Well here it goes. I am going to try and respond to some of the Emergent conversation that Steve has raised. First and foremost everyone reading should this should pick up the book called "Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church" by D.A. Carson. His insights are coming from the other side, but I think that they paint a great picture of some of the worries with the emergent church philosophy.
I am in the middle of reading a new kind of Christian and I have yet to read a generous orthodoxy. So my argument is clearly a work in progress.
I am going to respond to quotes from your blog, please take this for the fun debate I am hoping it to be and not any kind of personal attack or intent to show superiority.
Quotes of Steve:
1) "I think Miller intentionally shows that the Bible by itself is not why he knows Jesus or is part of the Christian Church."
Response: I would agree that this is a idea Miller gives, but what I fear is that he has not supported the Bible enough in his writings to have a normal everyday person feel that it is force behind all we know about God. It does contain absolute truth and in a culture that tries to get away from that concept it would have been a helpful reaffirmation. I do not doubt miller's understanding of the Bible, but he leaves the door to open for others to easily dismiss its importance. I feel like this is a area of concern for many churches in the emergent mode. I do not think that this is universal, but there are churches that are shying away from the greatness of God's word.
2) "Miller is also writing to a more general audience than just evangelicals, and so when we reference the Bible as an authority, it is meaningless to most other people. Experience is something everyone can relate to, and that's a good place to start."
Response: This seems to be a very hypocritical argument for the emergent church. Just before this quote you quoted a passage by Mclaren where he talks about the irony of using extrabiblical words to justify our belief in biblical authority. However I think that the emergent church is focusing on peoples experiences in just the same way. The claim would be that it is culturally relevant. It may be a good place to start, but only if it is to form relationships in order to show people the truth about the Bible. Without the Word of God how can we know anything about Christ? If we do not come back to the Bible or we claim that the Bible is not the ultimate authority then Christianity becomes a club to join and a crutch during hard times for people and stops truly being truth that can change lives.
3) "My experience"
Response: This may be the scariest statement that I continue to hear from the emergent church. Carson gives a great idea about this in his book. According to Carson modernism started with the famous philosophy from Descartes: "I think therefore I am." Carson talks about how this changed the landscape of Christianity and philosophy because it took the focus off of God and put it onto man. We became the beginning in our philosophies and not God. This infiltrated Christianity and continues to bear witness in our local church. Carson therefore calls postmodernism Ultra -modernism because he says it is a continuation of the belief in self as the determinator of our worldview. In essence the weakness of Modernism is the weakness of postmodern culture. We are too self focused. I know that the emergent church is much better at meeting the needs of the needy, but do they do it because God wants them to or because it makes them feel good? Don Miller talked about getting past this, but then he encourages you to find a church where You feel at home. Does this seem contradictory to anybody else?
Final comment:
Steve, when I read about your experiences in the local church it breaks my heart. I hate to hear about how self absorbed the church is today. I could not agree with you or McLaren more in the fact that many churches are covering over for their lack of true faith. I loved your idea about people on a ship covering holes. I have felt that way many times . The difference for me is in the reaction to the news. I want desperately to fix the holes without jumping ship. I get concern that the emergent church as a whole is not truly fixing the holes in a ship. To me the greatest hole in the local church is the problem with our self-absorbed attitudes. I do not see this corrected in the emergent philosophy.
A few thoughts .
I am in the middle of reading a new kind of Christian and I have yet to read a generous orthodoxy. So my argument is clearly a work in progress.
I am going to respond to quotes from your blog, please take this for the fun debate I am hoping it to be and not any kind of personal attack or intent to show superiority.
Quotes of Steve:
1) "I think Miller intentionally shows that the Bible by itself is not why he knows Jesus or is part of the Christian Church."
Response: I would agree that this is a idea Miller gives, but what I fear is that he has not supported the Bible enough in his writings to have a normal everyday person feel that it is force behind all we know about God. It does contain absolute truth and in a culture that tries to get away from that concept it would have been a helpful reaffirmation. I do not doubt miller's understanding of the Bible, but he leaves the door to open for others to easily dismiss its importance. I feel like this is a area of concern for many churches in the emergent mode. I do not think that this is universal, but there are churches that are shying away from the greatness of God's word.
2) "Miller is also writing to a more general audience than just evangelicals, and so when we reference the Bible as an authority, it is meaningless to most other people. Experience is something everyone can relate to, and that's a good place to start."
Response: This seems to be a very hypocritical argument for the emergent church. Just before this quote you quoted a passage by Mclaren where he talks about the irony of using extrabiblical words to justify our belief in biblical authority. However I think that the emergent church is focusing on peoples experiences in just the same way. The claim would be that it is culturally relevant. It may be a good place to start, but only if it is to form relationships in order to show people the truth about the Bible. Without the Word of God how can we know anything about Christ? If we do not come back to the Bible or we claim that the Bible is not the ultimate authority then Christianity becomes a club to join and a crutch during hard times for people and stops truly being truth that can change lives.
3) "My experience"
Response: This may be the scariest statement that I continue to hear from the emergent church. Carson gives a great idea about this in his book. According to Carson modernism started with the famous philosophy from Descartes: "I think therefore I am." Carson talks about how this changed the landscape of Christianity and philosophy because it took the focus off of God and put it onto man. We became the beginning in our philosophies and not God. This infiltrated Christianity and continues to bear witness in our local church. Carson therefore calls postmodernism Ultra -modernism because he says it is a continuation of the belief in self as the determinator of our worldview. In essence the weakness of Modernism is the weakness of postmodern culture. We are too self focused. I know that the emergent church is much better at meeting the needs of the needy, but do they do it because God wants them to or because it makes them feel good? Don Miller talked about getting past this, but then he encourages you to find a church where You feel at home. Does this seem contradictory to anybody else?
Final comment:
Steve, when I read about your experiences in the local church it breaks my heart. I hate to hear about how self absorbed the church is today. I could not agree with you or McLaren more in the fact that many churches are covering over for their lack of true faith. I loved your idea about people on a ship covering holes. I have felt that way many times . The difference for me is in the reaction to the news. I want desperately to fix the holes without jumping ship. I get concern that the emergent church as a whole is not truly fixing the holes in a ship. To me the greatest hole in the local church is the problem with our self-absorbed attitudes. I do not see this corrected in the emergent philosophy.
A few thoughts .
4 Comments:
Steve and Gabe, I hope you dont mind if I throw my own two cents in here.
Gabe, I think your opening sentences in response to Steve would help to define the reasons many people look to personal experience rather than biblical statements. We live in a world where people have every reason to doubt authority and the intentions of anything that tells them how to live. Christianity's past is not the cleanest and the greatest attrocities the church ever committed in the Lord's name were spurred on by the Bible because this or that group found a couple of verses, sewed them together, and preached a vengeful way to salvation. There are a lot of people out there not willing to swallow something wholesale just because they are told it is the way to know God. In fact, many people who are wary of the word of God will point out that what we claim for this book is never claimed for itself. If you dont trust, if you doubt, if you have been hurt by the church, and all of this comes from the church's use of the "absolute word" of god, what do you turn to?
Where I work I am surrounded by people who hate Christianity. My closest coworker grew up in Wheaton and rejected everything she thought. When I speak with her she sees the bible as nothing more than a weapon used to castigate or scorn. What do I encourage her to do? Read it more and get over it? No, I absolutely stress my journey with her. I speak about experience and truth that we can find through experience. This is what I think the emergent movement would be trying to say in some way.
I understand where you are coming from Gabe, but there is a point where we have to actually beleive that the Holy Spirit will guide the church and that those people who want to speak of personal experience and the word of God on an even plane will be ok. Im not sure many people are willing to have this kind of trust though.
Lastly, a short thought on your picture of the boat with holes in it. Is it possible that maybe a boat with so many holes is beyond repair? That if it is sinking there is nothing that can be done for it? I would say let it sink. If it truly is the house of God then it will somehow survive. Maybe smaller, maybe not as much money, and maybe everyone will have to get a job just to support their community, but if it is indeed what it claims to be the good parts of it will rise to the top and it will be rebuilt without all the chaff that has sunk below.
By
kurbis, at 8:24 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Our Family, at 11:36 AM
Kurbis,
Great to have you apart of this conversation. I would love to do lunch sometime.
In response to your two cents. I would agree that there must come a time when we allow the Holy Spirit to guide, but I feel this happens best when we are following the Word. If you look at the atrocities of Christianities past there was an obvious misuse of the Bible. But I think it happened because they married the Bible to their culture. The Crusades were horrible indeed, but they were a culturally relevant way for an institution of that day to advance its cause. Do I think that makes it good? No it was an awful time for the Church. The love of Christ and his commission for believers was discarded because of the need to make the Bible fit the culture. The reason the Bible was misused was because it was used to fit the culture. My fear is that in some degree this is what the emergent church is doing in our day. No they will not go killing people for the faith, but that is also no longer acceptable in this world. The basis reason for the atrocity may be happening again, but they accept it because they are advancing the cause.
I think that the emergent church has many great positions and ideas. Number one is that they are loving people that the institutional churches often reject. I am however skeptical about the marrying of a theology to cultural relevance. This may not effect this generation very much, but the next generation may lose sight of the truths communicated in God's Word. If we believe God's word to be God speaking to his people, then why would we get away from it? If we are skeptical about God's Word then how do we know anything of the Holy Spirit? Personal experience is and will continue to be a great tool to introduce people to Christ, but I cannot believe that it can ever be removed from Biblical authority. I am not implying we need to always verbally present scripture to our friends or co-workers, but our experiences should live out and lead people to scripture. If we do not, then future generations will lose the Bible and thus have no checks and balances to measure our experiences. We would truly become pluralistic. I am not sure it can be reduced completely to a matter of trust.
By
Our Family, at 11:50 AM
Gabe, We are now tapping into something that I feel passionately. I agree with what you say about the marrying of culture and the faith being the cause of atrocity. What I would say though is that I believe evangelicalism/protestantism/conservative christianism (not actually an 'ism') are very guilty of this.
In the past kings and leaders of nations with a single "party" integrated Christianity and Culture. In America, Christianity has integrated itself into one of the 2 parties. This just happens to be the party currently involved with spreading conflict and war through the middle-east. Conflicts of vengance and retribution which the evangelical church has obediently supported by praying for American victory, putting flags in "god's" house (while pledging ALEGIANCE to them), and believing that the people who have died at an American Soldier's feet somehow deserve it in order to make us safe. The church has embraced safety by supporting a single party that claims to represent their interests while refusing to critically examine the political/social/theological ramifications of the Nationalistic fervor it has supported. We are not American Christians. Rather we are Christians sojourning in America.
Now, why did I go off on that rant? Because you said that killing in the name of the faith is no longer acceptable, but I dont think evangelicalism actually beleives that. If someone threatens what is ours and what we value (democracy, consumerism, 'freedom', western sensibilities and culture) we WILL kill them and the evangelical church will/has supported this (El Salvador, Liberia, South Africa, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon twice, Sudan, etc.). The emergent movement is, from what I see, rejecting this integration/takeover of culture by modern christianity. Evangelicalism is, after all, only following in the footsteps of Jerry Falwells fundamentalism before it. Maybe the emergent movement is guilty of accepting one part of culture, but the accusers need to be aware that they are complicit in the same folly.
In terms of losing God's word, I think we have to remember a couple of things. First of all the church existed for hundreds of years without it and grew with only partial sections of gospels and epistles. Second the writings we have (regardless of views of inspiration) are written from personal experiences of the writers. Third, cultures in which only sections of the new testament have been printed have not only accepted Christ into their way of life but have thrived and adopted their own traditions which line up very well with our own. Oftentimes this conversion and growth takes place before a translation even existed (history of missions screams this). Fourth, Christianity in oppressive regimes always flourishes even when the culture does not have the word of God at its fingertips. Fifth, Jesus promised us the Spirit, not a book.
Furthermore, it seems that we have made an idol of scripture. Where does God tell us that he has confined himself to the words in a book? Where does the Bible make an authoritative claim about itself? Where do we get the idea that the disciples personal experiences, written to us, were the last personal experiences that reveal God's revelation?
Now, this has been very long, for which I apologize. But I want to end on this last note: If trust is not enough - if we cannot trust God to exist in man's heart without words on a page - then how truly weak and fragile is this "good news" of God in us?
By
kurbis, at 9:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home