Responding to the New Voices
This is the weekly leadership tip by Bill Easum posted on his organization's webpage - Easum, Bandy, and Associates at www.easumbandy.com. The work of Easum and Tom Bandy have been influential for my personal ministry. This post is relevant here because it addresses a variety of new movements within Christianity, including the Emerging Church,and how to evaluate their effectiveness.
Responding to the New Voices
BY: Bill Easum
Many new voices are on the horizon claiming to be the wave of the future. That’s both exciting, also a bit scary. Let me mention a few of the leading contenders – The Incarnational Movement, The Emergent Movement, The House Church Movement, The Emerging Church Movement, The Outward-Focused Church Movement, The Revolution Argument – I could go on. All of these, and many more, suggest they may be, or are, the wave of the future.
However, I doubt if there is one wave of the future. I think the emerging world will have multiple waves. The real issue will be how are far can these waves go and still be considered part of the Christian fold? This question must be asked honestly without any judgment attached to it. The future will require a very open, honest, humble dialogue between these waves, or else the church sea will become very turbulent.
So, before you buy into any of these new voices consider the following: Is this voice a new interpretation of the Canon or a deviation from the Canon? Is it a call back to first century Christianity or a call to embrace a new version of Christianity?
One of the subtle issues of our time is the slim difference between offering a version of the Good News that can be communicated to a new world or culture and a new version of the Good News under the guise of the need for a new way to communicate in a new world.
[EDITED OUT PROMO FOR EBA] It is one thing to communicate the ancient mission in a way the contemporary world can respond to it; it is a far different thing to construct a new version of the old to fit the values of the contemporary world.
I’m afraid some of the pastors I’ve met are too prone to jump into new waves of thinking without knowing how deep the water is or what direction the current will take them.
The real issue today is akin to that during the first three centuries – what is acceptable doctrine and interpretation and what isn’t. What should be included in the Canon and what shouldn’t be. And the key question of our time – is there room for more Scripture? We don’t think there is.
What has this to do with leadership?
Everything. Leaders have to be discerning today more than ever. With the changing culture, everything is up for grabs. The postmodern world has thrust on us a world of situational values. No way to avoid it. Leaders must find a way to communicate the Good News in such a world but leaders must not succumb to the temptation of adapting or adding to the Good News to fit the culture.
It’s not an easy time to be a Christian leader today. We want so desperately to communicate with the emerging world that it is often tempting to accommodate the Good News to fit the values of our culture. But to do that is to prostitute the Good News.
Many of us have major, haunting questions today about the validity of Christianity and the institutional church as we see it being played out (notice I didn’t say lived out). I know I do. I know something is really wrong with the vast majority of existing churches. But that has nothing to do with the ancient mission or message.
The problem isn’t with the inspiration or amount of Scripture; the problem is with us and our churches. Most of them are clubs rather than churches. We are often too easily led astray by the new. In our desire to connect or answer our unanswered questions we grope for another interpretation of the old and wind up with something different from the ancient mission or message. We simply cannot afford to make that mistake. We can’t be seduced by the new.
So be wise in the changes you make in the way you conduct your mission. Be humble in your critique of what people poking around on the fringes of Christianity might be saying. They could be the next Martin Luther; or they could be…..
So heed the Scripture’s warning to “test the spirits” because we live in an exciting and dangerous time.
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 6:14 PM
41 Comments:
I think it's tricky to talk about changing the "methods" but not the "message" (which is essentially what Bill seemed to be getting at, IMHO). That kind of dichotomy can tend to assume that we already know what the message is, and that we just have to stay faithful to it.
A harder question, and one that doesn't easily fall on this "methods---message" continuum, is whether our understanding of the message of the Gospel has already been distorted by Modernity. In what ways might we need to "detox" from our modernistic conceptions of the gospel and rediscover what Jesus really had in mind? Perhaps we do need "new" versions of the Gospel, because our older versions have gotten us off track.
Of course, then there is the question of whether theology is really a static discipline in the first place. Did we figure out everything we needed to know about God, life, the world, and our mission in it back in the first century (or the 16th century), and now we just need to keep repeating those answers over and over again for all time? Or is there a sense in which we are always moving "further up and further in"? Do we believe that the Holy Spirit still at work in the church doing new things, leading us into deeper understandings and closer to really following the way of Christ?
Thanks for the Easum material, Brent.
Mike,
Good comments and questions.
Re: "A harder question, and one that doesn't easily fall on this "methods---message" continuum, is whether our understanding of the message of the Gospel has already been distorted by Modernity."
That question leads me to question the Catholicity of the Pope again.
Certainly. To me, that's not a hard question at all. It's a no-brainer.
The pressing issue is how we connect to and stay connected to the Holy Spirit as we set aside Modernity and set out as followers of Jesus in Postmodernity. I imagine for most of us here, the allure of postmodernism is more seductive than the comfort of the old ways.
I've said this before: To me, this is nothing new.
My grad school degree is in the history of revivalism. We are at the cusp of either a Revival or the dawn of a new Dark Age.
And, we need to disdain the dry bones of modernity AND be careful that what we embrace in the Emerging Age is the movement of the Spirit.
The early church had a fourfold strategy for doing that.
They devoted themselves to four passions:
The Apostles' teaching.
The Fellowship. (Koinonia)
The Breaking of Bread. (Their term for worship, which implies the centrality of the taking of the Lord's Supper.)
And, Prayer.
Bill,
"I imagine for most of us here, the allure of postmodernism is more seductive than the comfort of the old ways."
It always seems helpful to define how we're using the term postmodern. I've talked with people who think more in terms of anti-modern as opposed to post-modern. (I'm not suggesting that is what you mean.) While I think the Enlightenment project has failed, I will gladly accept many of the innovations and advances of the modern era.
How do you define or think of postmodernity?
Also, "We are at the cusp of either a Revival or the dawn of a new Dark Age."
Interesting. Could you say a bit more?
Brent,
"It always seems helpful to define how we're using the term postmodern. I've talked with people who think more in terms of anti-modern as opposed to post-modern. (I'm not suggesting that is what you mean.) While I think the Enlightenment project has failed, I will gladly accept many of the innovations and advances of the modern era."
I know.
I read your very helpful article on the difference between Postmodernism and postmodernity. In fact, I've cited it to about a half dozen people.
I actually made my statement with your thoughts in mind and decided to allow each reader to take it as he/she naturally would. If I'd been precise, I'd have probably chosen the historical term, postmodernity.
The historical reality of our time is that modernity is passing away.
Christ's body needs to follow the Spirit in engaging the world that now exists.
Re: "We are at the cusp of either a Revival or the dawn of a new Dark Age."
It's the historical reality that I see for us. As Bob Dylan sang, "The times, they are achangin'."
We can try to continue to fight the battles that the Calvinists and Arminians began 400 years ago. We can continue to argue over the five Fundamentals of the Christian faith that had liberals and conservatives at each other's throats a hundred years ago. But, if we do, we will we giving very clear answers to questions that almost no one outside the body of Christ is asking. And, if we do, a new Dark Age will manifest itself before we know it.
Or, we can devote ourselves to the Apostles' teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer faithfully and let the Spirit take us where He wants us to go.
Seems to me that that's what happened in 1517 with Luther and in 1675 when Philipp Jakob Spener wrote Pia Desideria [Forgive the Spener thing. He's a hero of mine who's been virtually lost to history.] and in the 1720s when the Wesleys and their 'Holy Club' pals began to meet with the idea of living faithful lives and, for that matter, when John Winebrenner began to rail against the spiritual deadness in the Harrisburg congregation.
I believe that the point in history in which we live is live is that important! Either possibility, Revival or Dark Age, exists in our moment
The Three Major Philosophical Epochs
Premodernism (Beginnings up to 1650’s)
Epistemology. The primary epistemology of the premodern period was based upon revealed knowledge from authoritative sources. In premodern times it was believed that Ultimate Truth could be known and the way to this knowledge is through direct revelation. This direct revelation was generally assumed to come from God or a god.
Sources of Authority. The church, being the holders and interpreters of revealed knowledge, were the primary authority source in premodern time.
Modernism (1650-1950’s)
Epistemology. Two new approaches to knowing became dominant in the modern period. The first was empiricism (knowing through the senses) which gradually evolved into scientific empiricism or modern science with the development of modernist methodology. The second epistemological approach of this period was reason or logic. Often, science and reason were collaboratively or in conjunction with each other.
Sources of Authority. As the shift in power moved away from the church, politics (governments, kings, etc.) and universities (scholars, professors) took over as the primary sources of authority. Oftentimes, a religious perspective was integrated into these modern authority sources, but the church no longer enjoyed the privilidged power position.
Postmodernism (1950’s to current times)
Epistemology. Postmodenism brought with it a quesioning of the previous approaches to knowing. Instead of relying on one approach to knowing, they advocate for an epistemological pluralism which utilizes multiple ways of knowing. This can include the premodern ways (revelation) and modern ways (sceince & reason), along with many other ways of knowing such as intuition, relational, and spiritual.
Sources of Authority. Postmodern approaches seek to deconstruct previous authority sources and power. Because power is distrusted, they attempt to set up a less hierarchial approach in which authority sources are more diffuse.
From Louis Hoffman, Ph.D.
"We are at the cusp of either a Revival or the dawn of a new Dark Age."
I know you probably meant in terms of theology and the church... and in that sense, my money is on Revival, or perhaps even a new Reformation. (Phyllis Tickle seems to think we're due for a new reformation, and has even gone so far as to call Brian McLaren this reformation's Martin Luther.)
However, in regards to Western Civilization in general, I can't help but think that we're headed for a new Dark Age soon. What with global warming, the population explosion, super viruses and biological warfare, nuclear proliferation, not to mention the ecological damage being wreaked by the ravages of consumer capitalism, I just don't see how our civilization can keep going on as we are now for very much longer. I think maybe we've got another century or two of steam left and then this speeding train-wreck we call modern society is going to hit a wall. Really, we're overdue for another Dark Ages IMHO.
But maybe I'm just a pessimist. ;)
Doug,
Thanks for the historical eras that add a bit of perspective.
One of the reasons that I've avoided some of the "hot button" issues on this blog (Mark Driscoll, etc.) is because they sometimes lack historical perspective. I am NOT suggesting that these conversations are not important nor that they should take place. It's simply that I cannot make a comment without situating it in a wider discussion. So, instead of appearing obnoxious or arrogant I just avoid the discussions all together.
What concerns me is that people sometimes flock to these discussions while avoiding the corresponding discussions about the underlying theology or philosophy.
While I understand the shorthand "IMHO", my response many times is "Who are YOU to make that statement?" I want to respond with "Where's the historical support?" or "Who has led you to that opinion?" I know Mike and others can answer these questions but for the sake of conciseness move on assumptions. That is okay. What bothers me is that the blog environment sometimes promotes decision making by personal preference and reinforces that we are independent of any tradition. Maybe good Americans come from this mindset but not necessarily good Christians.
Conciseness is key. I hear what you're saying, Brent, but it's too time consuming to start from scratch with every conversation. Though I suppose with boards like this one where there is such a wide diversity of opinions, it may be more necessary to review our foundational beliefs more often.
To be honest though, I really long for a discussion forum where I don't have to start from scratch all the time. I want to be able to converse with like-minded people who already share most of my basic assumptions, so that we can spend our time on deeper things. But such forums are difficult to find.
TheOoze used to be a good place to hang out, but in the past few years it's been overrun by jerks. Julie and I went to the Emergent Convention a few years ago, hoping for that kind of conversation, but found that the Q&A time in all the seminars were monopolized by critics of Emergent that had wandered over from the concurrent National Pastors Convention. This blog is a fun forum for discussion, but, as we've all discovered, it's not exactly a safe place to completely be yourself. And even my own blog tends to get spammed constantly from anti-Emergent fundies trying to get me to repent of my EC ways. It's just not easy to find places to share where people really "get" where you're coming from and you don't have to spend all your time just defending your whole starting point. And that can get very tiring and even discouraging.
I think a lot of people are afraid to post because they feel their ”humble opinion” doesn’t matter. They don’t perhaps feel that they are knowledgeable enough to tackle an issue or feel intimidated by the intellectual minds in here. Or they feel they will be attacked by those who think they have all the answers. But is it not good to sometimes ask question, make statements or give opinions so we can learn? And don’t be afraid to have a since of humor with fear of coming off as arrogant. And don’t be afraid to make mistakes.
I think it is good that we can discuss current events such as the Discoll issue both from an historical and contemporary perspective same with Theology. Current events become historical events. We all have different perspective of things depending on our education and where we are in the world or our world-view. I think it is good that we all give input from these different perspectives.
I believe that the Church is so fragmented that there will be or are many different Reformations. There are those who believe that McLaren is the next Luther, but there are also those who think that C. Peter Wagner is the next big reformer in the ”New Apostolic Reformation”. And I believe that it won’t be long before we have a reformer in a Neo-Modern era.
I think Bill Easum brings up some good points in this post.
“I doubt if there is one wave of the future. I think the emerging world will have multiple waves.”
“So, before you buy into any of these new voices consider the following: Is this voice a new interpretation of the Canon or a deviation from the Canon? Is it a call back to first century Christianity or a call to embrace a new version of Christianity?”
I believe we will see revival as a dark age approaches. It is when life gets bad that people turn to God. We as the Church need to be prepared no matter what wave we are riding to give the good news that hope and life is found only in Christ through both his Incarnation and Atonement or life and death.
IMHO!
Mike,
"...in regards to Western Civilization in general, I can't help but think that we're headed for a new Dark Age soon."
Two thoughts:
1. You raise a good point. I think that Western Civilization is probably soon going to have to change its ways--that it has ridden the horse it's on to the point that that horse is about dead.
2. OTOH, it does seem to me that one trait of modernism is optimism. And, I wonder if one trait among postmodernists is pessimism.
Brian McLaren this Reformation's Martin Luther?
Oivey!
As one who has studied the history of revivalism, I'm going to have to give that some thought.
Doug,
"But is it not good to sometimes ask question, make statements or give opinions so we can learn?"
Absolutely! I think that everyone should feel free to share their opinion on all topics.
BUT, the minute the guidelines went up for this blog, limits were placed upon who can be involved. For example: no more anonymous posting, only CGGC people can begin new conversations, etc.
While I don't buy into the modern era's optimism, I am not as pessimistic about a coming dark ages. If our culture is at risk in any one particular area, I would suggest we are most vulnerable due to the rise of a therapeutic culture.
This therapeutic culture - I am thinking mainly in terms of American culture, your current experiences may be different - elevates items of private discussion to the public arena.
That is why I pushed for some guidelines on this blog. There are inherent limits in every context. We need to strive to be public about those limits. If we act as though "everyone is welcome" while at the same time having secret criteria for involvement we set people up for cynicism.
As I read about and understand the current postmodern moment, I do not see the goal as equality and liberation for everyone. That, in my interpretation, is a very modern objective. The goal in the postmodern era is to have clearly defined boundaries where people are free to choose their "home".
So, back to your original question. Yes, everyone's opinion should be included. But, if there are some people who choose not to participate that is okay - as long as there are clearly defined boundaries AND those of us who are participating are working within those boundaries.
Mike,
"This blog is a fun forum for discussion, but, as we've all discovered, it's not exactly a safe place to completely be yourself...."
Honestly, I don't think the internet will ever provide a forum where you can "completely be yourself." That's one of the reasons I have always referred to this as a public space for conversation. I can be myself with my wife, my daughter, close friends and family - all of which are private contexts. If I need spiritual guidance I will find someone privately, I don't think this is an appropriate (or even realistic) place to find heart to heart mentoring.
In many ways I think it is an unmet expectation which can lead to cynicism. You mentioned that needing to situate each statement online "can get very tiring and even discouraging." I agree. But only when I let my guard down and expect the internet to be something that it really isn't capable of becoming.
I've resigned myself to this only after really examining my beliefs about postmodernity. I can't have it both ways.
Your comment is key for me: "Though I suppose with boards like this one where there is such a wide diversity of opinions, it may be more necessary to review our foundational beliefs more often."
Good thoughts.
Brent wrote: "The goal in the postmodern era is to have clearly defined boundaries where people are free to choose their "home"."
I don't think I understand this. I certainly don't have the degrees or intellectual savvy that many of you have, but..... I would think the above statement is much more of a 'modern' though, and almost the opposite of postmodern. I understand postmoderns to be much more at ease WITHOUT the boundaries - more open to the mystical/spiritual - and the 'modern' mind to be more desirous of set boundaries. But, that is... just my 'opinion.'
Brent said: This therapeutic culture - I am thinking mainly in terms of American culture, your current experiences may be different - elevates items of private discussion to the public arena.
I live in a culture where everything is transparent or public. Anybody can find out what your income is, how much you paid for your house, when you were born, if you own large amount of property anyone is allowed to walk on your property as long as they don’t walk up to the house. It is reported by www.transparency.org/ that the Nordic countries are least corrupted countries in the world. It is because of levels of freedom of speech, open administration, transparency in political institutions, etc.
Private discussion in the public arena brings about accountability and responsibility.
Brent, could you be more clear about the limits and boundaries you are talking about?
Could you also clarify your understanding of the current postmodern moment.
The postmodern moment I am living in is all about equality and liberation for everyone.
Dan,
It really depends upon how you are defining the term "postmodern".
The perspective from which I work (I've shared it in more detail in a previous post) assumes a variety of mini-narratives as opposed to a metanarrative. For me, inclusion presupposes some level of exclusion. So, in order to have a variety of narratives at play, there has to be some understanding of how these narratives are different - that is where the clearly outlined boundaries come into play.
You're right, not everyone would agree with this position. But the postmodern era has so many different ways to define the times that one sweeping statement can't take them all into account.
What are some of your thoughts about how to define the term postmodern?
Thanks for the response.
Brian McLaren this Reformation's Martin Luther?
Note that I am not making this claim myself. That is just what Phyllis Tickle believes. But, as septugenarian whose job it has been to keep tabs on religious trends in America for the past several decades (and who has written several books on the topic), I think Mrs. Tickle is uniquely qualified to make such prognostications.
Of course, only time will tell. I'd like to hope that she is right, but I really don't know. I guess the postmodern pessimist in my sometimes thinks that the emerging movement is ultimately doomed to failure. Sometimes I think that the church just isn't ready for this kind of faith yet.
In fact, Phyllis made that prediction too when I heard her speak on the topic at the 2005 Emergent Convention. She predicted that either the emerging church will spark a new reformation, or else it will be too far ahead of its time and will fizzle. She suggests that perhaps in another 100 years or so people will start to revisit what the emerging church is writing now and will be ready for it at that point.
BTW, Tickle defined the emerging movement as more of a convergence of diverse streams of faith (Evangelical, Mainline, Liturgical & Pentecostal) rather than just one particular conversation defined by Emergent Village. What she sees is that these "multiple waves" that Bill Easum writes about are being drawn together into this emerging movement.
“In fact, Phyllis made that prediction too when I heard her speak on the topic at the 2005 Emergent Convention. She predicted that either the emerging church will spark a new reformation, or else it will be too far ahead of its time and will fizzle. She suggests that perhaps in another 100 years or so people will start to revisit what the emerging church is writing now and will be ready for it at that point.”
This was true of Kierkegaard, he was before his time. I often thought this could be true of the Neo-orthodox theologians, Barth, Tillich, Brunner, Bultmann, etc.
Perhaps their theologies has just fizzled away or their theologies could re-surface in a Neo-Modern era. Could they have had more affect if they had the internet in their time?
Just a thought.
Brent,
My understanding of the mini-narratives are that we create our home not choose it. A post-modernist will say that I have my ideology, my philosophy, my theology, my world-view and you have yours. We all have our own story and we live in tolerance with each other. It is exclusive for me but it is inclusive in tolerance for others. Post-modernism is pluralistic. It says I have my freedom to believe what I want you have the freedom to believe what you want we are all equal. The only boundaries is letting everyone have their humble opinion and respecting others and their opinion. There is no authority telling me how to live my life. Thus equality and liberation for everyone.
The question is how do we as a church approach such a worldview?
Postmodernism is still very individualistic. It is the EC that counter acts individualism with inclusive community.
It is in post-modern culture we find communities of individuals that share a common narrative and create their own since of community. Their community is equal to not better then other communities. This can be true of a nation as a whole as well. This is why the USA is looked down on by the European nations. The USA thinks it is the authority of the world and is better then all others as the European nations sees all nations as equals and have the right to their opinions as long as there is tolerance and justice.
I believe that the EC is about bringing the gospel into this worldview. Back to the post at hand, just as there are many mini-narratives there will be many waves to accomplish this task.
This is the way I see it from a European perspective.
Mike,
This may be an instance in which I simply know too much. When you get as far into the study of a subject as I have gotten into the study of 'Revivals' you have to struggle continually not to lose sight of the forest because you're enjoying your study of a few specific trees.
However, from my study, Martin Luther has become the stuff of myths. Most of us who have taken church history have no idea of the actual content of the 95 Theses and would be bored if we tried to read them.
So, in some symbolic way, McLaren or someone else may be today's incarnation of the myth of Martin Luther, but since Martin Luther wasn't even Martin Luther as we believe in him today, I have no idea what that would be.
In fact, Phyllis made that prediction too when I heard her speak on the topic at the 2005 Emergent Convention. She predicted that either the emerging church will spark a new reformation, or else it will be too far ahead of its time and will fizzle. She suggests that perhaps in another 100 years or so people will start to revisit what the emerging church is writing now and will be ready for it at that point.
No offense to any of us here--except myself--intended, but perhaps we Emerging Church types need to do some serious meditating on Romans 3. We need to let our spiritual children decide what, if any, significant contributions we make in the history of God's people.
BTW, Tickle defined the emerging movement as more of a convergence of diverse streams of faith (Evangelical, Mainline, Liturgical & Pentecostal) rather than just one particular conversation defined by Emergent Village. What she sees is that these "multiple waves" that Bill Easum writes about are being drawn together into this emerging movement.
As I said far to boldly last summer in my rant against A GENEROUS ORTHDOXY, it seems to me that God has achieved great change in the world through the harsh word of the prophet and not the kinder, gentler, more generous work of the one who promotes the forming of a new synthesis.
Sorry, gang.
When I said that we Emergent Church types need to do some meditating on Romans 3, I meant to type Romans 12:3: "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment..."
Sometimes I think we are a little to full of ourselves.
Myself included
Brent,
You asked: "What are some of your thoughts about how to define the term postmodern?"
Well, um, I have to admit, I am not really sure I even understand what you said (sorry, too many big words). But I think Douglas pretty-much said what I think.
Again, these are just my "opinions", and I know they are wayyyy over-simplified, and may not even be close to being correct, but these are my "thoughts":
I look at it like, PRE-MODERNS, upon being told something like, "The world is flat" would say, "Oh, okay, whatever you say," and they believe it. It was a time of faith and trust.
In the MODERN period, if someone said "The world is flat," the inclination was to set out to find out if this was true. It was an age of reason. People wanted to KNOW things - for sure.
To a POSTMODERN, when told "the world is flat" might say, "Well, that may be what you think, but I tend to think it's round, so... whatever." It's more an age of intuition.
So, that's where I see the guidelines issue to be more of a "need to know"; more of a sense of reasoning. And why I think it's okay to have 'unwritten rules' - even if they are not all the same. Sort of a 'you have your rules and I have mine.'
But I see your point that sweeping statements can't give proper definition. Thanks for sharing, and thanks for asking.
peace,
dh
Doug,
I can agree with what you are saying about postmodernism - if I can add one word to your post and say "some" postmodern philosophers are individualistic, deconstructive, etc.
The pluralism you talked about allows for some constructive voices to be part of the mix. And while they may in the minority, they are out there. Not everyone is individualistic. Not everyone would say "whatever works for you is okay" as long as you leave me alone.
That is why I don't think a person can say "I am postmodern" without defining how the term is being used. It's too broad and really can cover all aspects of thought. Are you an existentialist? Are you narrative driven? And many other questions really need to be addressed in order to define oneself by the current wave of philosophy.
I think our previous discussions about Albert Camus connect here. He was asking a question raised by postmodern philosophers - where is meaning found? But he provided a very modern response - in the self as opposed to finding our meaning by joining meaningful stories.
In the US Stanley Hauerwas is a major voice that influences my position, but I am mostly working from European thought on this item.
On therapeutic communication -
I am thinking mainly in terms of human communication that should be in the private realm being elevated to the public realm. For example, a co-worker comes to work to "vent" personal problems. They belong in the home or among friends, but NOT in the workplace.
A church tries to sell itself as a "Friendly" place - friendship is private, ministry is public. There are studies that demonstrate that the minute that organizations - churches, academic institutions, etc. - begin to sell themselves based upon relationships the quality of the product dwindles.
The blog environment concerns me on this point. While I fully understand why people would post private elements of life, what good does it really do us to know what you ate for breakfast? (this is random, I know a lot of people who have sites like this so I am not trying to point out anyone in particular)
With the rise of a culture of psychology in the US in the 20th century, the concern for why people act the way they do moved from a therapist's office into everyday conversation. We have no idea why people act the way they do. And our effort to try to discover it can ultimately do damage to our relationships.
Dan,
Your pre-modern, modern, post-modern descriptions make sense.
I agree that intuition is key. Don't the stories we find ourselves in help guide our intution? If I am a Christian I will have a different response to something in comparison to an athiest, or Muslim, etc.
That is why I think the stories are important. They help guide our intuition. If we aren't a part of a larger story (Christianity, or whatever) all we have left is our own personal opinion independent of any accountability.
That is why I think it is important to choose to be a part of meaningful stories.
Thanks for adding that word to the conversation.
Brent,
I didn't come up with the descriptive terms of faith, reason, and intuition. I'm sure I read them somewhere, and they stuck with me. And I agree, I think "intuition" is a good term, and our stories are important.
I also wonder if this "intuitive" sense doesn't stem somewhat from a desire to get back to that premodern sense of faith. I tend to think many postmoderns are trying to "get over" the screwed-up-ness of modernity; we LONG for a faith that is real, not manufactured.
And I don't want to label modern's as somehow 'evil' or 'wrong.' But sometimes it's in our over-analyzing that we lose what we're looking at/for (like Bill's forest/trees thought). Which doesn't mean we shouldn't think about these things, or that scholasticism and intellectualism are bad, but that maybe we should do less deconstructing and just start having a little more faith. Which is maybe the same thing you are saying - I don't know.
That last comment to Brent was from me (dan h.). I don't know why it says fairviewyoder.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan,
The conversation about intuition reminds me of something I've read written by Stanley Hauerwas.
He talks about how people get all bent out of shape when we talk about what types of worship people like in terms of their personal tastes. But (I am paraphrasing), he says that our taste is actually a reflection of the story that we represent. Therefore, according to Hauerwas, using taste as a guide for the type of worship that suits us is a very ethical way to choose.
Sorry for being so confusing. My poor wife - imagine her reaction when she is the one who has to listen to this stuff right off the top of my head. At least when I type I try to be a little clearer about my thoughts - although I will openly admit that even when I talk to myself (which happens WAY more than I care to admit) I sometimes wonder "What are you saying?"!
Brent,
No need to apologize. But the next time you're talking to yourself, say "hi" from me. :)
(copied this from "The Real Mary" topic; think it has relevance here.)
RE:
Felicia: "And Church teaching "trumps" conscience every time(in the RCC). :-)"
Mike: "Yeah, that would be a clear difference between a Catholic and Protestant approach to faith. :) "
*****************
You say that as if it's a bad thing. ;-)
Should one's conscience be relied upon above Church teaching? Is it ALWAYS reliable?
This is the direction of the EC---toward a personal understanding, not only of one's relationship with Jesus, but of faith in the larger sense.
Church history is proof positive that men and women of deep faith, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, can hold not only different but even opposing views on matters of faith and morals.
Shouldn't there be one source we can go to for the "final answer" when we ask ourselves, "What does Jesus/Scripture mean by that"? :-)
There once was---the Church, in the persons of the Apostles.
Is it possible to ever return to the beauty and simplicity of the 1st century church?
*************************
I Tim 3:15 "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. "
Matt 18: 15-18 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
*****************
What happened???? (***puts tongue in cheek***)
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
"You say that as if it's a bad thing."
No, not really. I was just saying it. Sorry if I offended.
"Should one's conscience be relied upon above Church teaching? Is it ALWAYS reliable?
This is the direction of the EC---toward a personal understanding, not only of one's relationship with Jesus, but of faith in the larger sense."
Not so. I think you're confusing the EC with Protestantism in general. This individualistic move was already made about 500 years ago when Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms said:
"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
This statement kicked off the Modern Era, and has been a defining statement of Modernism ever since.
The EC, as a movement informed by postmodern sensibilities, is not quite so individualistic as all this. It's more about a communal understanding of our faith. We (usually) recognize that neither authoritarianism nor individualism are good approaches to faith. Instead we rely on one other - on the diversity of voices and perspectives - to help us understand and to correct our own individual misperceptions.
RE: "No, not really. I was just saying it. Sorry if I offended."
No offense take. I was teasing a bit. :-)
RE: "Not so. I think you're confusing the EC with Protestantism in general."
Actually, I think I may be confusing EC with postmoderism.
RE: "Instead we rely on one other - on the diversity of voices and perspectives - to help us understand and to correct our own individual misperceptions."
This sounds very brotherly at first glance. But how exactly does that play out? How can a community of indidviduals, all working to correct each other, come to a consensus about truth? The more I read about EC the more confused I become.
I'm reading thru Scott McKnight's speech (posted on this blog). Some of it sounds a little too nebulous,i.e. the EC acceptance of "the flux-like nature of theology"---now there's a foreign concept!
However, much of it is not that different from my own experience of "church"-- for example, his discussion of social justice; emphasis on orthopraxy; or the 9-point definition of emerging churches.
Maybe I'm completely missing the point. I'm willing to admit that is possible.
Or maybe, from my perspective, it's not that big a leap. Matthew 25:31-46 is never far from my consciousness. My greatest fear is that I will fall short in my response to Jesus' command to care for my brother. The more I do, the more I realize how little it is---how little I sacrifice to help others.
"Are you saved?" was never the "be all and end all" in my faith experience. "Are you living out your faith?".........."are you living to serve Jesus, in and thru your neighbor?" has always been central to my understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
So, this aspect of EC I whole-heartedly agree with and support!
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
PS.
RE: "I really long for a discussion forum where I don't have to start from scratch all the time. I want to be able to converse with like-minded people who already share most of my basic assumptions, so that we can spend our time on deeper things. "
Sometimes I prefer to converse with people who are not "like-minded". It helps me to view things from a different perspective. "JMHO" :-)
"Sometimes I prefer to converse with people who are not "like-minded". It helps me to view things from a different perspective. "JMHO" :-)
As do I... but sometimes it seems like that's all I do. That can get tiring after a while.
This sounds very brotherly at first glance. But how exactly does that play out? How can a community of indidviduals, all working to correct each other, come to a consensus about truth?
We start by not trying to authoritatively define every minor point of doctrine. We find those basics that are central to the story of our faith, but allow freedom to disagree on more peripheral matters. We realize that the creedal confession of the early church was as simple as "Jesus is Lord" and the ethics of the early church were based entirely on only two principles: Loving God and Loving others. It's not too hard to build a consensus on those things, and we go from there, listening to scripture, tradition, reason and experience together - valuing the questions and realizing that there is often more than one right answer to any given question.
For instance, this Mary thing. It seems to me that the Catholic traditions about her are a definite possibility, but so are the typical Protestant versions. In the EC, since we value church tradition without holding it up as an absolute, unquestionable authority, we are able to consider both versions are potentially valid, while having the epistemic humility to say that we will never really know for sure. And that's okay! Postmodern people are little more comfortable living without all the answers than most modern folk are. Sometimes you don't always have to all agree. Sometimes it's okay to say that we can't ever really know for sure. And when it comes to choosing beliefs to live by, it's okay to sometimes simply make a leap of faith in the face of this uncertainty.
Bill Easum wrote, "What has this to do with leadership?"
As I was reading through the discussion in response to Easum's words, several implications for Christian leadership leadership came to mind. Here is a snapshot of what I am thinking:
1) The end of psychological profiling/assessment - If you are going to be a church planter - or any type of church related leader, you might have to submit to psychological testing. I've gone through it and many others have as well. Personally, I believe this type of testing is based upon the belief that human behavior is predictable and can be quantified. For a whole host of reasons, I think the day is rapidly approaching when these tests will no longer be valid or helpful.
2) Accountability - In an age where there are many different opinions at work in one particular church or context, I see the best way to be held accountable is to ask the question "Am I doing what I said I would do?" In other words if I don't do what I said I would or do something I said I wouldn't then I need to confronted. Since assumptions are not transferable, there has to be some way to be held accountable and hold others accountable.
What are some other thoughts?
To the EC'ers:
I'm trying to think of a way to say this so it doesn't come off sounding like critical sour grapes---but I'm not sure I can pull that off in print.
Let me preface this by saying that it should be read in an un-emotional tone, more questioning than accusing.
All that to say this...
I'm beginning to pick up a thread of a smug "if you don't jump on the EC bandwagon you're not as enlightened as we are" attitude in the EC material I've been reading.
It's sorta like what I get from New Agers when I talk about Jesus and they counter with their belief that He was simply a form of "Christ consciousness"....all the while shaking their heads with sympathy for the poor unenlightened Christian who thinks Jesus is really "the" God.
Is that the case, or am I sensing an attitude that is not really there??? Just curious.
Are y'all shaking your heads in pity for the "rest of us" old fogies?
After all, of anyone here, I should know religious arrogance when I see it. ;-)
I come in peace,:-)
Felicia Swavely
Maybe it's just impossible to express a differing opinion without coming across as a little condescending towards those you disagree with. The problem might be as much in the perception as in the intent. Anti-ECers come across the same way to me. Perhaps we always just feel like those who disagree with us are too smug. It doesn't matter which side it is.
Pastor Mike: You may be right. Although I do respect what EC'ers are trying to do----find a way to live as disciples of Jesus in this postmodern era. And, I do agree with much of what is said regarding how to live out Matthew 25, etc.
And, as far as adjusting your theology....yeah, I'm ok with some of that, also. ;-)
As you proposed, we are being drawn closer and deeper to the truth, both personally and as the church. But, at some point, certain doctrines must become immutable or you can't ever be certain of anything you believe. And it is the responsibility of "the church", as stated in Scripture, to guard and teach those truths.
Now, ya just gotta figure out how to accomplish that.
God bless you, Pastor Mike.
Felicia Swavely
I'm late to the conversation, but what bothers me is way back when Bill Sloat critiqued a chapter from McLaren's Generous Orthodoxy. McLaren said Christianity is like rings on a tree. It keeps expanding out. Bill argued that it isn't to keep expanding out, but to be cleaned off as impure elements begin to stick to it. Modernism stuck a lot of things to it. Some parts of the Gospel got added to and some got obscured.
Rather than evolve, I'd rather deconstruct and see what stands. I don't think there is a "secret message" that we have yet to discover or have only recently discovered. It is there and has always been there.
It is a simple message of renewing all things through the Person of Jesus Christ. Whatever is not renewed will be destroyed. Working out the implications are the real issue at hand, not the message.
It is a simple message of renewing all things through the Person of Jesus Christ. Whatever is not renewed will be destroyed.
I agree... but do you think that message can be found underlying the theologies of most branches of the church? I doesn't sound much like the gospel message I grew up with. We didn't talk much about renewal. The message was more like "It's all going to burn, so get out while you can."
RE: "It doesn't sound much like the gospel message I grew up with. We didn't talk much about renewal. The message was more like 'It's all going to burn, so get out while you can.' "
Well, that's certainly different from the message I've been hearing. It's always been my understanding that ALL God's creation is good...and comes forth from His love for us and His desire for us to have commplete joy both now and in eternity. Gnosticism was never an influence in the theology I grew up with.
Pastor Mike, is it possible that the teaching of a few churches you've had contact with is coloring the view you have of "church" in general??? Or maybe its the circle within which you experience "church"?
RE: "It is a simple message of renewing all things through the Person of Jesus Christ. Whatever is not renewed will be destroyed.
I agree... but do you think that message can be found underlying the theologies of most branches of the church?"
Well, it IS the message in my denom. Thinking back on sermons I've heard thru the years---definitely yes. Our focus is not on the "moment" of conversion, but on the life lived in/thru/with/for Jesus.
Going back to your original comment:
"In what ways might we need to "detox" from our modernistic conceptions of the gospel and rediscover what Jesus really had in mind? Perhaps we do need "new" versions of the Gospel, because our older versions have gotten us off track."
At the risk of being redundant, I would again respond that we need to look to the Church for guidance---as Scripture tells us. Of course, that means something different to you than it does to me. And therein lies the problem...The "Church" is not the unified body it was in 33AD...or even as unified as it was in 1533. So we face the current problem of distilling the truth from the myriad "versions of the Gospel".
Even so, we can't each decide upon our own "version" or we are not making prgress, but rather moving further and further into the shadows rather than into the light.
Yes, the Holy Spirit is definitely "leading us into deeper understandings and closer to really following the way of Christ", and He does speak to each of us personally. But, it is my belief that He also leads the Church, established by Jesus Christ thru the Apostles, to all truth, as promised.
Unfortunately, that "Church" is fractured almost beyond recognition. The most urgent need is for the Church to move toward unification---not thru compromise, but thru a mutual and prayerful search for the truth.
The greatest service the EC could undertake would be not to isolate itself from the "moderns" as an elitist group, but rather to lovingly embrace them, learn from them, work with them, together striving for that precious (and elusive) unity that is sadly lacking in the Body of Christ.
Jesus prayed for this unity to the Father, with all His heart. It will one day be a reality.
Peace,
Felicia Swavely
Post a Comment
<< Home