Why I am not an Emergent Thinker
Why I am not an Emergent Thinker
(Or, Why Emergent Christianity is ‘Neo-Nicodemusism’)
I am excited about the future. I’m not afraid of it. I’m not interested in condemning it or hiding from it. Times are changing and the modern world is crumbling. From a Christian perspective, that is a good thing. The environment in which the white American church functions is being transformed into something that is post-modern. It is radically different from the world that existed a few decades ago. The task of reaching the people of the world with the proclamation that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life is different than it has been. So Christians face some serious questions. One of them is this:
How do we seek the change that will make the message of Jesus meaningful to our new world?
Perhaps the most widely accepted answer to that question these days is that we should become ‘emergent thinkers.’ But, what is emergent thinking?
Brian McLaren, a highly regarded spokesman in the emergent Christian community, offers a very helpful explanation of what it means to engage in emerging thinking in his highly acclaimed book, A Generous Orthodoxy (pp. 276-278). He says,
"Think of a cross section of a tree. Each ring represents not a replacement of the previous rings, not a rejection of them, but an embracing of them, a comprising of them and inclusion of them in something bigger….
Each year nutrients from below…and energy from above…are combined to produce the durable, lasting residue of another ring….The growth itself is hidden by the bark, as a new ring emerges secretly and gradually from the whole complex of soil, rain, sunlight, structures…and processes."
McLaren adds, “…some thought seeks to embrace what has come before—like a new ring on a tree—in something bigger. This is emergent thinking.”
According to that image, emergent thinking develops through a natural process. It is not radically and qualitatively different from the way of thinking that preceded it. It doesn’t replace the old or discard it. Rather, it encircles it with what is new. The process by which this new thinking emerges is biotic. It produces something bigger. And, perhaps most importantly, comes into being secretly and gradually.
Nicodemus, the Emergent Thinker
In a well known encounter in John 3, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish ruling council approached Jesus at night, away from the crowds. He addressed Jesus generously, calling Him, “Rabbi.” Nicodemus suggested that he spoke for others saying, “We know that you are a teacher who has come from God.” Then, Nicodemus praised Jesus, saying that Jesus’ ability to do the miracles He was performing proved that God was with Him.
Nicodemus was well connected in the religious world of his day and he bears the marks of McLaren’s emergent thinker. His loyalties were obvious. He was a Pharisee. But, Nicodemus was generous, progressive and tolerant. He was able to work with people whose theological perspective differed from his own, even the Sadducees who dominated the ruling council and whose theological views differed radically from those of the Pharisees. And, in setting up this secret meeting with Jesus, it seems that Nicodemus could envision a place for the “Jesus Movement” in the new expression of Jewishness that was emerging in his day.
Nicodemus apparently saw his religion growing through a process in which what was soon to come would not replace what currently existed. Rather, it would embrace it. Nicodemus was showing that Jesus could be a part of that gradual and secret process by which the new Judaism would appear. Nicodemus seems to be inviting Jesus to participate in a new movement that would embrace the best of the religion of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the Zealots, the Herodians and Essenes.
Nicodemus was the prototypical emergent thinker.
However, Jesus vehemently rejected Nicodemus’ generous invitation. His pointed reply, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again,” was a rejection of the notion of emergence. It was also a declaration that when God does something new, God replaces what is with something that doesn’t embrace the past. It confronts, rejects and revolutionizes the past to so great a degree that it amounts to the birth of something new.
The birth of what is radically new reveals the pattern of the movement of God in the world from the beginning of creation.
God called Abram to leave everything Abram knew and to become a seeker until God told him his search was over. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush and sent him to confront Pharaoh ten times before God led Moses and all Israel from oppression. God appeared to Isaiah in the temple in a vision that was so awful that Isaiah screamed, “Woe is me. I am a man of unclean lips!” God spoke to Jeremiah and said, “I appoint you to…uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them.” He sent John ahead of Jesus to confront Pharisees and Sadducees, not to preach emergence but to say to them, ““You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”
So, when Jesus rejected Nicodemus’ nighttime gesture of inclusion—the invitation to join some among the Pharisees and Sadducees and other Jewish groups, Jesus' answer relied on Israel’s history.
The coming of Jesus was not like the growth of a tree which, after a regular period of dormancy, experiences a new and natural spurt of growth that embraces the old. His coming was to usher in that which was so new, so different from what currently was that it could only be described as new birth.
Today we are living in an age of transformation. The question here is: How do we seek the change that will make the message of Jesus meaningful to our new world?
If we are true to the past, we will not seek be the new Nicodemuses. We will not look to grasp a process of change that embraces what went before and is comprised of it, including it in something bigger. We will not look for what appears secretly and gradually. We will look for that which is as revolutionary as God’s call to Abraham and Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah. We will receive and proclaim a message that is as vibrant and confrontational as the one spoken by John. We will take the kind of risks that put Martin Luther a hair’s breadth away from a heresy trial and its inevitable result. We will stand for the radical implications of the Gospel as did the first Anabaptists who were criminalized by Zwingli’s reformers because the mainstream Reformers thought they went too far.
(Or, Why Emergent Christianity is ‘Neo-Nicodemusism’)
I am excited about the future. I’m not afraid of it. I’m not interested in condemning it or hiding from it. Times are changing and the modern world is crumbling. From a Christian perspective, that is a good thing. The environment in which the white American church functions is being transformed into something that is post-modern. It is radically different from the world that existed a few decades ago. The task of reaching the people of the world with the proclamation that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life is different than it has been. So Christians face some serious questions. One of them is this:
How do we seek the change that will make the message of Jesus meaningful to our new world?
Perhaps the most widely accepted answer to that question these days is that we should become ‘emergent thinkers.’ But, what is emergent thinking?
Brian McLaren, a highly regarded spokesman in the emergent Christian community, offers a very helpful explanation of what it means to engage in emerging thinking in his highly acclaimed book, A Generous Orthodoxy (pp. 276-278). He says,
"Think of a cross section of a tree. Each ring represents not a replacement of the previous rings, not a rejection of them, but an embracing of them, a comprising of them and inclusion of them in something bigger….
Each year nutrients from below…and energy from above…are combined to produce the durable, lasting residue of another ring….The growth itself is hidden by the bark, as a new ring emerges secretly and gradually from the whole complex of soil, rain, sunlight, structures…and processes."
McLaren adds, “…some thought seeks to embrace what has come before—like a new ring on a tree—in something bigger. This is emergent thinking.”
According to that image, emergent thinking develops through a natural process. It is not radically and qualitatively different from the way of thinking that preceded it. It doesn’t replace the old or discard it. Rather, it encircles it with what is new. The process by which this new thinking emerges is biotic. It produces something bigger. And, perhaps most importantly, comes into being secretly and gradually.
Nicodemus, the Emergent Thinker
In a well known encounter in John 3, Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a member of the Jewish ruling council approached Jesus at night, away from the crowds. He addressed Jesus generously, calling Him, “Rabbi.” Nicodemus suggested that he spoke for others saying, “We know that you are a teacher who has come from God.” Then, Nicodemus praised Jesus, saying that Jesus’ ability to do the miracles He was performing proved that God was with Him.
Nicodemus was well connected in the religious world of his day and he bears the marks of McLaren’s emergent thinker. His loyalties were obvious. He was a Pharisee. But, Nicodemus was generous, progressive and tolerant. He was able to work with people whose theological perspective differed from his own, even the Sadducees who dominated the ruling council and whose theological views differed radically from those of the Pharisees. And, in setting up this secret meeting with Jesus, it seems that Nicodemus could envision a place for the “Jesus Movement” in the new expression of Jewishness that was emerging in his day.
Nicodemus apparently saw his religion growing through a process in which what was soon to come would not replace what currently existed. Rather, it would embrace it. Nicodemus was showing that Jesus could be a part of that gradual and secret process by which the new Judaism would appear. Nicodemus seems to be inviting Jesus to participate in a new movement that would embrace the best of the religion of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the Zealots, the Herodians and Essenes.
Nicodemus was the prototypical emergent thinker.
However, Jesus vehemently rejected Nicodemus’ generous invitation. His pointed reply, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again,” was a rejection of the notion of emergence. It was also a declaration that when God does something new, God replaces what is with something that doesn’t embrace the past. It confronts, rejects and revolutionizes the past to so great a degree that it amounts to the birth of something new.
The birth of what is radically new reveals the pattern of the movement of God in the world from the beginning of creation.
God called Abram to leave everything Abram knew and to become a seeker until God told him his search was over. God appeared to Moses in a burning bush and sent him to confront Pharaoh ten times before God led Moses and all Israel from oppression. God appeared to Isaiah in the temple in a vision that was so awful that Isaiah screamed, “Woe is me. I am a man of unclean lips!” God spoke to Jeremiah and said, “I appoint you to…uproot some and tear them down, to destroy and overthrow them.” He sent John ahead of Jesus to confront Pharisees and Sadducees, not to preach emergence but to say to them, ““You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?”
So, when Jesus rejected Nicodemus’ nighttime gesture of inclusion—the invitation to join some among the Pharisees and Sadducees and other Jewish groups, Jesus' answer relied on Israel’s history.
The coming of Jesus was not like the growth of a tree which, after a regular period of dormancy, experiences a new and natural spurt of growth that embraces the old. His coming was to usher in that which was so new, so different from what currently was that it could only be described as new birth.
Today we are living in an age of transformation. The question here is: How do we seek the change that will make the message of Jesus meaningful to our new world?
If we are true to the past, we will not seek be the new Nicodemuses. We will not look to grasp a process of change that embraces what went before and is comprised of it, including it in something bigger. We will not look for what appears secretly and gradually. We will look for that which is as revolutionary as God’s call to Abraham and Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah. We will receive and proclaim a message that is as vibrant and confrontational as the one spoken by John. We will take the kind of risks that put Martin Luther a hair’s breadth away from a heresy trial and its inevitable result. We will stand for the radical implications of the Gospel as did the first Anabaptists who were criminalized by Zwingli’s reformers because the mainstream Reformers thought they went too far.
Emergent thinking is often criticized because it is too radical. But, the truth is that, in some ways at least, it is too moderate. It seeks to synthesize from the old, not to revolutionize it. Emergent thinking is Neo-Nicodemusism. It is what Jesus rejected. The thinking that will lead the church’s engagement with the postmodern world will not come to us secretly and gradually. It will not regard the best elements of today’s Christianity generously and tolerantly. It will not synthesize. It will be radical and revolutionary.
And, it will call for a radical commitment and a revolutionary message.
posted by bill Sloat at 8:58 AM
16 Comments:
Bill, let me ask some questions.
1. Are you dismissing all of the Emergent work, such as all of McLaren's books, because you disagree with one chapter of Generous Orthodoxy?
2. Are you suggesting that we can not build on what we already know in our churches?
It seems to me that much of the emergent thought is fairly revolutionary. We also have the problem that this emergent thing isn't well defined at all. There are plenty of emergent thinkers who disagree with McLaren on many issues.
McLaren says on p 276, "In a sense, they (emergent churches) may seem dwarfed, stunted, restrained by the shade of the mature trees, but in truth they are waiting. Whenever one of the mature trees dies, the emergents are there, ready to soar up and fill the gap and thrive in the light now available to them." That is revolutionary.
Here's an example of revolution that envelopes what came before it: I remember hearing about the revolution of Martin Luther. Then I went to a Lutheran service and thought, "This is pretty Catholic." It was a revolution (much change), but it did envelop much of what came before (liturgy and style).
Here is how I see emergence (small e) as enveloping. The world is changing. Let's take the US for example. We are fearful of three things: terrorist, jobs leaving the country, and immigrants moving in too quickly. Many become defensive: close the borders, raise tariffs, etc. My reaction is rather than fight it, to join it, to emerge if you will. I want my kids to be global citizens, well traveled. They better learn spanish, probably some Mandarin (Chinese) wouldn't hurt. They need to have friends outside of their culture. It is my belief the defenders will lose the battle. The same is likely going to be true with churches. The defenders will lose the battle. They already lost it in Europe.
How do today's churches join the revolution? It isn't that they must sacrifice who they are (that wouldn't be authentic), it is that they must see a much larger Christian culture.
Felicia seemed shocked McLaren could see a Wikipedia Bible. I'm not sure what he was talking about exactly, but I know that different cultures (African American, Hispanic, Jewish, Korean, and others) read the Bible, the same Bible, differently. Do they read it wrong and we read it right? We need that for the revolution. A friend of mine said she heard a Haitian pastor speak and she took so many notes. It was really good. We need more of that.
It becomes more and more about Jesus. It becomes more and more about His mission in the world. It becomes more offense and less defensive. It becomes so desperate that only by following Jesus very closely can we navigate through.
One of the best questions McLaren has asked for me is "What is the Gospel?" Immediately conservative alarms go off. But I have asked myself what is the Gospel. The traditional evangelical conservative answer is "Admit you are a sinner, say you are sorry, repent, and then when you die you get to go to heaven, and you might, by applying some Biblical wisdom, have a somewhat more blessed life here. And then spend the rest of your time convincing other people to believe like you do."
As I've read through the Sermon on the Mount (always dangerous and revolutionary), the key theme seems to be "Let the separation end!" Don't be angry, Don't divorce, Don't break promises, Don't commit adultery even in your mind, be a peacemaker, forgive and you will be forgiven. Isaiah speaks of the wolf lying down with the lamb.
So the Gospel begins with "Let the separation end between you and God through your repentance" but the Gospel continues with "Let the separation end between you and your neighbor, not by saying what they are doing or believing is ok, but by loving them." And then there is more, Luke 4 says "This is the year of Jubilee, prisoners free, blind can see, ..."
So the Gospel rather than being defensive is actually surrendering, letting them kill you while you continue to love them, walking with the oppressor two miles rather than just the one he forced you to walk, giving up even more than the robber tried to take. The truth doesn't become diluted. It becomes even stronger. I think we are missing a lot of that.
For me, McLaren is at least attempting to say that I don't want to throw out all that we have, I love the tradition that I am a part of, but I do want to put it to the fire and refine it so that it will be stronger in this next century. That is how much I love this church.
Brian,
Thank you. This is a good and thoughtful response.
In response to your two questions:
1. “Are you dismissing all of the Emergent work, such as all of McLaren's books, because you disagree with one chapter of Generous Orthodoxy?”
Certainly not. There’s much of what McLaren wrote in this book that I find helpful. Interestingly, the problems I described with the chapter on Emergence, I had before I even read the book, based on the title. I was thankful that McLaren addressed my questions directly, even if he chose to do it in the next to last chapter.
As I was reading the whole book, I kept thinking, “Most of this is very good. I couldn’t write this stuff if I wanted to and I’m glad that he did.” But, every time McLaren appealed to the goodness of a truly generous orthodoxy, I would cringe. So, I like a lot of the book, but I rejected the big idea of the book from the beginning.
“2. Are you suggesting that we can not build on what we already know in our churches?”
No, not at all. And, I’ll be glad to admit that as I read the book, I developed a greater appreciation for ways in which the broader Christian tradition can assist me in my own growth as a disciple of Jesus. However, from the time I read the Forward, I asked myself how something that is postmodern can be assembled from the synthesis of selected portions of what is purely modern, which is what the “Why I am evangelical,” “Why I am Liberal/Conservative,” “Why I Am Fundamentalist/Calvinist” chapters amounted to.
Certainly a postmodern expression of the Gospel must be informed by the past. I’m a HISTORIAN! But, to suggest that what is distinctly postmodern can be drawn from a generous embrace of what is modern is absurd to me. And, to suggest, as McLaren does in his “Emergent” chapter, that it can be the smooth result of the process of natural growth defies spiritual history from the day of Abraham up to today.
You say, “It seems to me that much of the emergent thought is fairly revolutionary. We also have the problem that this emergent thing isn't well defined at all. There are plenty of emergent thinkers who disagree with McLaren on many issues.”
You are correct. It wasn’t until I started my class work in grad school that I began to realize how chaotic the first generations of the Reformation Era were. Seminary Church History books distill major events and major themes. But, it’s not like the posting of the Ninety Five Theses, quickly settled into the formation of the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Anabaptist and Roman Catholic as distinct and well-defined traditions. Those decades were intensely chaotic. For the most part, the only radical tradition that survived was the Mennonite Anabaptist Tradition. But, there were fringe groups all over the place and if it wasn’t for the fact that civil governments were arresting and executing heretics all over Europe, we’d probably still be living with the heritage of that chaos. And, I believe, that we are just beginning to encounter the chaos that will inevitably result from the demise of the church in the Modern Era.
I am curious that, for the most part, all of us seem to be willing to accept the label ‘Emergent,’ as this blog’s name suggests. And, according to McLaren, Emergent is a rather tightly defined concept. As you say, “There are plenty of emergent thinkers who disagree with McLaren on many issues.” And my question is, if they disagree with McLaren over his understanding of spiritual history, are those ‘emergent thinkers’ really emergent thinkers? Or, are they something else?
I suppose this comes down to the question, “What is the definition of (small e) emergent?” And, “Would someone who disagrees with the people who are formally Emergent want to be labeled emergent?” Is the term the postmodern equivalent of ‘Protestant?’ Should it be?
You say: “It becomes more and more about Jesus. It becomes more and more about His mission in the world. It becomes more offense and less defensive. It becomes so desperate that only by following Jesus very closely can we navigate through.”
Well said. One of my problems with the notion of entering postmodern reality with a ‘generous orthodoxy’ is that a generous orthodox is no more about Jesus than what we have now. McLaren’s generous orthodoxy is about embracing selected themes that can be drawn from existing traditions and tweaked and synthesized. And, that’s just plain stupid to me because it is anything but radical. It is the way of Nicodemus. And, it is not the way God brought monumental change through those great heroes of the faith I mentioned.
So, you are correct. Unlike western Catholic/Protestant modernism, which fought over Paul, it will be more and more about Jesus. More and more about the Beatitudes. More and more about the life of a disciple ‘following’ Jesus. More and more about mission. And, compared to the past 500 years, that is new and it is revolutionary.
As far as the question, “What is the Gospel?” is concerned, I’ve asked it too—long before I ever heard of Brian McLaren. Certainly conservative alarms go off. And, certainly, a mind willing and able to span the postmodern landscape sees the Evangelical answer to the question to be inadequate at best and irrelevant at worst. And, independent of you, I see the answer for the postmodern world to be in the Sermon on the Mount. (Need I point how that such a Gospel matches my terms radical and revolutionary?)
You say, “So the Gospel rather than being defensive is actually surrendering, letting them kill you while you continue to love them, walking with the oppressor two miles rather than just the one he forced you to walk, giving up even more than the robber tried to take. The truth doesn't become diluted. It becomes even stronger. I think we are missing a lot of that.”
And, I say, “Amen! Preach it, bro!” But, I see us achieving that understanding, not through a generous orthodoxy, but rather through something like a ‘prophetic orthodoxy.’
And, you say, “For me, McLaren is at least attempting to say that I don't want to throw out all that we have, I love the tradition that I am a part of, but I do want to put it to the fire and refine it so that it will be stronger in this next century. That is how much I love this church.”
That sounds like a pretty fair reading of the book to me. I just don’t buy it. The prophets and John and Jesus didn’t come to throw out the truth. But, they came to call people to a radical understanding of it and a radical obedience to it. John the Baptist would not have written the book that had the subtitle: "Why I AM A pharisaical, sadducical, Levitical…protoChristian." Neither would have Abraham or Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah. And, neither did Jesus.
But, if he’d thought of it, most likely Nicodemus would have.
There’s something more dramatic and radical about the manner in which God has brought about change than can be described by the words ‘generous’ and ‘emergent.’ In the past, these times of transformation have been more chaotic on the human level than those terms can suggest. And, I’m willing to embrace, not the past, but that chaos.
Bill,
Thanks for your thoughts and the time you obviously put into them.
It strikes me that the kind of radical discontinuity from the past that you are suggesting is actually very continuous with the history of the church, and the Protestant church in particular. In other words, your suggestion that we need something radically new isn't in itself all that new. Hasn't that been in a sense what every new denomination has been all about: "Finally, WE have discovered the TRUTH! We have figured out what every other Christian has been missing all this time! We're the only ones really following Jesus."
I guess what was refreshing to me about this book of Brian's is that he is trying to move beyond this Protestant infatuation with new-ness. (c.f. his chapter on "Why I am Post/Protestant")
I also find it ironic that while many people criticize McLaren and others in the emerging church as being too quick to throw out the past, here you are leveling the opposite criticism. Perhaps that's why, like Goldilocks, I find McLaren's position to be just about right.
You might also find it interesting that McLaren also comments on the story of Nicodemus in his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus. (You'd probably like that book better than Generous Orthodoxy. It's less "generous" and paints more of a contrast between the old and the new ways of understanding Jesus' message.) Anyway, some of what McLaren says about Nicodemus is remarkably similar to what you say here. He writes:
[Nicodemus] comes to Jesus as night and begins with a compliment: "It's obvious you're a great teacher. We're all very impressed with your miracles, which make it clear that God is with you." Jesus doesn't respond with a polite, "Thanks for the compliment." Instead, he cuts to the chase and says, "Unless you are born anew, you won't enter the kingdom of God".
...Jesus is saying, "Nicodemus, you're a Pharisee. You're a respeted teacher yourself. But if you are coming to me hoping to experience the extraordinary life to the full I've been teaching about, you are going to have to go back to the very beginning. You're going to have to become like a baby all over again, to unlearn everything you are already so sure of, so you can be retaught."
Mike,
Thanks for your comments. I know that we come at this from different starting points. I’m grateful that you could even read what I wrote.
You say, “It strikes me that the kind of radical discontinuity from the past that you are suggesting is actually very continuous with the history of the church, and the Protestant church in particular.”
I sort of agree, actually.
It strikes me that that kind of radical discontinuity from the past has rarely been achieved in the history of the church, but that claims of it abound. You (and McLaren) are correct in pointing out that it’s a Protestant obsession to seek it. But, I’m not as certain as McLaren seems to be that the search for it is a bad thing. What is bad —is sin even—is the pride we fall prey to when we convince ourselves too quickly that radical discontinuity has been achieved.
The frailties of our history do not change the fact that that sort of radical separation from the past has been God’s way of moving in human history. Nor do our past failures suggest that the way of tolerance or generosity has ever been the means through which God has achieved monumental change.
You say, “I guess what was refreshing to me about this book of Brian's is that he is trying to move beyond this Protestant infatuation with new-ness.”
Infatuation? Sounds sort of frivolous, don’t it?
This search for newness has important theological roots. As I said, I am concerned when people convince themselves too easily that they’ve achieved newness. But, I’m equally concerned when people dismiss the search for newness too easily. It seems to me that the search for newness is rooted in the call for repentance that was the foundation of the message of John, Jesus and the Apostles—and the OT prophets for that matter. The fact Protestants have a history of believing too easily that they’ve achieved repentance and radical newness should never take away our yearning for it, nor should it silence us in seeking it personally or proclaiming its necessity.
One thing I noticed was missing from McLaren’s descriptions of generosity and emergence is even scant reference to repentance. Our ‘infatuation’ with newness notwithstanding, it seems unlikely that followers of Jesus can traverse the road from modernity to postmodernity without painful moments of reflection on our shortcomings and desperate moments of confession over them.
You say, “I also find it ironic that while many people criticize McLaren and others in the emerging church as being too quick to throw out the past, here you are leveling the opposite criticism. Perhaps that's why, like Goldilocks, I find McLaren's position to be just about right.”
Interesting. I’ll have to think about that. Could it be that my criticism of McLaren is from someone who’s made the ‘leap’ into postmodernism (a little Kierkegaard lingo, there) and most of the rest of the criticism comes from those who fear postmodernism? I don’t know whose criticism you have read.
In any event, I’m not criticizing him for being to slow to throw out the past. I’m criticizing him for his desire to move into postmodernity with a synthesized concoction of the best of the failed theological systems of modernity. I’m saying that rather than try to pour new wine into old wineskins that we’d be better off coming up with new wineskins.
I think it’s possible to proclaim a message that is formed out of the Gospel’s relevancy to our day, not derived from the challenges that beset the church 500, or 400 or even 100 years ago. I’m trying to do that.
You say, “You might also find it interesting that McLaren also comments on the story of Nicodemus in his latest book, The Secret Message of Jesus.”
Yes. I’m aware of the book, though I haven’t read it. I appreciate your comments on it on the blog. And, I suspect that I will receive what McLaren says in it much more warmly than I received what he said in ‘a Generous Orthodoxy.’
Bill,
If I have my Churches of God history correct, the emergence of our denomination was somewhat apart of the restorationist movement. That effort to recover the true form and spirit of the NT church seems to have some connection with the current Emergence movement.
What are your thoughts on this? What can the emergence of the CGGC teach us about the Emergence movement of today? Anything?
Thanks.
Brent
My dear brothers,
Last night I spent almost an hour constructing a reply to this topic. I looked up at least 7-8 Scripture references to support my statements.
As I was "patting myself on the back" for a job well done, I hit the "publish" key----and it all disappeared! I lost my connection to the site; and I could not retrieve it.
I took that to mean that the Holy Spirit was not as pleased with my post as I was. ????? Perhaps He found it too arrogant. I do tend to have a problem with pride....and I'm proud that I can admit to it. ;-)
As I pondered all this in my meditation time this morning, I decided to state my thoughts/feelings more simply.
So....
Could it be, that we all know exactly what Jesus expects....no....DEMANDS of us? After all, He not only taught the Christian walk, He modeled it with His life of servant-hood and His sacrificial death.
Brothers, we all know that Jesus wants it ALL.
All this esoteric discussion may be partly generated by the fact that we (myself included) know exactly what discipleship entails, but we attempt all types of maneuvers to avoid admitting it.
Or maybe more specifically, we are afraid that those with whom we share this Gospel message of total surrender will turn their backs on us.
Anyway, JMHO.
Peace,
Your sister in Christ - Felicia
Fran,
Thanks for your comments.
You said, “For me, embracing a generous orthodoxy is much more about Jesus than what I had before, because before my opinions on secondary theological issues loomed much larger, which caused two things:
1) They separated me from others in the church (because those others did not agree with me... it wasn't enough for them to love the person of Jesus, his basic message, and desire good things).
2) Those secondary issues competed with the more basic things Jesus seems to be concerned about (such as in the Sermon On The Mount).”
I understand what you are saying. And, to a certain extent, I agree with you. While I have difficulty with the notion of ‘generosity,’ I agree with you that it is important to hold others in the body of Christ in high esteem. I take Jesus’ prayer for unity in among believers John 17 seriously. He said, “I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one,” and I take that to heart.
However, if embracing a ‘generous orthodoxy’ brings us closer to Jesus, it is only indirectly. What generosity toward other believers does is bring us closer to His body, the church. It helps us find a proper perspective and set appropriate spiritual priorities and boundaries. It helps us major on the majors, not the minors.
But, by definition, it is a focus on an orthodoxy—a set of doctrines ABOUT Jesus—not on Jesus Himself. But, I believe that our oneness in Christ has to be more than something that is based in intellectual tolerance of our diversity. It must be existential. Authentically spiritual.
You say, “What I'm trying to say is that there is a whole host of topics and activities I used to put energy into which I no longer do, because Jesus own words and actions have helped me redefine what I see as "big" and "small".”
Preach it! I agree. Me too, though I didn’t do that through reading McLaren’s book. I did it through the study of the mutual love shared by the great preachers from different traditions during times of revival in church history. (My class work was in the area of revivalism.)
You say, “If people love Jesus, believe His Good News, want to be authentic and good-hearted, and want to do the real here-and-now work of the Kingdom, then I don't really care how they baptize or what their eschatology looks like... they do not have to think just like me.”
I couldn’t agree with you more.
The concern I was expressing is that I don’t see how tolerance for diversity in faulty theological systems from the modern era will help us reach the postmodern heart. I don't see how a sythesis of the strengths of divserse views, if they could be synthesized, will amount to a powerful proclaimation of the Gospel.
Certainly, if we don’t argue with each other that removes a stumbling block in our missional efforts. But, if the best we can say to unsaved postmoderns is that we don’t disagree with each other on major points of belief, I don’t think many of them will be transformed by our message.
You say, “So, for me anyway, becoming more generously orthodox has made it much more about Jesus, at least more about the Jesus of the Gospels and less about the Jesus of my construction.”
And, for me, RESPECTING the orthodoxy of others—which for me is a higher achievement that being ‘generous’ toward it or tolerating it, is helpful. It clears the air. And, that is, indeed, important.
For me, we need to achieve more than that.
Brent,
You are correct. Winebrenner was a rabid restorationist, or primitivist. His choice of the name ‘Church of God’ is the best evidence of that reality. He was determined to use the NT term for our movement. (There were also strong elements of pietism in his thinking. He was too radical a pietist to be comfortable with the more staid pietism that was common in the German Reformed Church at the time.)
Actually, though, restorationism takes some pretty hard hits from McLaren in ‘a Generous Orthodoxy’—you might say that he is un-generous as far as restorationism is concerned. He refers to restorationists as merely ‘protesting Protestants,’ not the more advanced and generous ‘pro-testifying’ Protestants. (p. 129) (Can you guess that I took that a little too personally?)
You ask, “What can the emergence of the CGGC teach us about the Emergence movement of today? Anything?”
I’m not certain, Brent. I think that the CGGC has backed off on its restorationism in the last 50 to 75 years. I have always thought that it would be better for us to recapture the passion for the raw, primitive spirit of our faith, rather than to abandon it. My criticism of McLaren’s definition of emergence bears that out, I think.
I imagine that if McLaren is correct and emergence is a rejection of the spirit of restorationism though, it will be very difficult for us to emerge in a mainstream way.
Felicia,
Ouch!
Okay, this discussion is esoteric. And,I essentially agree with your definition of discipleship.
My reason for entering this thread is that I see serious dangers in setting boundaries in the concept of generosity. How far should this generosity extend?
To Catholics? ; )
To Mormons? To Moonies? To IRA bombers?
How does one know where to draw the line with generosity?
One time I was leading devotions in a meeting of our Region's Renewal Commission and I based my comments in part on Galatians 1:9, which says,
"If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person." (NLT)
My suggestion that the renewal process must be based in passionate and uncompromising accountability to truth met with strong opposition. And, as the discussion progressed, I found that some in the group were actually disagreeing with that verse, not only with me.
Jesus tell us that coming to the Father is not only a matter of following the 'way.' He also taught that He Himself is "THE" "TRUTH!"
And, being a disciple involves relationship with that truth.
So, sure. Jesus demanded a walk. But, not just any old walk. He demanded THE walk. The one that involves actual truth. And, Paul prayed a curse on those who walk any other path.
Bill,
This is an interesting topic to me.
In response to my question “What can the emergence of the CGGC teach us about the Emergence movement of today? Anything?” you wrote:
"I’m not certain, Brent. I think that the CGGC has backed off on its restorationism in the last 50 to 75 years. I have always thought that it would be better for us to recapture the passion for the raw, primitive spirit of our faith, rather than to abandon it."
Since you are the resident historian and pastor in a CGGC church, what are some of your practical suggestions to accomplish this spirit that are consistent with our roots? [I realize that this goes back to some of the previous conversations on this blog.]
Our church will be celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2007 and I am interested in the possibilities of making a connection between the history of our denomination and the current historical moment.
Thanks!
Brent
Brent,
Re: “…what are some of your practical suggestions to accomplish this spirit that are consistent with our roots?”
Good question. In Revelation 2, Jesus tells the Ephesians, “Remember the height from which you have fallen. Repent and do the things you did at first.” And, I’ve thought about the “how to” of that off and on.
On a denominational level, this blog helps. It allows committed people across the body to be in communication with each other in the way the CHURCH ADVOCATE did in the early days. I would encourage other pastors and involved people in the laity to read and participate here.
I may be getting myself in a little hot water here, but I would think about trying to recapture some of the naïve, yet considerable wisdom of Winebrenner’s theology. In many ways he was radical for a Protestant. His thinking was simple but unique and much of what we are still reflects the influence of his thought. Forney twisted it around in an attempt to save it. Yahn and his gang in the 1920s may not have done us a big favor by writing that Doctrinal Statement (that’s a question worthy of debate.). About 25 years ago I had decided that Winebrenner was a mental midget, but since them, I have developed a genuine admiration and respect for him.
I do think we should try to tap the best elements of our restorationism. Incidentally, while I made a crack about McLaren’s ungenerous treatment about restorationism, I do think he made a valid observation. I’m not certain, however, that it applies to our Church of God as well as it does to other restorationist. (I’m biased, of course.)
And, I think that we should rediscover our pietism and express it in a 21st century way. By the way, I’m a big fan of 17th and 18th century pietism. And, it is the same thing in pietism that attracted me to Kierkegaard’s proto-existentialism and it’s the same thing in them that excites about postmodernism.
Those are general suggestions, and probably not as much on the ‘how to’ level as you hoped to hear from me. But, off the top of my head, that’s what I came up with.
“Our church will be celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2007 and I am interested in the possibilities of making a connection between the history of our denomination and the current historical moment.”
Ed Rosenberry does a very good John Winebrenner. Perhaps if you asked him, he’d get Winebrenner to show up for a special event out your way. Jim Moss can also get people very excited about the growth eras of the Church of God.
Blessings.
Pastor Bill said:
"My suggestion that the renewal process must be based in passionate and uncompromising accountability to truth met with strong opposition. .....
Jesus tell us that coming to the Father is not only a matter of following the 'way.' He also taught that He Himself is "THE" "TRUTH!"
And, being a disciple involves relationship with that truth.
So, sure. Jesus demanded a walk. But, not just any old walk. He demanded THE walk. The one that involves actual truth"
As you say, "Preach it, brother!"
We definitely agree on the principle, although I suspect we may vary slightly on the "details".
:-)
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to recapture the awe, wonder and mystery of what it means to come before the God of the universe, to worship as the Body of Christ.
Peace,
Felicia
Felicia,
Re: "I wholeheartedly agree that we need to recapture the awe, wonder and mystery of what it means to come before the God of the universe, to worship as the Body of Christ."
Preach it, sis!
; )
Bill,
Thanks for the suggestions.
Which works of Winebrenner and other Church of God authors best represent the spirit you are suggesting we recover?
Brent
Brent,
"Which works of Winebrenner and other Church of God authors best represent the spirit you are suggesting we recover?"
Good question. I'm not excited about Winebrenner as an author, really. He had to be much better in person. As the years have gone by, I have grown to respect Richard Kern's biography of Winebrenner more and more. I think that a careful reading of the book--even if it's for the 2nd or 3rd time--with these questions in mind in a very good place to start.
My thoughts exactly.
Keep up the good blogging.
-Sean
__________________
www.SeanDietrich.com
"All my music is free."
Post a Comment
<< Home