Reflections on Christopraxis

Rethinking Community

Community is a big topic in the church these days.  The small group movement has been going strong for a long time, and in recent years New Monasticism and intentional communities have sprung up across the country.   There are many such communities in the Metro area where I live, and a number of people close to me have been a part of them.  The church I go to is a large church, and for a long time they have been trying to figure out how "grow small" with small groups and various forms of community.  Like many others, I have assumed that Acts 2:42-47 is the model we should pursue.  Recently, I have been re-thinking some of my assumptions on about this.  Yes, I said "re-thinking."

As a reminder, let's look at these verses:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.  And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.  Acts 2:42–47 ESV

What is Community?

Let me clarify what I mean by community.  I mean a more than going to watch a ball game, attending church, walking the dog and saying "Hi" to the neighbors, and voting in the elections.  By community, I mean a sharing of lives.  Community includes family, and it is the people you include when you celebrate graduations and marriages, and when you grieve the loss of a loved one.  Community includes the people who tell you what you need to know, even if you do not want to hear it.  It can be intentional or spontaneous.  It means being available, even if you are busy.  Humans need community to be healthy and to grow.    In Acts 2, we see community when they share meals together and study the scriptures, and when they sacrifice for each other.  Ideally, community is where love is, and scripture tells us that love is perfected as we love one another (1 John 4:12).  For Christians, community is a work of the Holy Spirit, as each indwelt believer is united by that same Spirit (Eph. 2:21-22) in the Love of God (John 17:21).  I elaborate on the practice of community in the Mission, Vision, and Practices post of this blog.  The post on the Practice of Community will provide some of my thoughts on how to do it.  Here, I want to reflect on how not to do it, and the challenges of doing it.

Rethinking Community

I said I was rethinking community.  The reason is that I have been discovering how hard it is to create community in 21st Century America.   As I have attempted community and watch others do community, we have struggled against many of the same things.  Recently, I have had a chance to hear about a community in another country that sounds a lot like the Acts 2 church.  There are a lot of similarities.  Then I started to realize the differences in what we have in America.  This caused me to take a fresh look at Acts 2, and as a result, I started to see some things I had not seen before. 

1st Century Community

Looking at Acts 2, we see a 1st Century people.  Many lacked affluence or were in poverty.  There were no governmental social programs.  They also grew increasingly isolated as the Jews rejected them, and the Roman Empire started to see them as a threat.  Poverty and persecution pushed them together.  People also tended to work during the day, so people's schedules were more consistent.  Work was also more task oriented.  You caught the fish, sold your goods in the market, built a house, shod the horse, harvested the grain, etc.  People lived relatively short distances from each other.   Finally, Jewish society practiced the Sabbath together consistently.  Life might have been hard, but it was simple.

21st Century Community

Contrast this to 21st Century America.  While we still have the poor with us, most enjoy a relative affluence.  Unlike what the futurists predicted, affluence has not freed us up to have more time for leisure.  Instead, people can work potentially around the clock, seven days a week.  Our work day is often measured by the hours we work, with a required minimum each week.  As a result, it is difficult to find times where people's schedules will allow them to get together.  The concepts of leisure and entertainment significantly impact the way we relate to each other, becoming more self-centered.  In the last 75 years, with the advent of TV, movies, and the Internet, we have virtually redefined entertainment.  There are health clubs, sports activities, outdoor sports and hobbies, indoor hobbies, and many other leisure activities.  Let's not forget the family activities:  school, sports, etc.  Then there is much greater distance between us, making it very difficult to consider anything spontaneous, even with advances in transportation.   In the West, for the most part we do not have any type of persecution of the church.   Clearly, it is a different world.  Can Acts 2 even exists within such a world?

When people consider these things, they look at the simplicity and richness of relationship in the early church, and wonder if we have perhaps lost something.  We see the alienation of our culture and the dysfunction of the government social systems, and wonder if perhaps we should be seeking a different way.  In all our affluence, should we not be able to again realize what the early church realized when people shared their resources so no one would be in need?   How can we return to the times of "home churches" and true community?  How do we do community today?

Remember, I said I was re-thinking community. On one hand, many of these above things that keep us busy and distracted can be put aside.  Surely, we can choose to live more simply, to share resources, and devote ourselves to the things of the Lord.  Yet, I am starting to question my assumptions on how we apply Biblical models from the early to community.  It is not always practical, or even possible, to move into close proximity with other believers in our local church.  Besides, what is the "church?"  Isn't it the spiritual fellowship of all believers?  If so, then perhaps we should seek to have fellowship with believers that are already around us, regardless of which local church body the belong to.  Our work schedules are what they are, and again, I question if it is even possible for all Christians to return to the land and rise and lay down with the sun. 

Often our work (or school) schedules seem to be at odds with our faith.  Some I know who are seeking to do intentional community are seeking to minimize work commitments outside the community.  While there might be some opportunity here for creative living, I wonder if we are missing another point scripture makes.  Consider the following verses:

"...to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you, so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one." 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living."  2 Thessalonians 3:10–12

"The lazy person does not plow in season;
harvest comes, and there is nothing to be found."  Proverbs 20:4

"Give these commands as well, so that they may be above reproach. And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."  1 Timothy 5:7–8

Now, I am not suggesting that we should not share resources.  Verses like Isaiah 58 make it clear that we do not please God unless we care for those in need.  However, we should not be quick to look down on an honest day's work, and those who care for their families, raise kids, and look to the needs of the generation to come.  Some contemporary authors make it sound like living in the suburbs is a kind of substandard life choice, where if we want to "really" follow Jesus, we must live "radical lives." I am sometimes concerned that in the name of being "radical" some people are forgetting some of the exhortations to attend to the duties alluded to in the above verses?  Not all of us can be called out of society for full time ministry.  Francis of Assisi recognized this when he started the order of Secular Franciscans. 

Getting and education and going about our daily work duties to earn a livelihood is a part of life in this world.  It is not in conflict with Biblical teachings, and indeed it can be a means of spiritual growth and humble service, was we practice Christ in our lives.

How We Live and Who We Are vs. What We Do

I am concluding that it is not so much as what we do by how we do it.  Are we aware of community opportunities that exist every day in our work, neighborhoods, families, and other associations?  Do we live simply, so we have resources to help others and to contribute to the work of the Kingdom of God?  Are we putting God first or the narcissistic god of consumerism?  Do we find our identity in Christ, and seek to live in the spiritual fellowship of Christ (Eph. 2:21-22)?  When viewed in this way, community becomes more easily within our reach!

Act 2, is often read these days in light of home groups.  However, much of it was not done within the context of the home, nor does it need to be.  Consider this:

• "They devoted themselves to the Apostle's teachings."  This is something we can do wherever we are these days.  We can study in Church and at home, and even at work.  We can study on the Internet, and buy books and download sermons.  Scriptures are readily available.
• "And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles."  Community, Bible study, fellowship, and helping the poor are all good things, but this early community was a conduit for the Kingdom of God to break into the world.  Amazing things happened through these Holy Spirit empowered believers.  Sometimes we get caught up with the busyness of activities, like Martha, and forget to sit a the Lord's feet or to step out "onto the waves" when our Lord calls us to him.
• "...attending the Temple together..."  Often when we hear Acts 2 preached it is in the context of small groups and house churches.  Yes, they went from house to house, but today I noticed they hung out at the temple.  The Acts 2 believers came together at the Temple -- the "mega-synagogue" of Jerusalem.

My point here is to not that we do not have to be critical of the forms in the traditional American Christianity.  Large group gatherings, Bible studies, care ministries, formal teaching and preaching, worship, missions -- all are a part of the the fellowship of the saints.  We should be thankful and praise God for what we have. The challenge is to find community in the context we find ourselves in this day and age.  That is more a matter of who we are and how we live life, than what we do.

Also, my point is that in other places in the world, people may be living more closely to the way they lived in the 1st Century.  Poverty and persecution may constrain, but often, it provides a fertile environment for the Church to grow, as it did in the Acts 2.  In these cases, spontaneous community very similar to early Christianity is much easier to achieve.  Perhaps that is God's gift to them in the midst of their trials.  Yet, even today, many of these communities must work this out in the large metropolitan areas of the world, which are influenced by modern economics and distractions.

Conclusion

Our society works against true community.  I have no easy answers to solving the problem, though I think the concepts in the Practices identified in this blog will help us find the way.  A small number of people can do monastic communities, others might choose some form of limited intentional community, such as has be done by the Anabaptist.    Yet, for the vast majority of the followers of Jesus in America, we struggle with finding balance and moderation.  We struggle with isolation in the suburbs and the busyness of our lives.   We are separated from our fellow church members by distance.  Our schedules are consumed with things, like idols, crying out for our time and devotion. Voices call us to be "radical" but often miss the truly radical nature of merely being in Christ, moment by moment as we go about our daily lives.

Emergent Part Three: My Own Position

This is the final post in a series on emergent.  I am someone glad to be finishing this series, as it has somewhat taken me away from the primary theme of this blog.  Sill, I feel this last post might be the most important on emergent. 

My initial reaction to the emergent movement was skepticism.  I tend to resist the fads and "latest things" that run through Christianity.  Often what is good is something we should have been doing all along.  There have frequently been correctives where in the church "rediscovers" some aspect of the faith or shifts position on some issue, so as to more completely live out our faith.

The Promise Keepers movement is an example of one such "fad" that I chose to resist.  At best, it seemed to promote things we should be doing all along.   I was glad that it inspired some men in their lives and walk with the Lord.  For me, I did not feel like it was a bandwagon I needed to jump onto.  Besides, I was turned off by the sports metaphors. Most frustrating was the subtle condemnation I experienced from people when I chose to not participate in PK.  Many could not understand why I would not participate -- there must be something "wrong."  This just solidified my resolve all the more.

I also do not like jumping on the latest bandwagon because I like to give movements a chance to prove themselves.  I like to wait to find out what the people behind the movements do.  Are they people I want to associate with?  Is it a cause I feel inclined to take up?  When things go bad, it is easier to have not established the associations.  Hence, my skepticism and caution about the emergent movement.

Many of these movements exist to support someone's ministry.  Rick Warren gets an idea of having purpose and vision in the church, so he writes about it.  His book is well received, so he writes a sequel, and another, and  another.  Warren becomes the "Purpose Driven" expert, and travels the country promoting the message.  People get caught up in the movement and a new "latest thing" is born. 

Emergent is no different.  There are a number of people who's ministries are centered on communicating the emergent message.  It is their "thing."  Publishing houses are promoting their books, organizations are started, funds are raised.  If you read the Values and Practices on the Emergent Village web site, you will see that a major goal is to promote the Emergent Village (see practices under value #4).  Being a "Friend of Emergent" includes promoting and supporting their ministry.

Do not get me wrong.  It is not a bad thing to have a cause and to promote and support it.  God works through each of us in this way.  He gives us a burden and passion for something, and then we pursue it.  If I were to ever write a book, I would want to promote it, and hope it sells.  My point is that the fact emergent is something at all is largely because it has been intentionally promoted.  It is something whose value is largely found in the historical context in which it has emerged (no pun intended).  The important thing to remember is that none of these movements purely represent Christ and Christianity as a whole, no matter how broadly they are defined.  We might believe that emergent is doing an important work in shaping the church in our time, but that is a different issue than to say that one is a follower of Jesus Christ.

Screwtape, in C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters said to "give them Christ and..."  but  never "Christ alone."  Many of the problems and division within the church have resulted in people making "Christ and..." the point, rather than Christ alone.  The Emergent Village's first value is "Commitment to God in the Way of Jesus."  It seems to me that one could sum up all of the Christian faith in that one statement.  However, EV's site has three more values.  Is this "Christ and..."?  Certainly by the time you get to value number four, it is. 

The problem is that we do not like ambiguity, and we tend to embrace associations.  Francis Schaeffer's L'Abri Fellowship movement has always been very small.  It consisted of a small number of official members and locations.  The rest of the movement was an informal group of "friends" that supported the work and vision.  You could not join L'Abri, and this likely frustrated many a follower of Schaeffer.  What brought the friends of L'Abri together was much more fundamental than organization membership.  The friends of L'Abri had to reconcile themselves to the fact that they could practice what Schaeffer preached, but in most cases they could not wear the official "L'Abr" label.  Practicing what Schaeffer preached was the main point, anyway.  Still, we like to join things and use labels.

Believe me, I would love to find a group that I could join (besides my local church).  It is frustrating to not quite fit into any one group.  Many of the labels I might choose are incomplete or require qualifications.  I thought that perhaps one of the monastic orders might work.  Perhaps I could embrace one of the monastic rules?  Yet, there have always been things that prevented me from being able to do so.  I even wrote my own "Rule of Life."  I dread being asked the question, "What kind of Christian are you?" or for that matter, "What kind of church do you attend?"  In some ways I have hoped that the emergent movement might be the answer.  Perhaps they would have defined themselves in such a way that I could finally say, "That's it!  That is what I am; I am Emergent."  Alas, it does not look like it will happen.  Part of the problem is that I am not ready to embrace the "...and..." and the other part of the problem is that emergent itself is not well defined.

The other day I was visiting with a couple friends, and I mentioned I was writing about emergent.  They had not heard about it and asked me what emergent believed.  I must admit that I struggled to find an adequate answer.  "Well, they tend to be pro-environment..."  "Uh, they want to tear down some of the boundaries between the different sects and traditions of Christianity."  No, that's not quite right.  Hmmmmm.... How do I describe this movement?

One of the criticisms of Generous Orthodoxy (GO) and Brian McLaren is that they do not provide a systematic way of understanding what they believe. One of the frustrations McLaren feels is that people want to pin him down to this or that doctrine, rather than embrace the wider conversation. The word "conversation" suggest something more open and less precise.  I keep coming back to the idea of us living in postmodern times, and I think emergent is the church in postmodern times.  As such, emergent is more a description of a historical period than a doctrinal statement.  Yet, we say that so-and-so is "emergent" or "Emergent Friendly."  What does that mean?  This paragraph is getting to the source of the conundrum.   Let me expand this for you.

The Meaning of "Emergent"

The first problem with emergent that I encounter is that the term is itself ambiguous.  Often we talk about emerging from modernity.  That might tell us what emergent is not, but not necessarily what it is.  Sometimes emergent is applied to people or ideas outside the formal context of the emergent movement.  For example, as I have argued the evangelical church's fresh embrace of the contemplative tradition has been taking place over a number of decades.  The emergent movement may embrace the contemplative tradition, but being contemplative does not mean one is emergent.  Similarly, the emergent movement may be pro-environment, but being pro-environment (as are the Franciscans) does not mean you are emergent.  There is no single distinctive that makes one "emergent."  Interestingly, there might be distinctives that would make a person decidedly non-emergent.  Yet again, to say someone is not non-emergent does not mean that person is emergent. 

Before I started this exploration of "emergent" I was told by some that I was "emergent" in my thinking.  This amused me because to the best of my knowledge my thinking has not been directly influenced by anyone involved in the emergent movement.   For this reason, to say that such-and-such a writer or pastor is "emergent" might be they way they want to be known, or it might just mean that there is something they believe or do that is compatible with the emergent thinking, values, or practices.  In fact, they might not have embraced the emergent movement intentionally.  As such, I am not sure it is useful to label people "emergent" with the little 'e'.  In a sense, we are all emergent, because of the time we live in.  It is just that some may play a greater or lesser role in shaping our time and the time to come.

Being "Emergent" (big 'E') is more specific in that it says one is aligned with the Emergent Movement as defined by the Emergent Village.  This group appears to exist for the purposes of promoting key ideas and practices that they believe will best shape the church as it emerges from modernity.  The EV also seeks to promote orthopraxis -- right practice or good works -- so as to best carry on the work and ministry Christ gave us.  Finally, they seek to promote conversation within the church and with those outside the church, with the goal of better representing Christ's cause in our time.  This is my definition of the EV, based on my limited understanding.  The question is, "Is the EV a group whose cause I can promote?"  I will attempt to answer that in a moment, but first, I would like to reflect on emergent as an expression of the church in postmodern times. 

The Church in Postmodern Times

To define emergent as a postmodern expression of the church requires us to define distinctives of post-modernism.  Clearly, for someone with a modernist mindset, this activity might be frustrating.  In some ways, post-modernism is a deconstruction of modernism.  Seen this way, the emergent movement is a deconstruction of the modernist church, and to some extent, the whole of the Christian tradition.  To put it this way, might cause alarm to many within the church.  On the good side, it is an opportunity to take the best of everything Christianity has to offer.  One the bad side, it could promote ambiguity, unbelief, and syncretism through pluralistic relativism.  Those involved with the emergent movement hope to realize the good, and to avoid the bad. 

The modernist mindset has established itself by clearly defining the particulars of what it means to be a Christian.  These, of course, are filtered through whatever prevailing paradigms and presuppositions that are at work at the moment.  By this I mean, we define Christianity through the eyes of the definer -- Catholic or Protestant or even the atheist. As such, we have our statement of faith, our creeds, and our mottoes, such as "sola scriptura."  Each new sect or movement delineates themselves, emphasizing whichever distinctives the group identifies with most.

As stated in Part One, the postmodern mindset opens the door to more than empirical data and absolutes.  It opens the door to tradition, experience, and the community.  It also takes a critical look at the past and deconstructs the societal systems and beliefs that are viewed as a means for one group to have control over another.  The assumption being that in a greater, more equitable,  more pure, or more relevant understanding can be realized on which we can base our life.  For Christianity it might mean that it is liberated from a purely patriarchal structure which favors western males, and that the faith is viewed with more egalitarian eyes, allowing for the true nature of the Body of Christ to be realized where all people participate equally (cf Gal 3:26-29). 

It should be noted that the modernist mindset is not opposed to such things as egalitarianism, so long as it is achieved on its own terms, such as a study of scripture.  What the modernist objects to is the intentional, and seemingly arbitrary, deconstruction of the old systems.   While the modernist might be open to "remodeling" the house, the postmodernist suggests the house might have been assembled incorrectly in the first place, and that we should disassemble it and try again.  Yet this metaphor fails because the postmodernist also wants to work with the best of what is already there.  So, instead of breaking things down to the most fundamental parts, they retain some of the structure and form, but perhaps reset it in a fresh context.

The point being that we live in a time where great change is taking place -- inside and outside the church.  Many of the divisions and mistakes of the church represent excess baggage that must be jettisoned if the church is going to raise above the turmoil and be the light to the world that God intended it to be.  We need to rediscover our relevancy, and in my opinion, refocus on our central calling in Christ.  In the most basic sense, the emergent movement is helping to shape the church in our time.  A critical success factor will be how well they do in correctly understanding the church and our times.

What Some People Mean By Emergent

Now is a good time to insert a qualitification.  Many people seem to be "emergent," or at least interested in things emergent, who have not gone through anywhere close to the analysis I have done here.  Perhaps they read McLaren's book and found his ideas appealing.  Maybe they have encountered a number of the "Jesuses" McLaren mentions, and are frustrated with the way some parts of the church seem to emphasize one over the other.  Some have given up on the church, and perhaps Christianity, because of a perceived lack of relevance. Some are frustrated with some of the political positions taken by "the church."  Whatever the case, many people, including many of my friends, are attracted to the emergent movement, or consider themselves emergent.

To be fair, these people tend to be solid, Bible believing Christians.  They would reject pluralistic relativism, and would affirm truth.   They have clearly defined doctrinal beliefs, belong to churches with statements of faith, and in general know what they believe and are not afraid to share it with others.  My point here, is that these people are not falling into the "traps" that critics of the emergent movement might point out. 

If the emergent movement, or the Emergent Village, reflects the people I have encountered, then it will be a pretty good thing, I think. 

My Conclusions

I am not sure we can escape the little 'e' emergent movement.  The question is, "How involved are we in what is happening?"  Some, like Brian McLaren, will want to be on the front lines.  Others will prefer to let things play out.  This a normal.  There are always those with vision and those who come behind to support the vision.  And, there will always be those who seem to be digging their heels in and resisting the change.  This last group can be a stumbling block, but they can also be a stabilizing influence that helps us not lose site of the overall goal. 

I still have mixed feelings about big 'E' the emergent movement.    It seems much more temporal in nature.   There are some who hope to promote their ideas through the EV.   Others hope that the EV will promote more cooperation and right-praxis within the Church.  Others see it as a forum for conversation.  If we are honest, others -- perhaps the publishing houses -- are primarily concerned with making money.  In general, there are reasons to see the EV as a positive vehicle for change, but there are other reasons for skepticism and caution.

Generally, I wish to stay informed, and I expect to engage in conversation with the EV, as the Lord leads.   I do not profess to have all the answers, so I welcome the chance to interact with other Christians, as we engage the challenges of our times.  To the extent that God uses the EV and the emergent movement to help the church process through the issues and challenges of our time, they will serve a purpose.  However, it is wrong to assume that the EV is the last word for the church.  New times will provide new challenges, and they might require new ways of response.  It remains to be seen how flexible the EV will be in the future.

My specific response is to focus more on Christ alone.  This is summed up in Jesus' teachings on the kingdom of God and the love teachings found in the Bible.  The Christopraxis theme of this blog remains the central focus of my faith walk at this time.  Yet, I believe this is broad enough to meet any challenge and to include any response, required in this life. 

The church I attend has not embraced emergent or openly promoted it.  On the other hand, their vision and values reflect well the vision and values of Christ and the kingdom of God.  As such, the church I attend is very emergent friendly, though it is my hope that they continue to resist the temptation to affiliate with any of the existing emergent movements or organizations.

The topic does have value, and as such, I have created a category on this blog for the Emergent Movement.  I also encourage any comments on posts related to the topic.  Conversation is a good way of improving our understanding of the times, and refining our response to the times we live in.  If things continue as they have, I expect to continue to track with some of the same trends and issues that the emergent movement has engaged.  As such, I expect we will walk together for a while, at least.

In summary, I will resist the emergent label, as I think it is both too narrow and too broad to accurately represent me and my particular faith walk.  I ask that you respect my wish to withhold my endorsement to some particular aspect of the emergent movement, such as EV.  On the other hand, I understand and respect a person's choice to endorse and promote such things as EV.  That said, want to say to my readers that it is not necessary to have a label beyond that of Christ, our Lord (cf. 1 Cor 2:2).  At times it may be frustrating to explain to someone what "kind of Christian" we are, but I teach Christ.  At times,  we may wish we could join an organization or movement, but I remind you that in Christ, we are already a part of an organism of the Body of Christ (yes, I intended to say organism), and the movement of the Kingdom of God.  The Triune God of love is our leader, unifying us in Spirit and purpose, empowering us with all wisdom and power, to accomplish the work he has given us (cf. Eph 2:10, Phil 2:13, Eph 3:16-20).  While movements like emergent may have temporal value, we should not forget that our identity should be found in Christ.  If we learn the love of Christ, we should have no problem discerning the right response to this needy and hurting world.

A Parable

I feel let to do some creative writing.  Jesus often told stories to illustrate a point, and this morning (7/16/2006) a story has been running through my head.  This is purely fiction.  I have deliberately used names that do not relate to real people.  However, they could be real people, and I suppose the story could happen.  The story represents a vision I have, one I might have had long before I have heard about something called "Emergent."  Nor is it something that can only happen through some kind of emergent movement.  It does, however, illustrate some of the challenges of crossing the sectarian and tribal boundaries we live within.  Some of you might anticipate a number of problems with this scenario, and in some ways, I have been a little playful in choosing my characters and the context of the scene.  We can discuss issues and concerns if you like, but for now, I just want to tell the story.  One last clarification.  As I said, this is fiction, and as such, there is not relationship to the people and churches mentioned in the story and real people (including myself) and real churches.  That said, they might be typical of many real people and churches, and they do reflect some of my own understanding and experience.

My story starts with two people, Simon and Thomas.  Simon and Thomas meet while they were helping out at the local homeless shelter.  Thomas is married to Mary, and they are Catholics.  Thomas is a union worker at the local manufacturing plant, and Mary is an artist.  They regularly work at the homeless shelter, which is run by the Catholic Charities.  Thomas tends to be liberal, both politically and theologically.  Simon attends a mega-church in their area which is affiliated with a Baptist denomination.  Simon tends to be conservative politically and theologically, and considers himself an Evangelical.  Simon is married to Johanna.  Simon is a manager at a large corporation, and Johanna stays home with the kids.  She loves gardening and is involved with the missions team at church.  Both Johanna and Mary are influenced by the contemplative tradition of Christianity, and have become good friends. We find our characters spending a nice summer afternoon together at Simon and Johanna's house.

Simon and Thomas are sitting on the front porch, getting ready to smoke a couple of Simon's cigars and are sipping on some good single malt scotch that Thomas brought over.   The ladies are in the backyard checking out the garden. 

As they light up the cigars and smoke starts to drift off the porch, Simon wonders how to start a conversation.   Politics is not a good topic, considering their different views on that topic.  Then he thinks of a book he has been reading.

"Thomas, I have been reading about St. Francis."

"Oh, really?  I thought you Baptist did not care much for the saints."

"Well, we don't pray to them, but that does not mean we cannot learn from their lives," replied Simon.  "Anyway, a friend of mine a church loaned me a book by John Michael Talbot.  It is called The Lessons of St. Francis."  He knew I played the guitar and that I liked Talbot's music.  I thought JMT was some kind of monk, and was surprised to find out that he was married.  I don't know much about monks."

"Actually," Thomas replied, "I don't know much about them either.  We have some nuns at church.  I think Sister Teresa who leads worship is a Franciscan, though I am not sure what that means.  She is an active environmentalist though.  I like that about her."

"Well, I read something Francis was supposed to have said," continued Simon.  "He said, Preach always.  If necessary, use words.' I have been thinking about that all week."

"It sounds like I might like St. Francis," confessed Thomas.  "I can't stand those narrow minded preachers on TV -- no offense intended.  They tell us how we are supposed to live, and then want our money and are later caught with a prostitute.  Hypocrites!"

Simon squirmed a bit, took a puff on his cigar, and thought about how to steer the conversation away from TV preachers and sexual improprieties.  "Well, I know what you mean.  I think that is part of what I have been thinking about.  It seems like Christianity would be better off if more of us preached with our actions.  That was one of the reasons I went to the homeless shelter."

"Hey guys, do I smell some good cigars?"  It was Jackie, from next door.  Jackie is an atheist, or maybe an agnostic.  Anyway, she is not a Christian.  Her husband, Matthew was raised in the church, but does not go to church any more.  Matthew works for the IRS. 

"Yes you do, Jackie, Thomas and I are enjoying a couple of the Dominican Republic's best.  Want one?"

"Sure!  You know I love a good cigar.  By the way, nice to meet you Thomas, I'm Jackie"  Jackie extended her hand in greeting to Thomas.

"Man, I never met a woman that smokes cigars.  That might count for the first miracle I have ever experienced" Thomas said with a grin.

"Its no miracle, I've just discovered your male tribal secret," teased Jackie.

"Want some Naked juice -- I have some Green Machine," offered Simon.  Looking to Thomas, "Jackie's a recovering alcoholic." 

"I hope the scotch isn't going to bother you," apologized Thomas.

"No problem, Tom.  It has been a while since I had a drink, and I do not struggle as much as I used to, but thanks for asking."  Jackie lit her cigar, letting billows of smoke raise in the air.  "So, what are you guys talking about?"

"St. Francis," answered Simon.

"Preaching without words," corrected Thomas.

"Hmmmmm....  Not my area of expertise," reflected Jackie.  "I'm still trying to figure out if there is a God.  Actually, I am not sure I want to know if there is, if he is the one who created this mixed up world.  Do you to go to the same church?"

"No," replied Simon, "We met at the homeless shelter"

"Which one of you was  homeless?" Jackie said with a mischievous smile.

"It must have been Simon.  He probably the only Baptist at the Catholic Charities that day."  Thomas, is still surprised that Simon came to the shelter to work.

"So, Tom, are you Catholic?"

"Yes"

"I thought Baptist thought Catholics were going to hell, Simon.  Were you trying to get him saved?"   

Jackie always got to the point.  That was one of the things Simon liked about her, but he wished she had not raised the point about Catholics and Baptists.  "No, Jackie, we don't all believe that.  Jesus spoke frequently about caring for the poor, needy, and oppressed.  I guess I got to the point where I had to do something about it.  The Catholic Charities happened to be the group that ran the local homeless shelter."

"Honestly, I am glad you two help out there -- it makes the world a little better place," observed Jackie.

"You know, Jackie, God did not create this world the way it is," offered Simon.

"And, if you read the Bible," Thomas added, "you will find that most of the time when God was angry with people, it was because they did not treat other people right.  It was because of the way they treated the poor, needy, and foreigner in their land."

Simon stared open mouthed at his friend.

Noticing Simon's stare, Thomas said, "What?!"

"I did not know you were a Bible scholar?  I am learning something new about you every day," replied Simon.

"Oh yeah," said Thomas, "We Catholics have been allowed to read the Bible since Vatican II." 

Simon could tell that Thomas was amused, so he relaxed.

"You two are funny," grinned Jackie.  "I can tell you are struggling with your differences."

"Yes, we sometimes do," admitted Thomas. 

"You know," Simon said, "Jesus disciples were very different, too. He had one disciple who was a zealot, and one who was a tax collector."

"What's is so big about that," asked Jackie.  "Matthew works for the IRS." 

Thomas burst out laughing.

"What now?" asked Simon and Jackie.

"Well, it just struck me funny.  The name of the disciple who was the zealot was Simon, and the disciple who was the tax collector was called Matthew," explained Thomas.

"I still don't get it.  Is it because Simon and my husband have the same names?"

"Well, that, and the fact that Simon here is like a modern day zealot.  Zealots were like the right wing republicans in Jesus' time.  They were extremely loyal to the Jewish nation, and wanted to overthrow the Roman Empire by force.  I think Simon would probably have had a 'Support our Zealots' sticker on his chariot.  See the connection, Jackie."  Thomas glanced over to Simon's car.

"Very funny, Tom!"  Simon realized the connection.  "We are getting off my point.  As you pointed out, Simon was a Zealot.  Matthew was a tax collector -- a Jew who worked for the Roman Government, and took money (often more than was required)  from his Jewish brethren, and gave it to the Roman occupying powers.  Zealots would have hated tax collectors more than the Romans, and might have killed one, if given the chance.  Jesus chose a Zealot and a tax collector to be his disciples.

"That must have made for some interesting discussions around the fire," reflected Jackie.  "So you are saying that you and Thomas reflect the diversity within Jesus' discipleship community?"

"Yes, I guess I am," affirmed Simon. 

"It seems like an impossible situation.  I cannot imagine how it would work.  Christians today seem to always be at each other's throats.  That is one of the reasons I don't consider Christianity.  There is no love."  Jackie realized she might crossed the line here.  "Present company excepted, of course."

"No, you do not have to apologize Jackie.  You're right, often the Church does not reflect the love of God.  I always tell people to not look at what the Church does, but instead, look at Jesus.  Jesus is the best way of knowing what God is like."  Simon was sensing the Holy Spirit at work here.

"I never thought of it that way, Simon, but I like where you are going with this," said Thomas.  "Sometimes I do get frustrated with you, but when we focus on the common ground, we seem to overcome the differences."

"And the common ground is Christ," Simon emphasized.

Jackie was quiet.  She was sensing that she was observing something unique going on here.  It was like a light was going on between Simon and Thomas.  She was glad she could experience it.

"You are quiet, Jackie," observed Thomas.

"It is just that I was thinking."  She paused to gather her thoughts.  "I was thinking that if more Christians were like you two, I could believe in Jesus and His God."

"You know, that was similar to what a Sheik once said to St. Francis," Simon said, remembering their initial topic.

"Preach always.  If necessary use words," Thomas summarized.

"Yes," agreed Simon.  They were finishing their cigars.  "Hey you two want some desert?"

"Sure, I'm always up for desert," Thomas said enthusiastically.

"Me too," said Jackie.   

They laid their cigars in the ash tray and headed around back to find Johanna and Mary.  Jackie reached into her pocket and pulled out some mints. 

"Mint? She offered Thomas and Simon.

"Good idea," they said. 

As they turned around the corner of the house, they saw Johanna, Mary, and Matthew sitting quietly together on the deck. 

"What are you all doing?" Simon asked.

Mary looked up, "Just praying."

"Ready for desert?" Johanna asked?

Emergent Part Two: Generous Orthodoxy and Brian McLaren

This is part two of a three part series on the emergent movement.  If you have not yet read Part One, please do, as I will be building upon what I said in that post.  In this post I will review and critique Brian McLaren and his book Generous Orthodoxy.  I do not plan to provide significant commentary on the Emergent Church as defined by the Emergent Village, because I have not researched it sufficiently to accurately assess that group.  However, my overall opinions and recommendations on emergent -- little 'e' and big E -- will be provided in detail in part three of this series. 

Generous Orthodoxy (GO) is an engaging and challenging book.  I say the book is engaging because I found myself really wanting to read it, and most of the time, not wanting to put it down.  I found it challenging because it provoked a variety of responses and many detailed discussions on what McLaren was saying.  It initially starts out a bit rough with some poorly written chapters (I deduct one star for this), but by the time he gets to the "The Kind of Christian I Am" section, his true writing skill comes out.  I think Chapter 0 can be skipped, where he tries to identify everything wrong with the book. 

This book is not a systematic theology, so if you want a detailed exposition on what emergent or McLaren's own views, you will be disappointed.  McLaren's views do peak through in a form that is more of a dialog or confession, which makes the book easy to read.  Some of McLaren's ideas have been criticized, but McLaren welcomes this, and even goes so far as to criticize himself.  This book is often referred to as a summary of what capital 'E' Emergent, as in www.emergentvillage.com, is all about.  However, the book reflects emergent thinking more than it defines emergent thinking. 

The theme of "Generous Orthodoxy" is discussed throughout.  McLaren defines GO as a widening of orthodoxy (right thinking), so as to include more than one particular sect of Christianity.  He also emphasizes orthopraxis (right practice) as a point of orthodoxy.  McLaren is often accused of being a pluralistic relativist, or at least, people question whether he actually believes in objective truth.  He however rejects pluralistic relativism, if you take the time to read what he actually says in this book.  In my own reading of GO and McLaren, I am inclined to believe that his critics either do not understand him or misrepresent him in this area. 

When people ask me "what kind of Christian I am" I have often wished I could write a book like this in reply.  There are some chapters I would write differently, and others that I could not improve upon.  In my own thinking, emergent is more a description of the time we live in and what is going on within the Church.  GO does a good job of capturing much of this, though it is also McLaren's goal to establish a specific form of Emergent Church. 

McLaren is primarily writing to people, Christian or otherwise, who are about ready to give up on Christianity, or perhaps have already done so.  To them, McLaren is saying, "There is more to Christianity than what many (if not most) Christians say or do."  To the rest of us, McLaren is challenging us to see if what we say or do really reflects the whole teaching of scripture and of Christ.

The book is definitely worth reading, and you do not have to consider yourself "emergent" to benefit from what McLaren has to say.  I gave it four stars on Amazon.com.

More on GO and McLaren:

As I said above, I could not improve upon some chapters of this book.  His "The Seven Jesuses I have Known" describes different aspects of Jesus that different sects or denominations of Christianity have emphasized.  Perhaps McLaren generalizes too much here, but I think if we are honest with ourselves we will have to agree that there is much truth to what he is saying.  One of my own frustrations about the way people approach Christianity is that they tend to have too narrow a view of Jesus.  One person's Jesus is ready to throw us into hell, the other person's Jesus loves us, another cares for the poor, needy, and oppressed, another is filled with the Holy Spirit, another adheres to numerous legalistic practices, and yet another is a friend of sinners to the point of being called a glutton and drunkard.  Jesus caused a lot of controversy during his time, and he still does during our time.  In any case, McLaren's more generous version of Jesus is very similar to the Jesus (or Jesuses)  I know, and I suggest, more close to the truth than any one emphasis.

Another chapter I liked very much is his chapter where he turns Calvinism's TULIP into:

T = Triune Love
U = Unselfish Election
L = Limitless Reconciliation
I = Inspiring Grace
P = Passionate, Persistent Saints

The way he expands this cuts to the heart of the Biblical reflection of God's redemptive work, and interestingly, does so in a way to largely avoid the classical Calvinism/Arminism debate.

There are also many places where McLaren frustrates me.  He frustrates me when he says:

...rather than seeing missiology as a study within theology, theology is actually a discipline within Christian mission.   p. 115ff

My first reaction is that he is trying to define theology as missiology, but as I write this, I realize he is only saying it is a "discipline" within Christian mission.  Perhaps he is right.  Effective apologetics requires us to define basic presuppositions and truths about God, man, and this world.  Perhaps theology serves mission more than mission serves theology?  Can you see how the book can provoke thought?

Many people do not like his chapter on being Biblical.  He says things like:

Perhaps the best way to use Scripture is not to concentrate on our use of Scripture at all but rather on our pursuit of mission.  p. 182

Hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extra-biblical words and concepts to justify one's belief in the Bible's ultimate authority.   ...  "The purpose of Scripture is to equip God's people for good works."  Shouldn't a simple statement like this be far more important than statements with words foreign to the Bible's vocabulary about itself (inerrant, authoritative, literal, revelatory, objective, absolute, propositional, etc)?  p. 183

One of the things McLaren is doing here is that he is speaking to some conservative evangelical Christians that want to embrace sola scriptura, to the exclusion of any consideration of tradition, experience, or the community of believers.  You might say, "What is wrong with that?"  Yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we all are influenced by our traditions.  We may not embrace tradition as much as a Roman Catholic, but try to change the way you do things in church, and  you will often come face to face with tradition.  "We never have done it that way" are words that have plagued more than one pastor or church congregation.  As I stated in Part One, contemporary evangelical protestants are rediscovering the Contemplative Tradition (there's that word again), and are rediscovering a an existential or mystical aspect of our faith.  If we are honest with ourselves, the our experience of God is a major affirming force in our faith.  Still, embracing experience, tradition, and the community of believers goes too far, if the Bible becomes only one of four things.  In my thinking, the Bible must still be the prima thing.  The point of sola scriptura is not to reject the other three, but rather, that the other three must be judged in light of scripture.

Another point McLaren emphasizes is a narrative approach to the Bible.  "We need to reclaim the Bible as narrative."  (p. 185)    In seminary, we studied various approaches to exegesis, so we can gain appreciation for what each approach has to offer.  It seemed to me that a narrative approach worked very well, because it forced the reader to take the text as a whole, and listen to what it said.  The historical critical method was good for establishing the context, cultural nuances, and historical background.  But it often obscured the message with all the background facts.  The radactional criticism involved an editorial analysis of the text that to me had little value.  The narrative method, however, forces the reader to listen to the whole text.  Of course, all of these methods must be applied taking into consideration the genre of what you are reading. 

Interestingly, the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" influenced how each of these methods are used.  The conservative does historical criticism, and can still get lost in the background facts.  The liberal will do historical criticism, and get lost in the "facts" of whether psalm 40 is one or three psalms, perhaps written over hundreds of years.  Similarly, the narrative story the conservative reads is something real, that took place in time and space.  The liberal story is more mythology, that is helpful to inspire us to do good.  In my own thinking, if we reduce the Bible to mythology, then it ceases to be something distinctive above other religious texts (see my "Why Truth?" post).

McLaren makes interesting point with the Bible as story.  He says:

The Bible is a story, and just because it recounts (by standards of accuracy acceptable to its original audience) what happened, that doesn't mean it tells what should always happen or even what should have happened.  p. 185

Here, he tells us that just because God did something one way in history, does not mean that it is always his way of doing things.  Just because he had the Israelites wipe out the Canaanites, does not mean that he wants us to do the same, as the Europeans did with the American Indians.  Perhaps Jesus' emphasis on love should cause us to rethink how we treat other people and other nations?  It is an excellent point and has some implications to discussion of theodicy.

Briefly, some chapters in GO seem to engage their topics well, such as "Why I am an (Ana)baptist/Anglican."  Others did left me thinking, "Is that all you can say on the topic?!!!"  For example, in "Why I am Charismatic/Contemplative" left me wondering how much exposure to the contemplative tradition he actually had.  In "Why I am Methodist" he essentially says "methods are helpful."  I am sure there are more to the Methodist distinctives than methods.  In "Why I am Catholic" he did not say anything about the vast contemplative tradition largely preserved by the Catholics, but he did say "Catholicism celebrates Mary" and "Catholics know how to party."  Maybe I am wrong here, but I wonder if "knowing how to party" is something Catholics would want to hold up as a distinctive.  And, while we can all learn from Mary and the other saints, I am not sure Catholic Marianism is a distinctive we all need to embrace, especially since many Catholics feel they can approach Mary and the saints but not Jesus or our heavenly Father (in spite of the many Our Fathers they pray).  Perhaps in a truly emergent world, we could learn from these things, but I am not sure I would write about in my book on GO.  Yet, I think part of what McLaren wants to do is to challenge us, or perhaps shock us, into thinking beyond the normally comfort zones.

Perhaps the chapter "Why I am Incarnational" is the most radical, because it discusses how we approach other religions.  However, as I review my highlights in that chapter, I find that I was mostly affirming what he is saying.  Indeed, there are some things he says that are very insightful.  For example:

...different religions are not always saying different things about the same subjects; rather they are often talking about different subjects entirely.  p. 287

The implication is that we do not always have to disagree with other religions, and sometimes we might even be able to learn from each other, which in turn could open the door for us to share the gospel.  Indeed, some approaches to religions such as Islam are to teach them about Jesus, rather than trying to refute Islam and replace all the culture surrounding it with "our form" of Christianity.  For example, early Christianity adapted much of the Greco-Roman culture to its own purposes.

In the "Why I am Emergent" chapter McLaren starts to get to the heart of his passion.  Again, he is trying to get us to see beyond the limitations of the particular view of Christianity we have -- especially if it is what he calls the "modern, exclusivist, absolutist, colonial version of Christianity." (p. 325)  He is not arguing for pluralistic relativism, even though it may seem like it.  He does provocatively liken pluralistic relativism to chemotherapy, to treat "modern, exclusivist, absolutist, colonial Christianity."  Here he admits the treatment could kill the patient.  His point is that there is something beyond this limited form of Christianity, which still reflects the way of Jesus and the truth of his love. 

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways, says the Lord"  Isa 55:8

"O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are his judgments and inscrutable his ways."  Rom 11:33

"I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with the fullness of God."  Eph 3:18-19

Brian McLaren in Generous Orthodoxy is drawing an outline around the emergent movement, and in places is advocating for the specific movement of the Emergent Village.  In that movement, there are specific people, advocating specific things.  Some of these things seem right on, such as a Jesus centric and missional focus, but I am not sure all that they advocate are things we as Christians need to embrace.  Still, McLaren and the others like him are having an impact on the Church in our time.

In the third part of this series, I will comment on my own perspectives and thoughts regarding things emergent.

Emergent Part One: Background and Little e Emergent

Those of you who have been keeping up with my recent posts know that I have been reading Brain McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy (GO) and some articles on the emergent movement.  This has inspired me to write a number of posts. With this post, I have created a new category on my blog called Emergent Movement" which I will explain later.  All "Emergent" (big 'E' or little 'e') related posts have been recategorized accordingly.  This post is the first of three posts documenting my own position on the emergent movement.  As most commentators I have read on emergent will point out, there are really two things called "emergent".  One is the general movement called "emergent," and the other is a specific association of people called the Emergent Church.  I will comment on both Emergent Church, specifically, and emergent movement, in general -- big E and little e. 

Part 1 of this series will provide some background information that I think will help the reader better engage emergent, and perhaps, not make it anything more than it really is.  My focus will be on little 'e' emergent.  Part 2 will be a review of GO, Brian McLaren, and the Emergent Church.  My focus in that part will be big 'E' emergent.  Part 3 will have my own position on all of the above.  This is where I will shift from a general pro and con critique/summary to a more specific committal of my own position.  If you are already familiar with emergent or Emergent, please ready these three parts, and comment accordingly.   Your insight will help me refine my own thinking.

Our story begins in the Twentieth Century, in the midst of modernity.  Modernity is a "term often used to designate the post-Enlightenment period in Europe and North America in which people turned to scientific culture and its promises in order to fill a void left by a decline in religion.  Values of the secular culture and rejection of religious authority are primary as well as the belief in knowledge as certain, objective, and good.(1)" While the church struggled with modernity throughout the 20th Century, it often gave into a type of anti-intellectualism and withdrew from engaging these trends. 

While the church was declining at this time, the scientific culture was growing with the industrial age at a breath-taking pace.  Futurists like Alvin Tofler wrote about the implications of the "Future Shock" caused by raging industrial and societal change that acted like atomic blast to all that we came to take for granted.  With all this change, people tried all the more to find an answer to the growing chaos and alienation people experienced.  Seeking meaning, community, and structure, people often found it in drugs, sex, cults, and religious practices.  Yet, this smorgasbord of ideas, experience, and self fulfillment left many empty and in bondage.

Perhaps the best known apologist to modernity during this time was Francis Schaeffer.  He engaged modernity with its own tools, and made powerful intellectual arguments that only the Bible provided sufficient answers to life's questions.  The Biblical world view provided meaning and hope to a world seeking to fill a void.  Schaeffer provided new inspiration for the church to re-engage society, and many responded to this message.

The evangelical church in particular started to wholeheartedly embrace its new found intellectual vigor.  For example, Walter Martin, "The Bible Answer Man," would analyze and critique non-Christian beliefs, providing an important service at a time when dozens of cults and religious sects sprang up as people continued to seek meaning and fulfillment.  However the same liberating devices soon started to ensnare the church.

This intellectual fervor sparked many debates within the church.  Increasingly, the apologists were critiquing their fellow Christians, and often branding them as heretics.  Truth became a club you would beat your brethren with.  Also, the church embraced many of the forms and methods of the world.  Small groups explored corporate team dynamics, churches sought to market their wares in "seeker sensitive" services.  Increasingly the ways of the world were syncretisticly blended into the church.  As Schaeffer warned, the people of God assimilated the culture without even realizing it (see his book, The God Who is There).  With increasing numbers and media recognition, came increasing political power -- both within society and Christianity.

Meanwhile, the secular world was rapidly growing dissatisfied with modernity, and out of that dissatisfaction, there was a move to come "out of" modernity, giving rise to Post-modernism.  Post-modernism is a "description of a contemporary intellectual and cultural climate as a stage beyond the modernism introduced by the Enlightenment.  It is marked by a rejection of objective truth,' the powers of reason, and claims of universality.  Text and symbols are emphasized together with a corporate understanding of truth that is relative to each community in which one participates."(2) It is important to note that this time we live in is "postmodern" -- it is arising out of modernity.  As such, there are attributes that may not strictly follow the intellectual definition I just gave.  However, there are important characteristics that must be understood if one is to understand any postmodern movement.

Many people more qualified than I have written on post-modernism.  However, there are several aspects of post-modernism that are helpful to know when engaging our topic.

• As stated in our definition, post-modernism is a reaction against modernism.  It rejects reason and cold empirical objectivism, and universality (which is often referred to as absolutes).  I am not sure it is a complete rejection of these things, but it is at least a vehement acknowledgment that these things alone cannot fulfill our most deep rooted needs.
• With post-modernism there was a new openness to spirituality and mystical experience. 
• The intellectualism of modernity came to be viewed as a means of power and control which is to be rejected in order to set the people free from arbitrary constraints.  Language and history are "deconstructed" along with the other "foundational" aspects of the old system.  At the very least, these things were viewed as creating artificial constraints on people, society, and the church.
• The generations before the Baby Boomers were independent, and would often act alone.  They went out alone as missionaries, explorers, and pioneers.  The postmodern generations tend to do things in groups and teams, in community. 

All of these things can have positive and negative affects.  In recent years, however, a number of things have happened, which if viewed in light of the above, can help us to better understand the current times and emergent movement.

While the New Age movement has unquestionably benefited from the postmodern openness to spirituality, Christianity has similarly taken an interest in the Contemplative tradition.  Aided by popular writers such as Richard Foster and Dallas Willard, we find evangelicals reading about spiritual formation and practicing spiritual disciplines.  Ancient practices such as lectio divina are now common in many churches.  This has a number of side effects.

One major side effect of studying spiritual formation is that people start to realize that the Bible talks about us being formed into the likeness of Christ.  This adds a new dimension to what it means to be a Christian.  Rather than solely being focused on eternal salvation in the life to come, we now start to learn about the work of God in our current life.  We find that God not only wants to have us dwell in his house, but he wants us to dwell in Him and he in us (1 Jn 4:16).  Loving God and our neighbor takes on the additional dimension of us abiding in love, with Trinitarian concepts such as perichoresis helping us to better understand the kind of relationship God wishes to have with us (cf. Jn 17).

As we read Forster and Willard and the many others writing about spiritual formation, we quickly encounter quotes of many Catholic contemplative writers such as Thomas Merton and John of the Cross.  We soon start reading the wealth of Catholic literature on the subject.  We also find that some of the best retreat centers are run by Catholics.  We might also start to get exposed some of the deeper meanings of liturgy, which has led some churches to renew their interest in liturgy.  Thus the gap between Catholic and Orthodox traditions (both of which have a wealth of contemplative knowledge and experience) and Protestants has narrowed significantly.

Along with the renewed interest in things Catholic and Orthodox, the Catholic church has been going through changes of its own.  With Vatican II, the reading of scripture by lay people is encouraged.  Martin Luther is exonerated from his "heresy," the charismatic movement infuses new life in the individual believer, and through interactions with evangelicals of all types, Catholics find many things are shared in common.

All of this has also lead evangelicals to take fresh look at the Lord's commands to care for the poor, needy, and oppressed.  Often Catholics and Protestants partner together in various service ministries.  People like John Michael Talbot, who himself has crossed the Catholic/Protestant barier with his music, help us to appreciate some of the "saints" such as Francis of Assisi.  Francis, in turn encourages us to care for the environment, which is God's creation of which we are to be stewards.

With the civil rights movement of the 60's behind us, churches are increasingly showing an interest in reversing the trend that makes Sunday morning one of the most segregated times of the week.  Combine this with world-wide migration of peoples to the United States and Europe, and we are faced with a Church that is increasingly diverse, or at least wanting to be.  With this diversity, we have an accompanying diversifying of the way we "do church."  We start to view ourselves through different eyes, and this can lead to a reevaluating (not reinventing) of our theology and our understanding of history.

As you can see, these events trigger a domino effect that encompasses many of the kinds of things that "emergent" advocates.  I suggest that being emergent, little 'e,' is not so much something people do because they have read a book like Generous Orthodoxy.  Instead, it is a sign of the times we live in.  This explains how I can be "emergent" in many ways, and my church reflects many "emergent" ideas and practices, when neither I or my church has consciously tried to be emergent.  In my case, I did not study emergent writers.  Many of the people the emergent writers like, and are now called "emergent," were doing what they were doing before there was anything called "emergent." 

For example, Mark Driscoll talks about getting together with people to dialog ten years ago.  Richard Foster's book Celebration of Discipline was first published in 1978.  As noted above, Francis Schaeffer not only made an effective response to modernity, his ministry of L'Abri Fellowship embodied a lot of aspects of emergent.

In summary, little 'e' emergent is perhaps best described as the state of postmodern Christianity in the early 21st Century.  Many of the denominational boundaries are being crossed, as well as a new appreciation for various Christian traditions.  It is marked by a deep appreciation for spirituality and spiritual formation.  The church is seeking to be more diverse in race, ethnicity, and socioeconomically.  A greater acceptance of egalitarian roles is taking place.  Finally, a broadening of our theological understanding is resulting a broader understanding of orthodoxy and orthopraxis (right doctrine and right practice).  This is accompanied by a bigger understanding of Jesus, the church, and what it means to be Christian. 

In Part 2 of this series, I will discuss the Emergent Church, specifically, Brian McLaren, and his book Generous Orthodoxy. 

_________________

¹ Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, John Knox Press, 1996) p. 176

²_____ Ibid. p. 214

More Emerging Thoughts...

I just finished an interesting article called "A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church" by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA.  You can find this article in the Criswell Theological Review, Vol 3, Issue 2 (2006).  At the present time, this article is available on the CTR web site.  It also has in interesting interview with Brian McLaren, which worth reading and currently available on the CTR site.

Driscoll provides insight into the history of the emergent  movement, and identifies various types of emergent Christians:  Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists.  His summary of the movement is informative and thought provoking.  Driscoll is often sited as one of the people involved in emergent but has been distancing himself from some parts of the movement -- particularly the Revisionists, among whom he includes Brian McLaren. 

Driscoll clearly is siding with what McLaren would probably call the Conservative Evangelical position.  Indeed, in the article, it appears that he is focusing largely on the judgmental view of the gospel.  Driscoll says:

Scripture and history have repeatedly proven that the Holy Spirit works with power through the preaching and teaching of Scripture if it is focused on the person of Jesus Christ.  Subsequently, men and women become convicted by the Spirit of their personal sin against their holy Creator and run to the cross where Jesus Christ accomplished the forgiveness of sins through his substitutionary death and bodily Resurrection.  Anyone who denies these essential truths of the gospel may very well understand their culture but they lack the ability to confidently and lovingly assert the truth, thereby inevitably resulting in false gospels that lead people to the conscious eternal punishment of hell.  (p.92ff)

If you have read Generous Orthodoxy (GO), then you can tell Driscoll is primarily working from the "Conservative Protestant Jesus" that McLaren talks about in the chapter, "The Seven Jesuses I Have Know." 

While I agree partially with Driscoll, I think he is sacrificing the other aspects of Jesus Christ, Son of God, on the cross (pun intended).  For example, this view of the Judging God tends to lose sight of the redeeming loving God who works from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22 to woe and redeem men and women and all of creation.  It also loses sight of the fact that God not only wants to save us, but also wants to form Christ in us.  It misses the point that God himself came and suffered with and for us so we can have Hope.  Perhaps Driscoll would affirm all these things, but those on the receiving end of a message that focuses only on the "Conservative Protestant Jesus" know that many of these other things are eclipsed by the dark shadow of hell, cast off this God's turned back.

Besides reading these two articles I have also just finished reading "Why I am an (Ana)baptist/Anglican" in GO.  I really enjoyed the chapter, and in it he says perhaps one of the most profound things in the whole book.

When you choose both/and rather than either/or regarding Catholicism and Protestantism, you learn to live with dynamic tension in other areas as well.  You resist the reductionist temptation to always choose only one thing over another, and you learn to hold two or more things together when necessary.  (p. 234)

This perhaps is the key to many of these debates.  Many Christians want things to be "either/or" but in reality there is dynamic tension, and one needs to learn to hold "two or more things together" in the midst of the tension between them.  For example, the freewill of man and the sovereignty of God are best understood when considered together.  (See my post "Living in God's Will" under the category "Sacrament of the Present Moment."

Why Truth?

In thinking about my "What is Truth?" post and the dialog that is going on in its comments, I find myself wondering whether this line of thinking is beneficial.  After all, so what if McLaren is a flaming post-liberal relativist?  Is that all that bad?  What if we all affirm Christ?  Isn't Christ sufficient?  It strikes me that these questions boil down to, "Why?"  Why truth?

Some might talk about the "dangers" of "non-functionalist thinking."  What is the danger?  Is it perhaps unbelief?  Is it perhaps the possibility of reducing Christianity to something so general, so broad, and yes, so "generous" that is looses its identity altogether?  Perhaps, but I think God is able to overcome that.  I think more than Jesus Christ will spit out lukewarm Christianity (cf. Rev 3).  C.S.Lewis' character Screwtape told his underling to give them "Christ and..."  Anything but Christ alone.  For many, I think there is hope that Emergent, or emergent,  will get rid of the "and," leaving us with Christ.  However, there are other points on the EC platform, beyond Christ and Mission.  So I do not think EC will get rid of the "and." 

Still, we are human beings and as such, there is a tendency to express our faith in a variety of different, and often opposing, ways.  The beauty of Christianity, as G.K. Chesterton observed in Orthodoxy, is the precariously balancing paradoxes that form the Church.  Taken as a whole, Christianity is anything but a conformist religion. 

Still, why truth?  The answer for me is really very simple.  Am I willing to die for it?  In America today, none of us have to die for what we believe, unless we are perhaps in the military.  However, Jesus told us that we would have to take up our cross and follow him.  He said that following him would include persecutions and death.  Historically, that was often the case, and in many places around the world, it is still the case.  Those Christians of the early church did not go to their deaths because of an existential experience in reading the Torah or Paul's letters.  They want to their death because they believed in the truth of the death and Resurrection of Christ, and the hope of the kingdom to come.  They went to death because they knew that there was something more than our life of finitude in this suffering world of ours.

The reason that some of us get excited and concerned about relativistic ideas about truth being a "mosaic of the community" is that I am not sure I would  want to die for group think.  I can see that perhaps a post-liberal theologian might be satisfied in the way the Bible makes them feel and helps them do good, even though they view much of it as myth.  However, I, personally, need to have more than myth in order to give my life. 

Indeed, I do have more.  I have the l living God, who is there and is not silent, as Francis Schaeffer reminds us.  My knowledge of God is scriptural, prophetic, historic, existential, and personal.  It is both objective and subjective.  It is all that it should be if the Triune God is real.  In the end, God needs to be big enough to unite all the different Christians in his Love.  That, is objective fact, in my humble opinion.

We can learn from each other and tradition.  We can learn from McLaren.  Brian McLaren is not the enemy.  Perhaps that is the whole point of GO?  But I need more than the words of GO to believe and die.

What is Truth?

Have you every been so full of things to say that you do not know where to start?  That's where I am right now.  I have been going over what I want to say in my head, and it almost seems better to just not say anything.  As I read through Generous Orthodoxy (GO), it has provoked a frenzy of thought activity.  Ironic, since the book would probably advocate orthopraxis over orthodoxy -- right practice over right thinking.  After all, it is all the "right thinking" of those Modernest conservative evangelicals, or is it Evangelicals, that has made the church a bitter pill that is difficult to swallow, or so goes the story.

I originally wanted to blog about the Bible after reading McLaren's chapter on being Biblical.  However, yesterday I listened to an audio tape on the Emergent Church in general, and GO, in particular.  It was done by Jock McGregor, of the Rochester L'Abri Fellowship -- the organization started by Francis Schaeffer.  In that talk, he focused more on the theology that is influencing the Emergent Church and Brian McLaren.

It is impossible to not address the topic of truth when talking about being "Biblical"  Some of McGregor's points have a lot to do with Stanley Grenz, John Franke, and Nancy Murphy.  To understand what that means to Emergent or GO requires going into a level of detail that I may not be qualified attempt, nor does space allow. 

Echoing Pilate's words to Jesus seemed appropriate here.  "What is Truth?"  McGregor makes the comment "Emergent will embrace almost anything, except modernism."  If you are reading through GO, I think will have seen the propensity for this. Indeed, Emergent Christians, which McLauren calls post-liberal and post-conservative, seems clearly against "modern, exclusivist, absolutist" Christianity (cf. GO, p. 325).  MeGregor understands what all those words mean, and I believe McLauren does as well.  However, the typical lay reader of GO might not understand what is being said.  After all, what is with all the "post this" and "post that" talk, anyway? 

I think to properly set the stage for discussing being "Biblical" it might be helpful to take a quick look at some of the work of Francis Schaeffer.  Shaeffer, in his book, The God Who Is There rightly says the following:

So the Christian must resist the spirit of the world in the form it takes in his own generation.  If he does not do this, he is not resisting the spirit of the world at all." (p. 11, Vol I of The Complete Works of Francis A Schaeffer)

For Schaeffer, the work of the spirit of the world in his time was largely the thinking that sprang out of the Enlightenment.  Modernism was one of the "isms" that he talked about.  Schaeffer's insights proved helpful to many, and in his time, he was quite effective at reaching those outside the church.  However, these "isms" had also infected the church.  On one hand, a large part of the church was oblivious to what was happening, like frogs in water that is slowly being brought to a boil.  The parts of the church that was aware of these "isms" and often embraced them, was represented by the "Liberal" theologians.  Liberal theologians questioned much of scripture, and in many ways were like the Sadducees of Jesus' time, who did not believe in miracles and the "supernatural" parts of the Bible. 

Schaeffer was not only troubled by this, because he was a conservative theologian in a denomination that was rapidly growing liberal.  He realized the need for a solid foundation for society.  He saw that the Bible provided a basis for answering all of life's questions.   He engaged basic presuppositions people held, and showed how the basic presuppositions and world view of the Bible provided a better basis for answering life's questions.   Interestingly, the Schaeffer and the small group of people that made up L'Abri Fellowship were much more than a group of Christians willing to engage the intellectual ideas of the time.  They had a holistic approach to life -- living by faith, prayer, in community, concerned for those in need and the oppressed, and they embraced much of what it means to be human, from our ordinary work to the arts and music.  In many ways, they might have been very "emergent," crossing over many traditions, embracing both orthodoxy and orthopraxis.  Not surprisingly, McLaren speaks highly of Schaeffer in GO. 

The result of Schaeffer and others like him, was that Christianity became revitalized.  Indeed, it is likely that the new potency gave rise to the very Evangelical church that McLaren speaks of.  The irony is that modernist/enlightenment thought that Schaeffer spoke against appears to be one of the things McLaren is speaking against within the Church.  However, I am not sure the two are the same.  I am getting close to breaking into a critique of Emergent, but I promised myself to not go there before I finish GO.  Let me make a couple observations, however.

As I read GO, and in particular note what McLaren says about "post-Liberal" and "post-Conservative" and Grenz, Franke, and others, I think I am seeing a connection with Schaeffer's "Liberal Theologians" of his day.  It seems to me that some of those that do not hold the Bible with high regard have just switched names.  Indeed, the whole point of "post-this" or "post-that" is to say that we are going beyond, "this" and "that" -- something that is often a good thing.  A theologian might have been "liberal" in the mid-Twentieth Century, and a "post-liberal" in the Twenty-first Century.  They are the same person.  Sure, their thinking has changed -- evolved.  All theologians evolve and mature in their thinking.  Yet, many of the same presuppositions might exist.  We believe the Biblical accounts, or not.  We believe in miracles, or not.  We believe the Bible is a good foundation, or not.  In this last case, Emergent is not necessarily taking the "or not" position about the bible, but it is taking the "or not" position about foundationalism -- absolutes.

I feel the need to make a qualification here.  I am not necessarily in disagreement with what McLaren says about the Bible.  In fact, I have a deep appreciation for a Narrative reading of the Bible, the approach McLaren advocates.  I will say more about that in my next post, about the Bible.  I also fully believe that God is doing something to tear down the walls within Christianity.  He is reassembling the fragments, if you will.  In many ways, McLaren in GO is arguing for just that.  I and McGregor both affirm much of the vision.  So, if you are emergent in your thinking, please do not write me off as "anti-emergent."  Keep in mind, in this blog, I am engaging the ideas, or to use an Emergent term, having conversation.  Let us stay open to each other.

I will close this post with a point Schaeffer often made, which is very applicable to our discussion today.  He would say that it is true that we cannot know truth exhaustively, but we can truly know something.  I might not know everything, exhaustively, about my wife, but there are many things I truly know about her.  The Bible does is not an exhaustive source of truth, but it does truly tell us things about God and ourselves.

McGregor made the observation that seeking truth is a deeply human trait.  He observes that finding truth does not always lead to arrogance.  It can also lead to humility.

Reflections on Churches

I am reading Generous Orthodoxy by Brian D. McLaren (see "Books I am Reading" under the Books category in my blog).  The book is keeping my interest.  If I continue to read at the pace I am, I will be done soon, so you can look forward to a book review. 

McLaren has  major section of the book called "The Kind of Christian I am."  In it he does a good job summarizing some of the areas in the Christian faith that tend to be polarized.  So far, he is taking a balanced view, much like my own position on most of these issues. 8-D

This is usually where I like to quote G.K. Chesterton:  "The religions of the earth do not greatly differ in rites and forms; they do greatly differ in what they teach."  (Orthodoxy, p. 128)  If you are new to the modern Christianity, then you might not know about all the differences within the faith.  You might just see a lot of denominations.  However, one way or another, it is likely you will encounter some of these dividing issues, and often they are dividing issues.  In some cases, it might not seem like much.  Maybe you don't relate to what "they" are all excited about.  Or, perhaps the issue will seem to be of great importance; to the point where you question how "they" could be Christians at all.

"What they teach" and "what they believe" usually has a lot to do with what people do, how they treat other people, and how they view themselves.  McLaren at one point uses an analogy of a hospital, where everyone in it, including the staff are sick and diseased and broken.  He likens introducing a new Christian to the church to taking an injured person into this hospital, where he is likely be end up worse off than he was before he went to the hospital.  McLaren says, "The hospital can be a pretty sick place sometimes.  A friend of mine once said that every new Christian should be equipped at baptism with a manure detector (not his exact words) because there's plenty of it around in the church world, and I agree."  So do I.

A few years back I worked the phones during televised Billy Graham crusades.  I always wondered what would happen to those people who call.  The Graham organization knows the importance of having good follow-up, but just who is going to be following up?  Indeed, many of the people who I talked to had been exposed to the church in some form or another.  In some cases, that was part of the reason they were so much in  need.

I have changed churches a number of times in my Christian life.  Sometimes it was because I moved.  Other times it was because I had to for self preservation.  Still other times, it was because I learned enough about what "they" teach to know I was not "one of them."  Honestly, while I am pretty ecumenical, there are few churches I would want to attend regularly, or that I would go out of my way to recommend to others.  Just explaining the differences can be a daunting task.  It is enough to put one off on evangelism for good.  Don't worry, I am not really as cynical as I sound right now.  8-)

One of the things about Generous Orthodoxy (GO) is that I find to be interesting is that McLaren does a good job at summarizing the different distinctions within the church, and like I said, so far, has come down on a pretty balanced position.  Balance is important.  Most of the problems occur when one starts to emphasize one aspect or theological position over all the rest.  For example, in Part One of GO,  McLaren discusses "Why I am a Christian."  In chapter one, he discusses "the seven Jesuses I have known."  Seven!  Funny thing is that I have encountered most of them myself.  Also interesting is the fact that each "Jesus" tends to be emphasized by another aspect of the church.  The sad thing is that all of them together are more like the real Jesus, than any are separately.  If we are to be followers of Jesus, and are to make disciples of Christ, then shouldn't we teach them to practice Christ in all ways? 

Ah, we are getting back to Christopraxis.  I was wondering how that was going to happen.  I feel like I should stop here, and let some of this settle in.