian friends' ideology to humble us, strengthen us, and enhance our understanding of God and the role we're called to play in his kingdom."

 

While I find this "trick" beneficial, it does not fit every scenario. As an evangelical theologian committed to ecumenical unity framed by grace and truth, I wish Cleveland would have helped distinguish more clearly between areas where theological reconciliation is possible and areas where it is not.

 

Take, for example, 1 John 4:18 ("There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"), to which Cleveland refers briefly in her treatment of the culture wars. The epistle's emphasis on love in chapter 4 appears only after a renunciation of teachers who deny the Incarnation. While doctrinal differences can be used to humble, strengthen, and enhance our perspectives, they often convey unbridgeable boundaries. "Perfect love" insists on certain rightful boundaries between truth and falsehood. This is not because we "fear" those on the other side, but because out of love we don't want them to be deceived.

 

My hope, ultimately, is that Disunity in Christ will create new momentum toward fulfilling Jesus' prayer for unity amongst his followers. Those involved in building and supporting multiethnic Christian communities will be moved by Cleveland's stories, perspectives, and gracious spirit. Her book will, I hope, help us resolve generational, economic, political, and theological differences—and teach us to see that, truly, we are better off together.

 

Paul Louis Metzger is professor of theology at Multnomah Biblical Seminary. He is the author of Consuming Jesus: Beyond Race and Class Divisions in a Consumer Church (Eerdmans) and coauthor of Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Brazos).

 

 

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"

 

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"






 

The Impracticality of Thinking that Tradition and Conservatism Must Never Change

I was sent this article over the weekend by a friend, and after reading it, thought that it promoted the kind of intellectual environment that we have been promoting here at Relevancy22 these past several years. Not many articles ago this past month (August 2013) I was saying these same things and more. And so, I wish to add Dennis Bratcher's voice with mine own to let the reader know that within the ivory towers of conservative Christianity there must be space made for present-era dialogue lest error and lost proceed apace to the church's harm.

R.E. Slater

September 1, 2013

"But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you

leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it

to a torrent of change."  - G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (chpt 7)

"I think a lack of courage among many leaders to address these issues in the past is one

of the factors in the consequences we are reaping today in the militant conservatism

seen in some organized groups...."  - Dennis Bratcher


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Change and Conservatism

http://www.crivoice.org/changeconservatism.html

by Dennis Bratcher

March 26, 2013

In many areas of the American religious scene, there are increasing conflicts between younger idealistic post-moderns who advocate changes in the Church and traditionalists (of any age) who want little or nothing in the Church to change. While the roots of this conflict are complex, related to shifts in culture, fresh ways of thinking, and changing technology, it is not especially a new problem. Even Jesus ran into opposition from traditionalists who tried desperately to hold onto traditions while he advocated reforms to both ways of thinking and practice.

One difference today is that new communication technologies accelerate the agitation for immediate changes to institutional structures and established ways of doing things, inconsistencies between theological ideals and practice, or even traditional ways of thinking. And that creates an impatience with the rate of change. The danger this produces within the Church when combined with postmodern ways of thinking is a risk of destructive fragmentation as younger church people give up on the traditionalists as outdated and irrelevant, and the traditionalists give up on the younger people as abandoning the Faith.

In many cases, both traditionalists who want the status quo, and advocates of change, have the best of motives. Many traditionalists see changes as threatening the truth of God, and understand that the stability of that truth within the Church is threatened by change. Yet, I have talked to many twenty-something and thirty-something Church people and pastors who sincerely desire changes in order to better express the Faith in a culture that has significantly shifted how it views the world and life in the past twenty years. So the problem is not just a "right" and a "wrong" side. The issue is how do we live together as people of God without continually fragmenting into groups dominated by self-interest rather than united as the Body of Christ.

Some say that we just need to trust the grace of God, that he will work it all out. And yet others rightly note that historically change has not come to the People of God without intentional effort. Certainly, God's grace can change anyone. But there is a truth in Andy Warhol's comment, "They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."

I am totally convinced that a large part of the task, even the calling, of ministers and church leaders today, especially in more conservative/traditionalist contexts, is to facilitate change in a constructive, positive way. It is not change for the sake of change but more a matter of relating Faith to a changing world. Otherwise, the way we express our Faith will be rooted in the traditionalist structures associated with an earlier time and place, and be more a testimony to our own past than a witness to other people in the present and future.

In some sense, that was a major part of the teachings and ministry of Jesus, as he called people to move out of the security created and protected by their traditionalism, and embrace a newness that was really the heart of who they had always been beyond their self-imposed insulation (for example, John 13:34, 1 John 2:7-8, 2 John 1:4; the story of Tevye in The Fiddler on the Roof is a good example of such tensions). It is risky, as Jesus well illustrates. And it takes time and patience. But that is the reality of the Church in which we live and minister today.

G. K. Chesterton wrote:

But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. [Orthodoxy, chapter 7]

In other words, if we do not openly and lovingly address the problems inherent in unbridled and unexamined religious conservatism/traditionalism in a rapidly changing world, we leave people to the mercy of cultural and historical changes without adequate intellectual and spiritual resources to deal with them. Rather than preserving the Faith, such conservatism will inherently deteriorate the Faith.

For example, I think a lack of courage among many leaders to address these issues in the past is one of the factors in the consequences we are reaping today in the militant conservatism seen in some organized groups (see Neo-fundamentalism). Some of these groups try to purge educational institutions and churches of any who suggest or advocate any kind of changes to ethical standards (such as suggesting that total abstinence from alcohol is an ethical choice not a law of God), who offer any alternatives to traditionalist interpretation of Scripture (such as supporting women in ministry), or who suggest that science and religion can be compatible (the old creation versus evolution debates).

That does not mean that we must be militant in return. But it does mean that we must have the courage, and the patience, to speak the truth, to teach faithfully and lovingly, to nurture people both intellectually and spiritually, to be openly honest about who we are and who we are not, and allow God to work. We must trust God that "means of grace" includes our ministry, that God can use our commitment to people and the Church as the Body of Christ (not just an institution) to transform not only individual lives but also the corporate community.

In other words, we need both the grace of God and the commitment of people who work hard at constructive positive change while they trust that grace. Zechariah was right when he gave this word to the people concerning re-building the Jerusalem temple after it was destroyed by the Babylonians:

He said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might,

nor by power, but by my spirit, says the LORD of hosts." - Zech 4:6

But then Haggai was also right when he admonished the people that there were practical things to be done to accomplish the same project.

Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house... - Hag 1:8

Sometimes, we must work hard to facilitate the building of the Church and the Kingdom of God.  Yet it is not all dependent on our efforts.  Our primary responsibility is to live faithfully as the people of God. Part of that may be to point out the follies of the Church, as well as to recognize our own limitations and need for spiritual growth. Part of that may even to be a prophetic voice calling for change and reform, and working as best we can to accomplish those changes without destroying or damaging what we are trying to change.

But finally, we are not responsible for the change. We can cut down the trees. But it is God who builds his temple and brings about his Kingdom (see Divine-Human Synergism in Ministry). If we do not recognize that, as either traditionalists or reformers, whatever we manage to preserve or change will not be about God but about us.

Are You Missional or Are You Emergent? Is There a Difference?

 

"... Certainly the love of God has made fools of us all."

- R.E. Slater                                            

Voices of Dissent - Unfolding God's Love Within the Heart and Conscience of Humanity                            

 

 

During the past 2 years I have found myself working at defining just what Emergent, Postmodern Christianity might be - as versus what many people think that it is, including Emergency's own circle of "inner disciples." My interest was to define Reformed Christianity and its Classic Theology into more sustainable forms of biblical witness - one that would bring the best of biblical thinking and missional practice into focus. Initially (as can be read in my first six months of blogging) I was interesting in determining what Emergent (or, Emerging) Christianity was not, when played against louder evangelical  voices offering their own cross-flicted opinions as to what transformational Christianity for the 21st Century should be. But immediately after this time I become convicted to speak of a Christianity on a more positive, broader plane of endeavor that could embrace all kinds of people and Christian faiths.... To find a Jesus that reached out to everyone, and not just a select few who happened to hold the "right" views of the Bible.

I also became quite concerned as to how to discern the Scriptures in a very high sense while allowing other human academic disciplines to come alongside to help in understanding God's Word in approaches that might lean towards an "anthropological hermeneutic." As such, I was not put off by trying to "contain" the free speech and insight of "unsanctified others" (per the many alarmed denunciations of my evangelical movement) - even if those voices, in some cases, arose from within anti-God, or atheistic contexts. I realized very early that part of this reconstructive effort would necessarily involve de/constructing "official" Christian-understanding and dogmatic platforms across a wide variety of church doctrines and dogmas. The other effort would be fraught in re/constructing (the preferred theo/sophical term is "reinterpreting" per Paul Ricoeur, the noted French Theologian and Philosopher) the Bible's revelatory structure of multi-vocality as seen within its many ancient narrative stories recounted by both pagan and believer; its lost linguistical backgrounds contained within very ancient socio-personal contexts that we think we understand but probably don't based upon the many varied opinions by scholar and exegete; and, the Bible's overwhelming variety of interpretive hermeneutics as evidenced by personal, societal, and religious restatements recited across its well-leafed pages. Especially as it was relevant within our own contemporary, post-modern, post-secular epoch underscored by a rapidly spreading, social media technology, being flung across a wide variety of formerly culturally-contained, pluralistic, multi-ethnic global societies seeking communication with with one another (whether fairly, or equitably, is another question left for another time). Throughout most of this transitionary period I had this strong sense of the Spirit of God pushing me forward into new, unfamiliar, expansive theological landscapes, while at the same time helping me to resist spinning backwards into the safer, traditional, paradigms of propositional Christianity bounded off by offsetting Christian sentiment and-or willful prejudicial platforms.

Nor did I wish to recreate a Christian faith or theology that was exclusivistic, legalistic, or active in some new form of separatistic conservatism. No. It had to be incarnational (Jesus for today), missional (God's Kingdom for today), expressive (relevant in word and deed), and universal in message and medium. Meaning that no one should be excluded from God's good news in Christ. That no one should be excluded from God's redeeming love. That no one should be left standing out on the byways of the Church of God. That the love of God demanded valuing one another in such a way that it created charitable communities of generous fellowship and goodwill. These latter expressions of worth and value are especially of high interest when working towards expressing an expansive, contemporary Gospel... Especially when viewing Playstation and X-box games filled with blood, killing, and uplifting self against the world. Or in the daily portrayal of our world at war with itself, as it consistently refuses peace and goodwill while always in pursuit of nationalistic agendas, unjust sociological promotions, or the ecological rape and pillage of the Earth. Contrary to man's agendas and interests is God's agendas and interests that promotes charity, worth, value, and community. This, to me, was the good news of the Gospel worth proclaiming against man's own agendas of monopolistic greed ushered under the thin veneers of adjudicating democracies or totalitarian regimes.

So then, words like post-positional, post-attractional, post-universal, post-Christiandom would not be words that would put me so easily off - or at a disadvantage - but would cause me to "double-down" in locating discussions and fellowships that could intelligently discern what was meant by these terms. Especially when flung cryptically through the ether from the more traditional pulpits I was familiar with that fled to the refuges of past, out-moded Christian doctrines under new words like neo-Calvinism, neo-Reformed, Radical Orthodoxy (which is distinctly different from Radical Theology, which is a postmodern, emergent term, describing the general future direction of Christian theology), or even various shades of "progressivism." If Christianity was to flourish, and become a message embraced by all people everywhere, than Jesus must be its center; our faith be returned to a child-like state freed of adult fears and socio-political boundaries; and, God's divine love and atoning redemption needed to be better understood.

Hence, to claim a "prodigal Christianity" as David Fitch has, as a re-incarnated form of a more "progressive" contemporary Christianity (ala Anabaptism), wasn't the direction I really was looking for when learning of the term "missional" being bantered about by many well-read evangelics across the worlds of evangelicalism by banner, headline, or punchline. Nor did I suspect that it had become God's newest form of ministry to the world at large. Though it may be more antiseptically palatable to traditional congregations unwilling to de/construct their personal beliefs, and religious platforms, it doesn't really challenge the traditional church to change its old ways and views... only to cling to them all the tighter while pretending itself to be epistemological "progressive" and contemporarily "relevant" in its global witness. Overall, I like the emphasis Anabaptism places upon ministry, witness, worship, and prayer, but I also fear that it would not allow its congregants great enough latitude to grow beyond the boundaries of traditional Christianity while mis-believing themselves to be "progressive" in tone and temperament. Certainly it seems like a "big" move forward, or as a way out of the "evangelical-box" that has been created in the name of Jesus, but it still brings a lot of traditional, classical baggage with it requiring "reformation" in presentation and discussion, attitude and approach, work and deed. A reformation that Emergent Christianity already had started in the early 1990s, and is even now resetting once again in light of conflicted social platforms and transparent postmodern movements (meaning that Emergent Christianity is changing as a movement, just as we do ourselves as people, from decade to decade, life stage to life stage, as it matures in message and content).

Hence, my understanding of a relevant Christianity must be one that includes re-visioning and re-imaging the church.... A church which might have to be burned down before it can arise up again from its denominational ashes like that of Jesus life and ministry (which more-or-less is classic Emergent doctrine). But unlike the past, today's new Emergent Christians must be willing to push forward beyond Evangelic Christian doctrines in a positivistic sense of health and healing. For not all can remain ashes for long. One must begin anew rebuilding a theologic house in which to live... but importantly, one that is Emergent in temperament, and expansively relevant to today's societies. And importantly, one must remember the ashes we've come from as a movement - if not having already learned to live uncomfortably within - by holding onto faith's holy elements of doubt and mystery (as versus more popular religious folklores expressing hardlined biblical certainties) when thinking of all things God.... For anybody who has experienced their epistemologic views of the world being burned down, you will understand what I mean. Unfortunately, we too-quickly-embrace the next new-and-more-promising doctrine, dogma, or movement, which unfortunately can end up not unlike our first epistemological marriage that burned down earlier in life (kinda like a quick "second' or "third" marriage, poor examples though they may be). My sense is to caution one from rebuilding their life too quickly. To trust God with the anarchy that exists in our lives before attempting to move on too soon lest we build more structures on sand that are not theologically (nor existentially) sustainable. Why? Because there can be had valuable insight learned from these times of doubt and skepticism, fury and anger, that cannot be obtained at any other time in our lives. And mostly, it is because we ourselves must first be broken down by the Spirit of God in order to see the living God again in the lights of His all-healing love and redemption. And so, as hard as it is, do not run from these times of foundational upheaval - be they personal or institutional. But learn to embrace them, to accept them, to allow God's fullness to dwell within them as He guides us towards a complete(r) restoration as only our Lord can provide in His love and wisdom (I think this was profoundly expressed by David Guetta's, "Titanium ft. Sia").

And please understand that Emergent Christians are ones  who have been born out of the ashes of their old worlds of faith-belief. Who fear to return to their former ways and life unwisely. Wishing to hang onto God's mystery and paradox, as much as to investigate just what good doctrine might portend, when unleashed from the codified docks of indefatigable declarations, deceptive assurances, and Christian platitudes. The Christian message is simple. God is God. God has done all things because of His love for creation. Jesus is God's supreme expression of love (and misunderstanding, and hate, and death). We each bear value to God as to one another. We each were built for community and fellowship, both with God, and with one another. Anything which tears away at these truths does so to its own peril. Anything which lessens the impact of these truths cannot survive. Anything which wishes to demarcate itself from these truths does so to its error. For those who wish to be "missional" God bless you. But in your "missional outreach" be receptive to being broken and remade in the image of Christ so that all your worlds become like sweet incense to the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

And as for my fellow Emergents... do not be afraid to rebuild again. Its something we must do. If not, than another will, and perhaps less vigorously, if not unwisely. Though we live as broken people we must also live towards restoration of faith and hope. And if the attitudinal perspective of Emergent Christianity is to survive than this task must be our pledge and banner. For I look to an expansive, embracing, borderless, Christianity - more than the one I was born into and trained within. One that is broken. That is as much institutionally, as it is personally, transformational. That is less sure about things. But whose center is truly Jesus in all things, conformities, ministries, and goodwill. Which is at all times at work discriminating itself. One that is more open to our faithful Redeemer-Creator's revelations of Himself for this day and age. A Christian faith which can openly re-envision classic church doctrines and missional practices for postmodern ministry. A faith that challenges religious beliefs to the radicalness of the new gospel of Christ as first set forth by our Lord in the Scriptures.

From ashes to ashes, from dust to dust, yea verily the church must proceed. But within these redemptive ashes of burned up lives may there beat hearts of living gold and silver. Not works of tinkling brass and conforming dogmas decrying whose "in" and whose "out" of  God's holy love. Where the wheat of God's living Word is bravely proclaimed and wisely discerned beyond the dark creeds and confessions of disempowering denominations and overweening scholars. Where its life-giving bread is eaten and consumed giving strength to the life of faith and belief. Where the leavening yeast of dithering words and spoiling feast be culled from the dying vineyards of gaping mouths fed by pulpit or press,  to be then burned upon an altar's rising infernos of the dying dead. Where may be found receptive schools of unified fellowships not only proclaiming the word missional, but seeking within their bodies politic to be truly transformational. No longer seized upon Christianity's pre-packaged structures and stanchioned beliefs presented to the pandering public listening between the gaps of our ostracizing words and spurning deeds. And if unwilling to be transformational, than claim not the banner of missional, for it deceives a church's congregants providing title where there is no life of the Spirit. For the church has entered once again into a spiritual period of Reformation not unlike its rebirth out of classic Medievalism 500 years earlier, causing it to e-merge from Modernism's timorous fears and pilavorous claims as it became transformed by e-mergent spirit and enlightened inquiry. Listening to the words of her Lord afresh through the many eyes and ears of those surrounding it - be they friend or foe - who had discerned the gospel's proclaim to its sin and transgression. Yea, even so, as God's holy love is missional may our charitable forbearance be as well. A forbearance that seeks all men to dwell in the shadow of the divine before the Father's grace of mercy and forgiveness, hope and charity, as we now enter upon new worlds to come filled with Son and Spirit promising challenge and conflict to the tension of faith's apprehension.

R.E. Slater
June 21, 2013

 

 

Is “Prodigal Christianity” Sustainable?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/03/is-prodigal-christianity-sustainable/

 

by Rob Davis

March 4, 2013

Comments

 

A couple of weeks ago, Tony Jones posted an introductory video [(see below)] to a new book by Geoff Holsclaw and David Fitch called Prodigal Christianity. I posted my initial thoughts, and then began a conversation with Geoff about the book via email. I told Geoff that I would read the rest of the book, and then try to write a review. But, once I got the book and starting reading it, it felt like I was being taken back in time three years. I hope that doesn’t sound condescending, so let me explain:

 

When my family and I left “the church,” I had spent the previous several years heading in a certain direction theologically. The understanding of gospel and mission that I was attracted to – and what I felt best represented what the Bible was all about – was influenced by Lesslie Newbigin, N.T. Wright, Chris Wright, Tim Keller, Michael Goheen, Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch, Brian Walsh, and many other similar thinkers. But, for me, theology was not a solely intellectual thing. I had made a commitment to not only learn things but to embody them. So, while I was on staff at a large neo-Reformed church, I was also teaching classes and leading a community group in our home, trying to live out the kinds of things I was learning with a group of people.

 

Reading through this book has been a sort of deja vu. I’m not sure how different the authors’ understanding is from where I was three years ago. If I would’ve come across this book back then, I’m sure I would’ve endorsed it wholeheartedly, and it would have become part of the “curriculum” for my own teaching and practice.

 

I have sat down several times and tried to write a review of the book. If I could put it all together, I have several posts worth of content. But, to be honest, it’s been so weird for me to have this experience that I’m not sure how capable I am of doing that. Or how helpful to anyone it would be. So, rather than doing that, for now, I’m just going to take a couple of posts and respond to a couple of things in the book.

 

This first post is a response to an idea in the book that suggests that what loosely goes under the names “emergent” or “emergence” or “emerging” is not “capable of providing direction” as a “way of thinking about church in mission.” Basically, the authors are trying to recognize and praise the influence emergent has had on their thinking, while wanting to encourage their readers in a different direction. Thus the term “Prodigal Christianity” in contrast to Emergent or Emergence Christianity.

 

I’m sure that the authors would admit that their exposure to Emergent has been limited [by their background and traditions - res]. None of us has a God’s-eye-view on anything. We can only speak from our experience. And, they may have some legitimate critiques of many aspects of the movement. But, from my perspective, I don’t think they’re seeing the bigger picture. What I am seeing (and hoping) to be the case is that emergent has a truly sustainable structure and ethos that no other movement within (Western) Christianity has. I think the future of Christianity, at least in this part of the world, is actually to be found among those who go under the broad umbrellas of emergent or progressive Christianity. This movement has even made space for atheists/agnostics/skeptics (the “nones”) like myself who can no longer believe in much of what orthodox Christianity requires, but who nonetheless find much common ground with emergent. Honestly, I don’t see how any of us could “exist” within the traditional structures of orthodox Christianity.

 

So, how have I come to these kinds of predictions?

 

Western culture has shifted – and will continue to shift – to such a degree that much of what passes for traditional/orthodox Christianity is not going to remain within the next few decades. That which does not evolve will become extinct. It used to be the case that slavery was considered “normal”; now, it is pretty difficult to find reasonable people who think it should not have been outlawed. I think many other beliefs and ideas within orthodox Christianity will increasingly be seen as archaic, oppressive, ridiculous, etc. “The church” can either embrace this shift as “the new normal” and “reform” itself, or it will likewise become entirely irrelevant to the majority of people. Those who are trying to “go back” to some different time or place are simply building the walls of their own museum.

 

Much of what goes on under the umbrellas of “evangelicalism,” “neo-Reformed” and many other related movements (including “missional”/”incarnational” visions) will morph into what the culture at large will continue to perceive as “the new fundamentalism.” It seems that the main distinction is between those who see the Bible as the primary source of knowledge/truth, and those who don’t [this mainly cuts across how we think of the Bible - as a revelation from God about Himself, His message, His plans, or as an "All-in-One" Book that can ignore scientific discovery which also can tell us about our Creator Redeemer - res]. Even those who reject the modern concept of inerrancy fall into this same fideistic trap. Now, of course, the Bible is an amazing and interesting set of documents; I think we ignore it at our own cultural and literary peril. But, the future of Christianity will be open to diverse sources of knowledge from many different streams.

 

Finally, no matter how much “relationship” is established between people coming from very different perspectives, the majority of people will not “convert” to those archaic forms of Christianity – at least not permanently. Of course, there are always waves of change, but in the long term, I think we will see a lot more people rejecting Christianity altogether rather than embracing a “bibliocentric” way of life. People have become a lot more aware of these subtle but sophisticated conversion techniques (missional as evangelism), and will be on guard against all attempts for someone to turn them into a project – a means to an end – via bait-and-switch hidden agendas.

 

I, for one, am very hopeful for the future of Christianity. But, the kind of Christianity that I think will remain, the kind that will benefit the most people, will look very different from many of the loudest voices who claim to speak for Christianity in our culture today. I hope to continue to lay out out my own vision for what that kind of Christianity might look like through my personal blog.

 

 

Prodigal Christianity - Why This Book? by Fitch and Holsclaw

 

 

 

 

Some Honest Talk about Labels (Emergent, Missional, Etc.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/02/20/some-honest-talk-about-labels-emergent-missional-etc/

 

by Tony Jones

February 20, 2013

Comments

 

I was interested to see the above video, promoting the new book by my friends David Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw. It was particularly interesting based on how they used some terminology in the promo video. They repeatedly used the terms “neo-Reformed” and “Emergent” as opposite poles, and they used their own preferred term, “missional,” as the middle way between those two erroneous options.

That was most intriguing to me is that I first met both of these guys at an Emergent Village Cohort. Indeed, Geoff ran the Chicago cohort for many years — it was, under his leadership, one of the strongest cohorts in the country. Meanwhile, Fitch was injecting his own missional-Anabaptist theology into the emergent movement in a powerful way. Fitch has gained an audience for his theology in large part because of his generous engagement with the emergent movement.

 

In other words, these guys are among the most responsible people for the growth and development of the emergent movement, from which they are now trying to verbally distinguish themselves.

 

I’ve written before about the term “missional.” It bends a lot of ways. It’s a term that basically anyone can use for what ever purpose they want — from a stalwart Southern Baptist neocon like Ed Stetzer to an Anabaptist pacifist like David Fitch. And then you’ve got the neo-Barthian camp like Darrell Guder and John Franke. They’re all “missional,” and so are a dozen church planting networks like TransForm, Forge, and the Parish Collective.

 

So here’s a test. Imagine a Christian leader saying this: “I’m not missional.”

 

No one’s going to say that. Not a PC(USA) pastor, and not a PCA pastor. Not a just-war Augustinian, and not an Anabaptist pacifist. Scot McKnight will say he’s missional, and so will Brian McLaren. So will the pope. So will I.

 

You might say you’re not Presbyterian or you’re not emergent. But you’re not going to say that you’re not missional.

 

Meanwhile, we all know that the term “emergent” has been redefined by conservatives. As hard as we tried to use it as an open-handed term for an ongoing theological conversation, the theological police jumped up and down screaming that “emergent = liberal” that people started to believe it. Publishers, for instance, once loved the term; they now want nothing to do with it.

 

So my prediction is that people will keep using the term “missional” and defining it in their own ways. And I think that’s fine. But let’s all remember that with such a broad term that “missional” — like “evangelical,” or even “Christian” — what it really means lies in the definition of the speaker, and the interpretation of the hearer.

 

Would you say that you’re a “missional” Christian? Or would you say that you’re not?

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"

 

 

Evolving as a Postmodern Christian - Asking Questions of Evolution and Theology

 

"Looking beyond our own beliefs"

 

 

Last November I asked the question whether the Bible needed an historical Adam (Why Do We Need a Historical Adam? The Bible Doesn't). I then asked whether the Gospel of Jesus needed the same. At which point I also left a half dozen articles that I had previously worked up for interested readers to follow within that same article. Later, this past April, I then made the observation that Evolutionary Creationism would require rethinking our major Christian doctrines (How Evolutionary Creationism Will Require Rethinking Scriptural Doctrine) to which I have spent the past two years doing just that as I investigated our historic Christian faith and updated it into a postmodern, Emergent Christian frame of reference without losing sight of our historic, orthodox creeds as long as they could be biblically substantiated. It has been a large task (as you can tell from the many articles and topics along the right-hand sidebars), but a fruitful one. It required a change of boundary markers and a change of viewpoint from which I had familiarly grown up with, and become comfortable, within. A journey that has been spiritually satisfying as my faith matured, while allowing me to become reacquainted with the majesty and glory of the Lord God Almighty. At the center of all my searches as been Jesus, His glory, His love, and His atoning sacrifice - without which this effort would all have been meaningless.

 

Since the questions I have asked, and the explorations I have made, appear to make radical departures from most of today's more popularly-rooted evangelical beliefs, I did not think that these topics would make for popular reading material. However, as an evolving, emerging Christian, I did believe that there would be others like myself who would be interested in these same discoveries, and so, have pointedly laid out my observations and arguments as patiently, and insightfully, as I could. Meanwhile, I have been careful to give heed to past non-scientific, pre-postmodern orthodox doctrine and dogmas, while at the same time have actively sought to uplift this same Christian faith into a postmodern, emergent context - one that would be more flexible and more relevant with our current understanding, education, scientific knowledge, and cultural/social movements. It has been a large endeavor, but one that I have thankfully explored with the help of other Christian minds and souls whom I have liberally quoted, and have provided references to their likeminded observations, as they have lent additional insight to mine own.

 

Hence, I would encourage further examination of the articles here on this web journal. The questions I have been asking - and am still asking- are questions I believe every Christian should be asking, and should remain necessarily relevant for generations to come. Namely, how does one break out of one's own background and be able to see beyond the borders of one's own discontinuities, intolerances, and short-sightedness? That in itself is an impossible task but if undertaken by the power of the Holy Spirit is made significantly satisfying when finally discovering the distant shores of other lost worlds, tribes, and people thought long dead (metaphorically speaking). For in the end, the Gospel of Jesus is one of following and obeying His call to lose one's faith in order to find one's faith. I think prime examples of these kinds of believers are the biblical heroes we know by the names of Abraham, Moses, the prophets, Jesus, His disciples, and the apostle Paul. Each one had to doubt what they knew of God in order to be able to hear God's call in their lives again. Without that doubt, that lose of faith, they would never have been able to follow after God's call to move beyond the boundary markers of their lives framed in yesterday's religions and inflexible beliefs.

 

The Christian faith, at the last, is a faith that demands we submit and obey to God's revelation in our lives, against our own wills of disbelief and incredulity. To me, this is the clarion call of God's Spirit to our own... one that listens and obeys like the little shepherd boy David watching over his father's sheep far from the fields of battle. A lad of tremendous faith who packs 5 rocks into his slingshot bag and marches off to confront Goliath and his four brothers. Who refuses the heavy, protective armor of King Saul to stand in defiance to the armies of the Philistine arraigned in hatred to God's covenanted people of Israel. Who, at the last, by his actions and faith, removed the obstacle to Israel's own lack of faith through his courage and trust in God. And patiently endured the many hardships to come in order to be able to lead God's people by his own faith struggles and disbeliefs, into a deeper covenant commitment despite surrounded by a wilderness of doubt and dismay.

The Christian faith should never be static. Never dull and out-of-step with society. We need to hear God's clarion call of belief and follow hard after His leading without fear of never finding Him again. Creation attests to the Lord Almighty. It is everywhere about us. We simply need to hear and obey. And to hear we must leave behind those giants of illusion, fear, and mis-statement. We must trust and believe. Even within our own disciplines that would persuade us otherwise causing us to stand on the sidelines of battle and tremble. For many Christians we spend too much time "defending our faith" when we should be spending more of our time "embracing our faith." The issue is not in defending our view of religion but in discovering the God of faith Himself. Paul had to let go of his sentiments about Jesus in order to see the Savior of his faith. His religion stood in the way of his sight while his heart knew all along that he must bow before his Creator-Redeemer.... Now what say you?

 

R.E. Slater

May 6, 2013

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Does Paul’s Theology Require a Historical Adam? Thoughts from J. R. Daniel Kirk

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/05/does-pauls-theology-require-a-historical-adam-thoughts-from-j-r-daniel-kirk/

 

by Peter Enns

May 6, 2013

Comments

 

Recently, Daniel Kirk posted his thoughts on the historical Adam question in Fuller Theological Seminary’s Spring 2013 issue of “Theology, News, and Notes.” He followed up with a post on his own blog. Many know Kirk from his books Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?: A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity and Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Kirk is associate professor of New Testament at Fuller.

 

I saw this article several months ago in an earlier version, and, amid all the controversy and misinformation generated by others, I was excited to see Kirk weighing on this this issue. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves.

 

Kirk summarizes his entire article well at the end of his introduction:

 

I want to open up the conversation to the possibility that the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ. The theological points Paul wishes to make concern the saving work of the resurrected Christ and the means by which he makes them is the shared cultural and religious framework of his first-century Jewish context.

 

Note the two key issues Kirk mentions here:

 

1. What Paul says about Adam is set up by his prior conviction that in Christ the “new creation” has broken in to present time. Paul draws Adam into a conversation begun by the resurrection of Christ, not vice-versa, and in doing so recasts Adam’s significance beyond that which he has in Genesis.

 

2. To the extent that Paul sees Adam as the first man, Paul is not making a binding scientific or historical  declaration but reflecting his view on such things as a first-century Jew.

 

In my opinion, both of these observations are absolutely key in coming to a biblically literate and historically knowledgable understanding of the role Adam plays in Paul’s theology.

 

Later Kirk makes the following observation concering Adam’s function in Paul’s argument in Romans:

 

What difference might it make to our discussions about a historical Adam that Paul was claiming, “Christ, is (un)like Adam, therefore God’s people are not demarcated by Torah”? This latter statement is, in fact, the point of Paul’s argument in Romans 5 (cf. 5:12–14, 20–21). Paul’s Adam theology is an avenue toward affirming that God has one worldwide people; therefore, the specially blessed people are not defined by the story of circumcision. 

 

What if Paul’s Adam is not a lesson for us about where people came from, but part of Paul’s rhetoric to establish the oneness of God’s people–Jew and Gentile together–that so dominates his letter to the Romans?

 

Here is one more quote that captures Kirk’s point:

 

[W]hat is a “given” for Paul is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other things he says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event. Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam….Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

 

I hope you have a chance to wonder over to Fuller’s website and read the article for yourselves. At the very least, counterarguments would need to provide a more compelling account of Paul’s overall theology in Romans rather than simply lifting verses out of that carefully crafted work and using them for reasons Paul never intended–and never would have understood.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Q&A: Our New BioLogos Book

http://biologos.org/news/apr-2013/new-book-qa
 

How does my walk with God relate to modern scientific discoveries? Can I maintain biblical Christian faith even if I change my mind on an issue like evolution? Many Evangelicals today are pondering these questions. Finding the answers will involve more than a mere synthesis of scientific facts. We need to hear stories from others who have wrestled with evolution and Christian faith. That’s the basis for Evolving: Evangelicals Reflect on Evolution, a collection of essays from Evangelicals sharing their personal journeys of science and faith being produced by BioLogos. Some essays will appear on the BioLogos blog in coming weeks and months, with the full collection published in a book by Russell Media by the end of 2013.
We sat down with BioLogos Program Director Kathryn Applegate and Tom Oord, two editors of the essay collection, to learn more.

1. Where did the idea for the book come from?

Kathryn: We were all talking about how much we personally have been impacted by stories, and how coming to our present-day understanding of origins is not simply a matter of learning new facts.  We thought it would be interesting to compile stories from people in many different disciplines to see what factors were most important for them as they wrestled with evolution and their faith.

Tom: A growing number of Christians -- including Evangelicals -- are rethinking their opposition to evolution. The idea for this book basically comes from trying to witness to this significant growth. We wanted Christians to speak about how they are working through the myriad of issues pertaining to evolution and faith.

2. Were most people eager to share their stories of wrestling with science and faith?

T: We were encouraged by the number of people willing to share. For some, this meant risking criticism. Forces are at play that discourage such honesty and openness to science. But Evangelicals know the testimonies of the saints are among the most powerful evidence to God's working in the world and in the midst of complex questions.

K: Almost all the scientists we asked were eager to write, and so were many scholars from the humanities.  The most hesitant group, perhaps not surprisingly, were the "professional Christians"--prolific Christian authors and parachurch leaders.  In some cases they were simply too busy, but in others they were concerned about damaging relationships with their constituencies.  Talking about evolution in the church is still a risky business!

3. What were some of the common themes you found throughout the testimonies?

K: Many of the contributors were raised in the church and took on young-earth creationist beliefs at an early age, but somewhere along the line began to discover that a) it wasn't the only position faithful Christians can hold, and b) it didn't make sense in light of what they were learning about science, history, and the Bible.  Many wrote about role models--parents, teachers, or pastors--who had an influence on their thinking.  Some mentioned a conviction that accepting evolution brought a sense of peace, even as legitimate questions remained.  They sensed that they were pursuing truth about God's creation, not taking the path of least resistance.

T: Christians care about the Bible. It has been and continues to be a well-spring of wisdom. So many essayists rightfully explore the scriptures as a guide for their coming to terms with the mounting evidence for evolution. The results affirm the central role of Scripture for finding truth, but it also reveals that Christians care about the truth of God found in creation.

4. Why do you think a book like this is important for the Church?

T: This book is important for many reasons, but let me just highlight two: (1) Sometimes putting in words what we are thinking can help us hone our own intuitions and partially-formulated thoughts on a subject. This book is helpful both to those who wrote the essays and should be so for those who read them. (2) For some time, a significant number of Evangelicals have accepted evolution as compatible with Christian faith. But many were unaware that others thought similarly. This book helps those who may think they are all alone see many others exist in their tribe who also believe evolution can be compatible with robust Christian faith.

K: Many people still believe that evolution is a creation story for atheists, when in fact there are many, many believers who are striving to follow Jesus even as they accept that God created through an evolutionary process.  When we hear someone's story and sense the Holy Spirit's working in their life, it becomes harder to dismiss them as not a "real" Christian.  Without needing an advanced degree in genetics or evolutionary biology, church leaders can learn ways to more effectively minister to those who are struggling over origins--and avoid creating stumbling blocks for seekers of God.

5. What has been the most rewarding part of working on this project?

K: It has been a real privilege to work with the authors on their essays.  They're a highly intelligent, faithful bunch—all leaders in their own fields.  And they still express an intellectual humility and a desire to keep learning and growing.

T: I especially enjoy hearing time and time again that a prominent leader wants to participate in this project because he or she has wanted to write on his or her affirmation of evolution. This provides further evidence for the growing sense that momentum is building on this crucial set of issues!

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"