Understanding the Emerging Church
Dr. Kevin Shrum
Identifying and defining the ‘emerging church’ is like nailing jello to a wall – it’s virtually impossible. In fact, leaders of the ‘emerging church’ movement refuse to allow it to be defined for fear that definition will lead to codification and codification will lead to institutionalization and institutionalization will lead to what we already have – insulated spirituality in closed communities disengaged from culture. This is why ‘emerging church’ guru Brian McLaren refuses to use the term movement to describe the ‘emergent church.’[1]
As best as I can tell from my numerous readings on the subject, ‘emerging church’ is a term used to describe a new generation of believers who are coming out from under the rubble of a failed institutional church. This emerging generation of new believers is interested in discarding the unnecessary restraints of a church they believe has lost its ‘ancient faith.’ As ‘emerging church’ proponent advocate Dan Hughes argues, ‘The dominant churches have too often been on the wrong side of history choosing insular irrelevance over engagement; political complicity over prophetic dissonance; self-perpetuation over self-sacrifice.’[2]
Hughes goes on to argue that the ‘emerging church’ is a rejection of the ‘revenue-driven faith franchises and religious corporations that are actively trading on the name and reputation of a homeless man will not be the source for personal healing, local renewal, ecological stewardship and international, interracial or inter-communal peacemaking so long as they find their purpose in the empty excellence of the various trickle-down spiritualities that make up Christianity, Inc.’
Emergent church gurus envision a more methodologically and theologically fluid spiritual movement that infiltrates culture rather than confronts culture from a juxtaposed position. Hughes argues, ‘We imagine a system…that is among us. Amidst these systems we privilege and savor the investment of physical touch and embodied time that is the space of our shared meanings.’
The terms are telling. The ‘emerging church’ uses terms/phrases such as ‘participatory spirituality whose modalities rest more in the patterns of day-to-day life than in the cycles of attendance and consumption,’ ‘modalities,’ ‘networks of relationships,’ ‘processes,’ ‘journey.’ These terms/phrases give rise to an understanding of Christianity that is less codified, defined, organized, institutionalized, corporate; more intuitive, relational, linear, communal, creative, etc. Ultimately, as Hughes argues, the goal is avoid the ‘privileged trinity of Christian industry – the spiritual discipline of devotional literacy, spiritual life as attendance, and the gospel as syllogism.’ In other words, according to Hughes, the three-part goal of the ‘emergent church’ is: 1) to avoid a closed, literary Biblicism that does not allow for theological experimentation, 2) to reject the obligatory participation in a local fellowship that limits cross-generational, cross-societal interaction and 3) to oppose the gospel as logical truth.
What are we to make of this movement? It must be acknowledged that the enticement of this movement is the rejection of the corporate, the institutional, the codified. The ‘emerging church’ movement is right in criticizing much of the current state of affairs in modern Christianity, especially in a supposedly ‘Christianized’ west. It is a known fact that too many local bodies of believers are disconnected from culture and that a brand-name mentality has invaded the modern church. In other words, the church has become like Wal-Mart or McDonalds – one on every corner packaging and selling spiritual commodities for busy spiritual consumers, devoid of personal concern and relational depth. The church has become the first church of the consumer.
Having acknowledged these appropriate criticisms, the dangers in the ‘emerging church’ movement are many. Let me deal with these dangers by using Hughes’ ‘privileged trinity of Christian industry – 1) the spiritual discipline of devotional literacy, 2) spiritual life as attendance, and 3) the gospel as syllogism – which he desires to replace with a new trinity, namely: 1) reconfigured…textures of hyper-literacy, 2) networked living and 3) enacted gospel.
Devotional literacy vs. textures of hyper-literacy
Those within the ‘emergent church’ movement decry definitive statements of faith. These statements are viewed as parochial, narrow, exclusive and non-condusive to true community and spiritual development. This is why traditional Bible studies, sermons, lectures are viewed with suspicion – they cut off dialogue, debate, investigation. Instead, ‘emerging church’ leaders/participants desire an ancient faith that is non-descript. To make declarative statements reminds them of the spiritual rubble they have chosen to leave where declarative statements were often made unsubstantiated. Declarative statements cut off and limit relationships with both believers and non-believers.
But if truth statements are rejected outright, how can we know the gospel itself since Scripture defines the parameters of the gospel in definitive terms? For example, Jesus definitively said in John 14:6 that He alone was the way to the Father. Acts 4:12 affirms this truth. Further, we know the parameters of the gospel as defined in one its earliest expressions stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.
While the gospel is relational, it is also rational. It is not an either/or proposition; it is a both/and issue. The gospel is relational because it brings us into a vibrant relationship with the living God through the person of Jesus Christ as lived out in the Spirit. Yet, the gospel is rational in that it makes intellectual sense. It can be explained. The gospel is logical to the mind. The desire of the ‘emerging church’ is to move to what Hughes calls a ‘hyper-literacy’ where faith statements are less defined and more dialogical in relation to the Bible and other expressions of faith. This is dangerous because process becomes more important than principle, experience becomes the arbiter of truth and the journey of faith becomes a never-ending sojourn from one spiritual perspective to another. To illustrate, the plane circles the airport, but never gets to land. To land means to end the journey, to bring closure, to cut off debate.
Most dangerous is that experience trumps Scripture. The rational, logical and relational nature of the truth of Scripture is trumped by human reason, human experience and human envisioning. The ‘emerging church’s’ refusal to definitively declare the gospel and its antecedents is its’ Achilles heel.
Spiritual life as attendance vs. networked living
Having grown up in Southern Baptist churches, I have experienced my fair share of attendance campaigns and church stewardship emphasis. Some of these experiences were ‘cheesy,’ many were meaningful. It is understandable that the ‘emerging church’ would want to divorce itself from many of these institutional forms of the body of Christ. Instead of terms like institutional and organizational, emerging believers prefer terms like relational, network, systems, modalities, community, conversation. In other words, the ‘emergent church’ draws a line in the sand between institutional church life and Christian living within communal relationships.
Granted, too many churches spend way too much time and energy sustaining their own existence. Yet, isn’t it the nature of the church to organize itself for effectiveness and efficiency? For example, we know as early as Acts 2:42-47 that the church had developed a system of basic beliefs (the apostles’ doctrine/teaching), a system of ministry (selling their possessions and goods) and a system of meeting together (in the temple courts and house to house). Further, we know that as the church grew the need for an organized method of caring for the widows was necessary (Acts 6:1ff). In addition, we know that as the church spread Jerusalem and Antioch became centers of Christian teaching and ministry from which missionaries were sent to the nations. We also know that there was an organized meeting called the Jerusalem Council where centralized authorities decided the nature of the gospel in relation to both Jew and Gentile (Acts 15).
For better or for worse, the church begs to be organized because God is organized. He created in six, sequential, meaningful days; He called one nation to be His people; there are twelve tribes, twelve apostles, sixty-six books in the Bible, etc. It is interesting to note that church attendance was a part of the early church, as well. Somehow, the early believers new that 3,000 were saved and baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). Acts 4:4 notes that on another occasion 5,000 were saved. In addition, the writer of Hebrews (10:25) notes that church attendance was important – “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another – and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” In other words, there is evidence all over the New Testament to indicate that the early church was organized for effectiveness and efficiency.
The ‘emergent church’ is rather naïve to believe it can avoid organization. In fact, the term network is the beginning of the end of a naiveté for a church that desires pure and non-organized community. The ‘emerging church’ sets up a false choice – a choice between organized community and non-organized community. The choice is not between a spiritual life defined by simplistic attendance to an institution disconnected from culture or reality versus a supposedly pristine network of believers untarnished by institutional parameters. In fact, I would suggest that the seeds of demise have already been planted within the ‘emergent church’ movement when they published their first book, organized their first conference and set up their first website. If the ‘emergent church’ movement was true to its word, it would have never endeavored to do any of these things. The next thing you know, there will be the ‘emergent church’ publishing house, network office, etc.
The real question is can the visible church – organized, structured – reflect the invisible church constituted by true, spirit-filled believers? If ‘emerging church’ leaders think that they have stumbled upon a new paradigm they are misinformed and ignorant of church history. The visible church has always struggled with its relationship to the invisible, apostolic church made up of true believers in relation to the living God. Again, I predict that the ‘emerging church’ is already in demise because of its disconnect from definitive, biblical truth and because it is seeking its own definition, and defining a thing means a degree of codification, institutionalization, structure, etc. To be critical of the traditional church can be helpful; but for the ‘emerging church’ be critical, yet not offer a viable alternative that does not avoid theological bankruptcy is naïve and disingenuous.
Gospel as syllogism vs. enacted gospel
A final contrast is the gospel as syllogism versus an enacted gospel. I take it that what Hugh means by ‘enacted gospel’ is what used to be labeled as ‘incarnational gospel.’ Again, ‘emergent church’ leaders set up a false dichotomy, i.e. either true believers embrace a gospel that is lived out in the fluid nature of day-to-day living or the gospel is a logical proposition that it is be given cold, calculated intellectual assent. But is this the choice?
Surely, the gospel is to be lived. Call it an ‘enacted gospel’ or an ‘incarnational gospel,’ Scripture teaches that the gospel is not only absolute truth that can be defined, it is life itself. The gospel is a way of life for the true believer. Further, it is a life lived out in true community with other believers. In addition, the gospel is to be lived out before an audience of one (God) in the presence of many, including unbelievers. Granted, it is true that traditional church structures can inhibit authentic Christian living. However, to say that all believers who are not a part of the ‘emergent church’ movement are disingenuous is, to say the least, a bit overstated.
To suggest that a believer has to make a choice between the logic of the gospel and the implications of that gospel for daily living is, again, naïve. Scripture affirms that we are to ‘be’ salt and light (Mt. 5:13-16). Yet, to live out the gospel does not preclude making logical, even syllogistic statements about the gospel. For example, the Sermon on the Mount can be understood as an overall picture of what a disciple of Christ looks like in thought, behavior and action. Yet, this same ‘sermon’ is given in rational statements, sequential illustrations and declarative commandments.
A biblical example is in order. In Acts 17 the Apostle Paul visits Athens. As was his pattern, Paul would enter a city and visit both the sacred places (synagogue) and the secular places (the market). You cannot get anymore secular than Athens. Acts 17:16 notes that the entire city was “full of idols.” And what was Paul tactic in spreading the gospel to this secular city? Did he dialogue with its leaders? YES! Did he engage the culture? YES, even quoting one of their poets. Did he engage the culture based upon an unresolved gospel? NO! Paul was absolutely clear in the principles and parameters of the good news – 1) God is sovereign, creator, vs. 24-28; 2) God is not a manmade ideal that is under intellectual construction or development, but a real and living God, vs. 29; 3) the gospel of God calls for people to repent from the ignorance of sin, vs. 30; 4) knowing that God will judge all men by the resurrected Lord, vs. 31; 5) this gospel is based upon the clear and sequential historical events of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, vs. 32. Did Paul offend some? YES! Did others reject what he said? YES! But did some receive the truth? YES! So, Paul engaged his culture with a clear gospel in relation to the church that had sent him on mission and in relation to the pagan culture he was attempting to engage so that they might believe. Paul’s gospel is stated in clear syllogistic logic enacted in the most secular, pagan marketplace of his day.
Summary
The ‘emerging church’ envisions itself as an absolutely new expression of the church. Further, its criticisms of the institutionalized church need to be heard. However, the means by which this movement seeks to reinvent the church leaves the church vulnerable. The ‘emergent church’ is more concerned about being disconnected from culture than it is being disconnected from the truth.
Biblical Christianity is a life lived out for the glory of God within a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ. This life is not to be lived in isolation from other believers or from the world itself. Instead, biblical Christianity is best seen in the individual believer living in community with other believers and non-believers visibly expressed in a local body of believers organized for missional purposes, yet joined together with the invisible church made up of believers from every tribe, tongue and nation.
The church has been given a declarative Word to the nations, a Word that stands in contrast to what the believer should be, calling him/her to be more than what he/she is. The ‘emerging church’ is but a poor, nebulous construct of the New Testament church; yet, it is a construct that, I fear, will end up leading the church to be theologically bankrupt and culturally consumed so that the church is no longer salt and light.
[1] McLaren quoted in Southern Baptist Texan, 4.18.05
[2] http://www.emergingchurch.info/reflection/danhughes/index.htm
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Dismissing a Congregation
You’re Fired! The Case for Dismissing a Congregation
Kevin Shrum
It has been my privilege to pastor vibrant, lively churches for twenty five years. I currently pastor a very loving and active church. Overall, my pastoral experience has been exciting and positive.
But this is not the case for some pastors. Statistics tell us that an alarming number of ministers are ‘released’ every year for a variety of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. It is time we rethink this process!
In general, ministers are dismissed for a multitude of reasons. The main reason for dimissal (except for moral or theological reasons) is that the area of ministry for which the minister is responsible is perceived to be inactive and ineffective.
Leadership style and unmet expectations are to blame they say. This perception is believed by a few of the powerbrokers, propagated among a majority of uninformed church members and then actualized in the release of the minister.
While it may be true that some ministers are not competent ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ and need to be released from their duties (2 Cor. 3:4-6), could it be that some churches are not competent Christian communities? In other words, what would happen if we fired and/or dismissed churches because of their lack of integrity, commitment and/or involvement?
What’s the point? The point is this: churches so easily blame their own apathy and indifference on a minister who did not cause such apathy and indifference.
Churches don’t get the way they are overnight and they are not reformed and/or revived overnight. The difficulty is that many of these incompetent churches view the minister as a quick-fix answer for problems that have long-persisted. No minister can single-handedly erase years of sinful sloth and indifference.
Is firing a congregation biblical? YES! Revelation 2:1-7 Jesus speaks to the church at Ephesus through the inspired pen of John. He describes this church as having lost its first love. He calls them to remember their first love, to repent of sin and to return to first things.
Then, in Revelation 2:5 the Lord says the most astonishing thing: “If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lamp-stand from its place.” What does this mean? Most scholars agree that the lamp-stands of Revelation 2 & 3 represented the church from which the light of Jesus Christ could shine. In other words, the light of Christ never goes out, but the lamp-stand is sometimes removed.
Could this be why every year thousands of churches in the Southern Baptist Convention do not baptize a single person? Could it be that while God’s gospel always works even in the most difficult settings, the churches in those settings have lost their spiritual influence and power? Further, could it be that God has removed their place as a vibrant influence in a particular community? Maybe God fired the church!
What’s the answer? Again, while there are valid reasons to dismiss incompetent ministers, maybe ministers should quit beating up on churches; conversely, maybe churches should stop beating up ministers. Maybe it’s time for both ministers and churches to become competent, committed and passionate conduits through which God can work.
Acts 2:43 gives us another clue. Here the text notes this truth about the early church: “Everyone was filled with awe (fear)…” That is, people both within and without the church developed a phobia about the church. This was a fear not produced by inner church turmoil; rather, it was a healthy fear based upon God’s mighty power being made known in the body of Christ.
Is anybody afraid of or in awe of the church these days? Or, are we too busy with our petty little ecclesiastical wars that while we’re beating up the minister and the minister is beating up the church the world is going to hell without Christ?
Some ministers may need to go! But maybe more churches need to be dismissed! Or, what would happen if we remembered our first love; what would happen if we repented of those duel sins of pride and forgetfulness; and, what would happen if we returned to the first things that glorify the Lord? The church would have to fire a lot less ministers and God would have to fire a lot less churches.
Kevin Shrum
It has been my privilege to pastor vibrant, lively churches for twenty five years. I currently pastor a very loving and active church. Overall, my pastoral experience has been exciting and positive.
But this is not the case for some pastors. Statistics tell us that an alarming number of ministers are ‘released’ every year for a variety of reasons, some legitimate, some not so legitimate. It is time we rethink this process!
In general, ministers are dismissed for a multitude of reasons. The main reason for dimissal (except for moral or theological reasons) is that the area of ministry for which the minister is responsible is perceived to be inactive and ineffective.
Leadership style and unmet expectations are to blame they say. This perception is believed by a few of the powerbrokers, propagated among a majority of uninformed church members and then actualized in the release of the minister.
While it may be true that some ministers are not competent ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ and need to be released from their duties (2 Cor. 3:4-6), could it be that some churches are not competent Christian communities? In other words, what would happen if we fired and/or dismissed churches because of their lack of integrity, commitment and/or involvement?
What’s the point? The point is this: churches so easily blame their own apathy and indifference on a minister who did not cause such apathy and indifference.
Churches don’t get the way they are overnight and they are not reformed and/or revived overnight. The difficulty is that many of these incompetent churches view the minister as a quick-fix answer for problems that have long-persisted. No minister can single-handedly erase years of sinful sloth and indifference.
Is firing a congregation biblical? YES! Revelation 2:1-7 Jesus speaks to the church at Ephesus through the inspired pen of John. He describes this church as having lost its first love. He calls them to remember their first love, to repent of sin and to return to first things.
Then, in Revelation 2:5 the Lord says the most astonishing thing: “If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lamp-stand from its place.” What does this mean? Most scholars agree that the lamp-stands of Revelation 2 & 3 represented the church from which the light of Jesus Christ could shine. In other words, the light of Christ never goes out, but the lamp-stand is sometimes removed.
Could this be why every year thousands of churches in the Southern Baptist Convention do not baptize a single person? Could it be that while God’s gospel always works even in the most difficult settings, the churches in those settings have lost their spiritual influence and power? Further, could it be that God has removed their place as a vibrant influence in a particular community? Maybe God fired the church!
What’s the answer? Again, while there are valid reasons to dismiss incompetent ministers, maybe ministers should quit beating up on churches; conversely, maybe churches should stop beating up ministers. Maybe it’s time for both ministers and churches to become competent, committed and passionate conduits through which God can work.
Acts 2:43 gives us another clue. Here the text notes this truth about the early church: “Everyone was filled with awe (fear)…” That is, people both within and without the church developed a phobia about the church. This was a fear not produced by inner church turmoil; rather, it was a healthy fear based upon God’s mighty power being made known in the body of Christ.
Is anybody afraid of or in awe of the church these days? Or, are we too busy with our petty little ecclesiastical wars that while we’re beating up the minister and the minister is beating up the church the world is going to hell without Christ?
Some ministers may need to go! But maybe more churches need to be dismissed! Or, what would happen if we remembered our first love; what would happen if we repented of those duel sins of pride and forgetfulness; and, what would happen if we returned to the first things that glorify the Lord? The church would have to fire a lot less ministers and God would have to fire a lot less churches.
Erasmus and the Emergent Church
Erasmus or Tyndale?: A Factual Parable on the Emergent Church
Kevin Shrum
Mention the term ‘emergent church’ to most laypersons and their eyes glaze over. Yet, mention the term ‘emergent church’ to the pastor/minister/theologian and his/her eyes will glow with either adulation or infuriation. Some perceive this new movement as the best thing that has ever happened to the church, a kind of necessary reformation. Others perceive this new movement as an affront to the gospel itself. But, more on this subject in a moment. What are we to do with the emergence of the emergent church? How are we to understand this movement? I believe that a historical illustration is in order.
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) and William Tyndale (1494-1536) were contemporaries of the Reformation era. Both were brilliant scholars, Erasmus producing the magnificent Greek New Testament (still in use today) and Tyndale, the first to translate the Greek New Testament into English. In fact, roughly ninety percent of what we read in our modern English translations of the Bible owes itself to Tyndale’s lyrical and accurate translation. Erasmus’ contribution to the Greek language is inestimable. Both loved Scripture, both were committed churchmen and both were skilled linguists.
But this is where the similarities end. Erasmus was a committed Roman Catholic and a semi-Pelagian, believing that while God’s grace is necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient alone for salvation – human effort and God’s grace save a person. Further, he believed in the two-fold doctrine of spiritual authority that was affirmed by the Catholic Church – Scripture and tradition served as co-equal authorities, with tradition trumping Scripture when the two were in dispute. Erasmus tended to hold to a malleable core of doctrinal beliefs with the edges smoothed out to avoid controversy.
Tyndale, on the other hand, was committed to the doctrines of grace, i.e. the authority of Scripture as the sole arbiter of faith and practice and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Tyndale believed truth could be and ought to be clearly understood by exegeting Scripture for the common layperson. In fact, the very reason he labored to produce an English translation of the Bible was to liberate it from its ‘Latin bondage’ in the Roman Catholic Church. Tyndale believed that the common man, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, could understand and apply Scripture for himself.
Tyndale was committed to sound doctrine from a biblically informed position. When he wrote Obedience of a Christian Man he was clearly committed to a Christian orthodoxy with clear statements of belief with well-defined borders. On the other hand, Erasmus was rather tenuous and vague in his doctrinal commitments, other than his commitment to the Roman Catholic Church. When he wrote Enchiridion he developed what some have called his philosophia Christi (the philosophy of Christ). Tyndale was an orthodox, biblical theologian; Erasmus was a Christian humanist.
While Tyndale appears to have been committed to (Jude 3) ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints,’ Erasmus’ view of doctrine was more nebulous and nuanced. He viewed himself as a Christian humanist and feared taking clear, concise, definitive biblical positions on important subjects such as the authority of Scripture, the centrality of Christ alone for salvation and the explicit manner in which Scripture speaks to doctrinal issues. Because of his doctrinal ambiguity Erasmus was criticized by both his Roman Catholic friends and his Lutheran, reformed foes.
Why this comparison between Erasmus and Tyndale in relation to the emergent church movement? Let me explain. The emergent church is a ‘newly forming’ movement that is interested in recovering the essence of Christianity apart from the trappings of the traditional church. Though difficult to define, emergent church constituents describe their movement in terms of flow, conversation, process, discussion, a borderless theology concerned with engaging the post-modern, post-Christian mind that is uninterested in polemics, apologetics, structure, reason and rationality. They would say that the emergent church movement has a ‘godlike’ core of beliefs but no parameters or borders. In essence, theology is always open to being reshaped by the contours of the human experience. Objective truth is out, subjective experience is in.
And this is where Tyndale and Erasmus can help us. Traditional orthodoxy is Tyndale; nuanced Christianity is Erasmus. Tyndale represents substantive truth; Erasmus represents emergent church thought where there is a core of loosely affirmed beliefs, but no borders or boundaries. Both Tyndale and Erasmus were progressives in that they desired to see reform in the church. Tyndale believed reform emerged from an orthodox Christian perspective. Erasmus believed reform was possible by taking the edges off doctrinal positions and by emphasizing the moral teachings of Jesus.
The emergent church movement is correct in that it has uncovered an already existing disgust with the church. And let’s face it: there is plenty with which to be disillusioned in the modern-day church. Denominational structures leave much to be desired. Organization and form squeeze the life out of many Christians. Further, what generation has not criticized the previous generation for her faults and foibles? There are always issues with ‘orthopraxy.’ But the question remains – how do we reform and transform the church? Do we downplay Christian orthodoxy or do we alter our orthopraxy? Do we take the nebulous position of Erasmus? Or, do we lead a reformation by reaffirming truth in the face of a post-Christian, post-literate, post-structuralism posture?
The emergent church movement has chosen the Erasmean model by contesting more than the practices of the church. Emergent church adherents seek to redefine the theological middle to sound more palatable to the sophisticated, anti-rational, post-literate, modern-day person. As a result, Christianity is deconstructed into a conversation that is on-going, but never-ending.
To illustrate, some time ago I was scheduled to fly into Chicago. Because of in-climate weather we circled the airport for three hours. We could see the airport, but we never landed. This is what emergent church adherents suggest. They love to talk around the issues, developing the nuances of Christian belief, all the time hopefully bringing non-adherents into the conversation, into the journey. They just don’t want to land the plane. They don’t want to cut off the conversation. They refuse to ‘nail it down.’ Such would be premature because it’s not the destination but the journey that counts. In essence, the Christian life is not about a commitment to the singularity of Jesus Christ, to Scriptural commitments, it’s about a nebulous Christian philosophy that is nothing more than a moral philosophy of life. It is Erasmus’ ‘philosophia Christi’ redux.
Brian McLaren (A Generous Orthodoxy) and Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz) serve as the unofficial gurus of this movement. McLaren writes with a flow that is meant to appeal to the post-modern, post-Christian mind. The sub-title of his book explains it all: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional + Evangelical + Post/Protestant + Liberal/Conservative + Mystical/Poetic + Biblical + Charisamtic/Contemplative + Fundamentalist/Calvinist + Anabaptist/Anglican + Methodist + Catholic + Green + Incarnational + Depressed-Yet-Hopeful + Emergent + Unfinished Christian. McLaren wants to be all things to all people to the detriment of clear, concise, biblical teaching.
And reading Miller is like reading the Christian version of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It is a ‘stream of consciousness’ book that takes the reader on a journey of Christian discovery. This book is hot on High School and college campuses. The sense of this book fits perfectly with allowing the contours of subjective experience to dictate the nature and scope of Christian belief.
So what does all this mean for the present-day church? What contribution do Erasmus and Tyndale make to the desire to reform the church? First, let’s agree that the church needs not just a revival, but a reform. Emergent and orthodox adherents agree on this point. Christian commitment ebbs low. And the intentional engagement of secular society has been squelched by the church’s insular position within a cloistered system of denominational structuralism. But how do we reform the church? This is where emergent and orthodox adherents part company.
If we take the position of Erasmus, and therefore the emergent church, we are deciding to downplay Christian orthodoxy. This position ends up taking the ‘middle of the road’ attitude. Rather than clarify Christian commitment, emergent church advocates say they have discovered something new and fresh in allowing the contours of human experience to dictate the nature and scope of Christian belief. The danger in this is that subjective experience mitigates objective truth.
If we take the method of Tyndale, who was equally concerned for the reform of the church of his day, we are deciding to affirm anew and afresh the great Christian truths of Scripture. Rather than allow subjective experience dictate truth, Christian truth is restated in clear, fresh and biblical terms that are concise and understandable. Reforming the church with Tyndale’s method assumes that the mind desires truth that makes sense.
What is interesting is that while both McLaren and Miller would argue that the post-rationalism of the day rejects classic apologetics and propositional statements of truth, both wrote books using rational sentences they hoped would make sense to the mind. The anti-rational, anti-propositional used reason and propositional statements to argue their point. What irony.
Maybe the problem is that rather than being too rational, we haven’t been clear enough. There is something about the power of clarified truth. Reform in the church will take place when we do as Tyndale did – we take that which has been in bondage in the cloistered walls of the church (the gospel) and translate it in clear terms in the market place. We do not need a new gospel, but a clarified gospel to emerge in the church. This was Tyndale’s method, this was the Apostle Paul’s method (Acts 17:16-34) and it must be our method of reform. Reformation will be costly because the true gospel is (1 Cor. 1:18) ‘foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it id the power of God.’ Tyndale liberated Scripture from its ‘Latin bondage’ but it cost him his life. A Tyndalian Reformation will cost us, as well. But it will be worth it.
It’s time for the gospel to emerge once again in the church. Let the gospel in its purity, simplicity and power first grasp the church and the church will emerge within culture as a force for God’s glory.
Kevin Shrum
Mention the term ‘emergent church’ to most laypersons and their eyes glaze over. Yet, mention the term ‘emergent church’ to the pastor/minister/theologian and his/her eyes will glow with either adulation or infuriation. Some perceive this new movement as the best thing that has ever happened to the church, a kind of necessary reformation. Others perceive this new movement as an affront to the gospel itself. But, more on this subject in a moment. What are we to do with the emergence of the emergent church? How are we to understand this movement? I believe that a historical illustration is in order.
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) and William Tyndale (1494-1536) were contemporaries of the Reformation era. Both were brilliant scholars, Erasmus producing the magnificent Greek New Testament (still in use today) and Tyndale, the first to translate the Greek New Testament into English. In fact, roughly ninety percent of what we read in our modern English translations of the Bible owes itself to Tyndale’s lyrical and accurate translation. Erasmus’ contribution to the Greek language is inestimable. Both loved Scripture, both were committed churchmen and both were skilled linguists.
But this is where the similarities end. Erasmus was a committed Roman Catholic and a semi-Pelagian, believing that while God’s grace is necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient alone for salvation – human effort and God’s grace save a person. Further, he believed in the two-fold doctrine of spiritual authority that was affirmed by the Catholic Church – Scripture and tradition served as co-equal authorities, with tradition trumping Scripture when the two were in dispute. Erasmus tended to hold to a malleable core of doctrinal beliefs with the edges smoothed out to avoid controversy.
Tyndale, on the other hand, was committed to the doctrines of grace, i.e. the authority of Scripture as the sole arbiter of faith and practice and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Tyndale believed truth could be and ought to be clearly understood by exegeting Scripture for the common layperson. In fact, the very reason he labored to produce an English translation of the Bible was to liberate it from its ‘Latin bondage’ in the Roman Catholic Church. Tyndale believed that the common man, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, could understand and apply Scripture for himself.
Tyndale was committed to sound doctrine from a biblically informed position. When he wrote Obedience of a Christian Man he was clearly committed to a Christian orthodoxy with clear statements of belief with well-defined borders. On the other hand, Erasmus was rather tenuous and vague in his doctrinal commitments, other than his commitment to the Roman Catholic Church. When he wrote Enchiridion he developed what some have called his philosophia Christi (the philosophy of Christ). Tyndale was an orthodox, biblical theologian; Erasmus was a Christian humanist.
While Tyndale appears to have been committed to (Jude 3) ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints,’ Erasmus’ view of doctrine was more nebulous and nuanced. He viewed himself as a Christian humanist and feared taking clear, concise, definitive biblical positions on important subjects such as the authority of Scripture, the centrality of Christ alone for salvation and the explicit manner in which Scripture speaks to doctrinal issues. Because of his doctrinal ambiguity Erasmus was criticized by both his Roman Catholic friends and his Lutheran, reformed foes.
Why this comparison between Erasmus and Tyndale in relation to the emergent church movement? Let me explain. The emergent church is a ‘newly forming’ movement that is interested in recovering the essence of Christianity apart from the trappings of the traditional church. Though difficult to define, emergent church constituents describe their movement in terms of flow, conversation, process, discussion, a borderless theology concerned with engaging the post-modern, post-Christian mind that is uninterested in polemics, apologetics, structure, reason and rationality. They would say that the emergent church movement has a ‘godlike’ core of beliefs but no parameters or borders. In essence, theology is always open to being reshaped by the contours of the human experience. Objective truth is out, subjective experience is in.
And this is where Tyndale and Erasmus can help us. Traditional orthodoxy is Tyndale; nuanced Christianity is Erasmus. Tyndale represents substantive truth; Erasmus represents emergent church thought where there is a core of loosely affirmed beliefs, but no borders or boundaries. Both Tyndale and Erasmus were progressives in that they desired to see reform in the church. Tyndale believed reform emerged from an orthodox Christian perspective. Erasmus believed reform was possible by taking the edges off doctrinal positions and by emphasizing the moral teachings of Jesus.
The emergent church movement is correct in that it has uncovered an already existing disgust with the church. And let’s face it: there is plenty with which to be disillusioned in the modern-day church. Denominational structures leave much to be desired. Organization and form squeeze the life out of many Christians. Further, what generation has not criticized the previous generation for her faults and foibles? There are always issues with ‘orthopraxy.’ But the question remains – how do we reform and transform the church? Do we downplay Christian orthodoxy or do we alter our orthopraxy? Do we take the nebulous position of Erasmus? Or, do we lead a reformation by reaffirming truth in the face of a post-Christian, post-literate, post-structuralism posture?
The emergent church movement has chosen the Erasmean model by contesting more than the practices of the church. Emergent church adherents seek to redefine the theological middle to sound more palatable to the sophisticated, anti-rational, post-literate, modern-day person. As a result, Christianity is deconstructed into a conversation that is on-going, but never-ending.
To illustrate, some time ago I was scheduled to fly into Chicago. Because of in-climate weather we circled the airport for three hours. We could see the airport, but we never landed. This is what emergent church adherents suggest. They love to talk around the issues, developing the nuances of Christian belief, all the time hopefully bringing non-adherents into the conversation, into the journey. They just don’t want to land the plane. They don’t want to cut off the conversation. They refuse to ‘nail it down.’ Such would be premature because it’s not the destination but the journey that counts. In essence, the Christian life is not about a commitment to the singularity of Jesus Christ, to Scriptural commitments, it’s about a nebulous Christian philosophy that is nothing more than a moral philosophy of life. It is Erasmus’ ‘philosophia Christi’ redux.
Brian McLaren (A Generous Orthodoxy) and Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz) serve as the unofficial gurus of this movement. McLaren writes with a flow that is meant to appeal to the post-modern, post-Christian mind. The sub-title of his book explains it all: A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional + Evangelical + Post/Protestant + Liberal/Conservative + Mystical/Poetic + Biblical + Charisamtic/Contemplative + Fundamentalist/Calvinist + Anabaptist/Anglican + Methodist + Catholic + Green + Incarnational + Depressed-Yet-Hopeful + Emergent + Unfinished Christian. McLaren wants to be all things to all people to the detriment of clear, concise, biblical teaching.
And reading Miller is like reading the Christian version of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It is a ‘stream of consciousness’ book that takes the reader on a journey of Christian discovery. This book is hot on High School and college campuses. The sense of this book fits perfectly with allowing the contours of subjective experience to dictate the nature and scope of Christian belief.
So what does all this mean for the present-day church? What contribution do Erasmus and Tyndale make to the desire to reform the church? First, let’s agree that the church needs not just a revival, but a reform. Emergent and orthodox adherents agree on this point. Christian commitment ebbs low. And the intentional engagement of secular society has been squelched by the church’s insular position within a cloistered system of denominational structuralism. But how do we reform the church? This is where emergent and orthodox adherents part company.
If we take the position of Erasmus, and therefore the emergent church, we are deciding to downplay Christian orthodoxy. This position ends up taking the ‘middle of the road’ attitude. Rather than clarify Christian commitment, emergent church advocates say they have discovered something new and fresh in allowing the contours of human experience to dictate the nature and scope of Christian belief. The danger in this is that subjective experience mitigates objective truth.
If we take the method of Tyndale, who was equally concerned for the reform of the church of his day, we are deciding to affirm anew and afresh the great Christian truths of Scripture. Rather than allow subjective experience dictate truth, Christian truth is restated in clear, fresh and biblical terms that are concise and understandable. Reforming the church with Tyndale’s method assumes that the mind desires truth that makes sense.
What is interesting is that while both McLaren and Miller would argue that the post-rationalism of the day rejects classic apologetics and propositional statements of truth, both wrote books using rational sentences they hoped would make sense to the mind. The anti-rational, anti-propositional used reason and propositional statements to argue their point. What irony.
Maybe the problem is that rather than being too rational, we haven’t been clear enough. There is something about the power of clarified truth. Reform in the church will take place when we do as Tyndale did – we take that which has been in bondage in the cloistered walls of the church (the gospel) and translate it in clear terms in the market place. We do not need a new gospel, but a clarified gospel to emerge in the church. This was Tyndale’s method, this was the Apostle Paul’s method (Acts 17:16-34) and it must be our method of reform. Reformation will be costly because the true gospel is (1 Cor. 1:18) ‘foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us who are being saved it id the power of God.’ Tyndale liberated Scripture from its ‘Latin bondage’ but it cost him his life. A Tyndalian Reformation will cost us, as well. But it will be worth it.
It’s time for the gospel to emerge once again in the church. Let the gospel in its purity, simplicity and power first grasp the church and the church will emerge within culture as a force for God’s glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
