The New Fundamentalism
I’ve been interested to read Dan H’s highlights of Dan Kimball’s "The Emerging Church.” I finished the book a few months ago. Have those of you who have read the book noticed the content of the message Kimball advocates? In conversations with other pastors in our Conference, I’ve been calling it “The New Fundamentalism.”
Check out what Kimball says in the section: “Message selection and critical topics to address.” (pp. 180-183) He says that he’s found the need for ‘regular and repeated clarity’ on the following issues:
1. “Kingdom living.” ( No surprise to me there.)
2. The Trinity.
3. Jesus—as the only way.
4. Human sexuality. (And, he says that we need to address homosexuality on a regular basis.)
5. Marriage and family.
6. Hell. (Kimball says, “Teach on hell more than ever.”)
7. The trustworthiness of Scripture.
8. That Spirituality is ‘messy.’
Notice numbers 2, 3, 6 and 7. The Fundamentalists who were battling with the Modernists 100 years ago would be pleased. (If you know your church history you may notice that the prominent emphasis of the original Fundamentals missing from Kimball’s list is the one dealing with eschatology. Isn’t that interesting!)
What intrigues me is that Kimball’s postmodern proclamation of the Gospel is much more traditional than the preaching advocated by the leaders of seeker sensitive churches.
My question is: Do you actually preach on the themes? If so, do you share Kimball’s conviction that preaching on these themes in ‘needed’ in the postmodern world?
posted by bill Sloat at 9:38 AM
18 Comments:
I have heard others suggest that Kimball's "vintage" faith isn't really all that "emergent." It does seem fairly traditional (or orthodox, as some say) but with wilder hair. :)
I will have to think on your question. As well as the term "New Fundamentalism." Interesting.
I haven't read Kimball, beyond reading his blog. http://dankimball.typepad.com/
But the idea of a different preaching set would be one thing that defines me as different.
As far as theological issues that are supreme, I would say the Trinity is a huge issue and whether Jesus is indeed part of the Godhead. And how God is already community and how that defines our relationships.
Rather than hell, actually, I find heaven to be a bigger issue, one that has been really poorly layed out. Heaven is a city not a countryside. Heaven is a place of purpose not of leisure. Heaven is focused on the King not on open knowledge (Noah and Moses will explain all the mysteries kind of stuff.)
I talk about sex more than any pastor I know. It is one of the few sins that seems to be a limiting factor in spiritual growth, as well as limiting the ability to be a leader.
That spirituality is a lifelong journey that is a very difficult journey and often leads us to what appear to be dead ends.
And the number one thing is Jesus said clearly, "Follow me." He didn't quibble a lot about belief statements. It was really simple. Follow me. That can't be repeated enough.
And I too have found that the emergent pastors that I have heard speak take Scripture more serious than traditional pastors in that they refuse to let obvious flaws in our theological systems continue without a fight. They often preach through books of the Bible, staying much more true to the text of the day rather than jumping around.
Brian,
Is emergent preaching text oriented? Expositional? As opposed to Warren's topical model?
Emergent preaching is most certainly narrative, story oriented. But it depends a lot on the preacher.
Mark Driscoll - Mars Hill Seattle - preaches book by book almost exclusively.
Rob Bell - Mars Hill Michigan (not related) - preaches very text oriented sermons.
Brian McLaren - Actually he is often seems much more topical, but the topics are much more spiritually based than practical.
If anything, I'm saying the discussions of emergent pastors are often lively theological, hermeneutical conversations about the nature of God, Jesus, and the Kingdom, where other pastors are often in lively conversations about increasing attendance, increasing offering, increasing leadership potential, and getting more people saved (I added the last to show they do have a purpose to their efforts).
Brian,
Re: "...other pastors are often in lively conversations about increasing attendance, increasing offering, increasing leadership potential, and getting more people saved..."
That's why I can't bring myself to do Ministeria. I've found a few Christian friends who have the emergent fire. What refresing discussions!
Wow, I'm out of town for one day and you guys get Dan Kimball to post a comment! Unless it's an imposter - thanks for sharing Dan.
I've been thinking about what I preach on, and how I preach. I try to change my "style" from time to time - so I don't get into a rut, but I have to confess... I do not preach the way I wish I would.
I do think we need to preach/teach on certain foundational themes, because isn't that more intune with the "story"? I wish I were better at using larger portions of Scripture to teach from though.
Also, I have to admit, I struggle with trying to simplify things and usually dumb it down too much. I do think there are a lot of people that like preaching "dumbed down" - because it means they can just sit and space out or daydream or whatever. Because I think some people tend to think they don't need to hear anything anymore. But I believe we can "simplify" without dumbing down. For instance, I think Rob Bell does a good job of making deep truths understandable (as well as a host of other preachers). So maybe I'm just preaching to myself to differentiate between simplifying and dumbing down. I agree with D.K. that there is a hunger for depth and theology - but it perhaps requires more work than I often feel like putting into messages (or feel i have the time for), and that is a mistake. Especially at the expense of Ministeria (where do you come up with these words, Bill - it makes me think of diarrhia). :)
And, hey, even though much of this is over my head... great discussion. Thanks.
A thought on Brian's comment
Re: "...other pastors are often in lively conversations about increasing attendance, increasing offering, increasing leadership potential, and getting more people saved..."
This reminded me of what Mike Yaconelli said in Messy Spirituality (p.77 - a great book):
"I pastor the slowest growing church in America. We started twelve years ago with ninety members and have ungrown to thirty. We are about as far as you can get from a user-friendly church - not because our congregation is unfriendly but because our services are unpredictable, unpolished, and inconsistent. We are an "odd-friendly" church, attracting unique and different followers of Christ who make every service a surprise."
Not that we should try to be making our churches smaller, but making the church "machine" run better is missing the point isn't it? I make myself look through Messy Spirituality from time to time to keep my head (or lose it).
And... regarding Bill's idea of "The New Fundamentalism"... I think you probably mean this in a way that I am not seeing. I have a hang-up with the word "fundamentalism", and probably don't understand what you mean by "new."
The reason I like the idea of New Fundamentalism is because I've been accused of being unorthodoxed in my beliefs, but I think that my beliefs are quite orthodox and fundamental. Fundamentalism has taken on the idea of legalistic and that I am not.
Thanks Dan Kimball for taking time to join our conversation. That is what I love about this medium.
I have a slight, ok maybe a big issue with the term "New Fundamentalist" since the early part of the 20th century the fact that in order to "save" their faith our fundalmentalist forefathers withdrew from society so not to be tainted by the society that was growing. to me labeling something as New for this idea gets me a little steamed. I want to be in my community, I want to get messy with their problems and issues. I want to serve them in practical ways not tell them that they are wrong, dirty, and unwanted by the church. BUT this is my issue so take it for what it's worth.
Now as far as preaching I teach mostly from a single pericopy. I sometimes use other passages to support what I am teaching on, but mostly stay with the main text. I try to teach in a more story, conversational style (thats just how I like to teach) I do usually teach on certian themes but not always on the top 8 list Kimball has here (we do live in a world that needs to know the reality of heel though). I am careful not to but a humanistic spin on teh gospel message though. it is all about GOd and our dedication to Him, not get saved so you can save yourself from hell. (the second is humanistic and poor teaching) It's all about God and I am honored to be given the oppertunity to teach on Him and His truth.
Rob,
Actually, I have a slightly more positive view of early fundamentalism than you do. The first fundamentalists were professors from Princeton Seminary. You are correct that, even at Princeton, Fundamentalism was a reactionary movement—a response to biblical criticism. But, it was, early on, a respected intellectual movement.
I coined the term “New Fundamentalism,” not because the theology of Kimball is reactionary, but to point out that one can abandon modern theological categories and still hold a belief system that is root in historic Christian beliefs.
Also, when I looked at the themes Kimball emphasizes, I was struck with the similarity between the teachings the early Fundamentalists as crucial and Kimball’s themes.
In the literature of the Emerging Church you often read about the anxiety over having entered heresy. So often we are relieved to read or hear that others share our thoughts. (Perhaps you have had that struggle.) My point is that there is really nothing new about what Emerging Christians believe.
You say, “I want to be in my community, I want to get messy with their problems and issues. I want to serve them in practical ways not tell them that they are wrong, dirty, and unwanted by the church. BUT this is my issue so take it for what it's worth.”
I’m not interested in defending the early ‘Fundies’ but, at first, those Princeton intellectuals were, by no means, interested in leaving the world. They wanted to preserve the integrity of Christian belief in a changing world. Second generation Fundies were guilty of the sins you describe. And, I agree with your desire to be in your community. The question is: How do we value ancient Christian beliefs and, at the same time, engage our communities in which modern theological categories are now irrelevant?
Thanks for the explanation of "new fundamentalism", Bill.
I admit, I viewed fundamentalism and legalism as one in the same. But that is due mostly to my ignorance. So I agree with the ideal of your term. Yes, I am fairly fundamental (see, I still can't say fundamentalist though). :)
I am reading "A Generous Orthodoxy" by McLaren, and strangely enough that helped my understanding as well. thanks.
McLaren is using the word "orthodox" rather than "fundamentalism." Orthodox has less baggage with me.
The new orthodoxy is really the old orthodoxy. It surprises me how much "theology" changed between 1800 and 2000.
We are lucky to have a church history PHD in Dr Sloat in our conversation.
Dan,
Fill me in, in 100 words or less, on what McLaren says in "Generous Orthodoxy." It's on my reading list, but I probably won't get to it for a few months and who knows what will catch my interest before I get to it.
Brian,
You said, "The new orthodoxy is really the old orthodoxy."
Is 'New Orthodoxy' McLaren's actual term? If so, has any one noticed the similarity between that term and Karl Barth (and others') 'Neo Orthodoxy?'
Bill,
with your explanation I guess I can tollerate the "New Fundamentalist" idea, I do, however, like Brian's idea of "New Orthodox" much less baggage for me as well. maybe because I grew up in the Eastern Region, lol.
As far as struggling with feeling the weight of being considered a heritic, Yes I do wrestle with that, but not out of fear of what others might say rather out of fear that I may taint the truth of God's ultimate will.
one of my greatest struggles, right now, is the thought that we may have replaced the Trinity with the Bible. God's word is alive, but I am thinking that we have come to worship the Bible and have forgotten God in the process.
Just an issue that I'm working through lately. is there anyone else that has any thoughts on this?
Rob,
Good thoughts. Especially: "one of my greatest struggles, right now, is the thought that we may have replaced the Trinity with the Bible. God's word is alive, but I am thinking that we have come to worship the Bible and have forgotten God in the process."
You're courageous, rob, to say this. You are correct that the Bible is the big theological issue among Evangelicals.
And, the question of whether or not those of us on the Evangelical side have crossed a line and made an idol out of Scripture is a good question.
I suspect that many of our brothers and sisters who don't feel our 'Emergent fire' will be willing to let us play around with these ideas until we go too far in questioning their view of Scripture.
I do not recall McLaren using the word New Orthodox and do not recall him ever mentioning Karl Barth. I know who Barth is and could place the term Neo-orthodoxy with him, but that is about my limit. I bought a Barth commentary on Romans and had trouble getting a handle on it.
Brian,
I know that the emergence of Neo Orhodoxy is traced to the publication of Barth's Commentary on Romans in 1918, but I've never read it.
Post a Comment
<< Home