EMAIL THIS PAGE       PRINT       RSS      

ET: Why is the church so Alien

I’m worried about the church in America.  A short cruise through the blogosphere reveals that there’s a gigantic tent, under which all kinds of divergent and opposing views are carrying the name of Christ.  We’re fundamentalist, evangelical, eco-friendly, anti-environmentalist, emergent, post-modern, modern, rational, anti-emergent, post-emergent, liberal, ecumenical, separatist, and…I could go on, but perhaps you get the picture.  Under this big tent there’s a war going on.  Like barkers at a carnival, we’re all trying hard to get people to come to our booths, and many are finding the most effective strategy to be pointing out the deficiencies and dangers of the wares hawked by the other barkers.  We do this by labeling them. 

 

For a minute, can we all step outside of our booths, and even outside the tent, to ponder how this appears to those passing by?  It looks like this:  George Barna has recently explained North Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Jesus, but much less keen on the church.  Mike Regan wrote a book about a decade ago entitled the death of the church, where he effectively showed the trajectory lines of Christianity in North America are driving us to oblivion.  So effective has our barking been that a popular bumper sticker in Seattle, where I live, says  “Jesus, deliver me…from your followers.”  “Which Jesus?” is a question I’m asked sometimes, because to the uninitiated, these internal wars look absurd, and tacitly confirm the deepest suspicions of post-modernity; that truth is unknowable.  After all, if we were arguing about aerodynamics, this conversation would have ended within months.  Instead, we’re still arguing about Jesus 2000 years after His life on earth.  What does that tell you about certitude? 

 

I’m intending to write a book about this subject, so please don’t steal my ET title.  But books take a long a time, and the conversation needs to happen now, so I thought I’d sketch a few important points here, in hopes of getting a conversation started about why the church is so divided, and what we can do differently to move us towards the unity of which Jesus spoke in John 17.  Here are some foundational observations: 

 

1.      The Gospel is malleable.

 I don’t mean that we can discard basic things like the resurrection, the historicity of Jesus, or the essence of salvation being found in Christ alone.  Rather, I mean that we can wear plain clothes or robes, dance or sit still, shout or be quiet, meet in huts or cathedrals, use movie clips or, like the Amish, avoid technology.  Is God really offended by candles, or lack of candles?  This, I think, is what Jesus spoke of when He talked about keeping our wineskins flexible. 

 

2.      The crux question is, “How malleable?” 

Candles? Different music?  Dancing in the sanctuary?  For many under the tent, these things aren’t a problem.  How about ending slavery?  That seems like an easy one too right?  Well, if it’s 1750 and you live in Virginia, even though you’re a Bible believing ‘fundamentalist’, you’ll dig your heels in and say that this isn’t on the table for discussion, you’ll use the “plain literal teachings of the Bible” to prove your point.  There are, in every generation, things that are not on the table for discussion, depending on where your booth is in the tent.  Over there, at the left end of the tent, the exclusivity of Jesus as the only means of salvation is a thought that we won’t even discuss because it reeks of fundamentalism and intolderance.  The fundamentalists, on the right end of the tent (geographically, not necessarily epistemologically) are unwilling to entertain even the possibility that when Paul spoke of homosexuality in Romans 1, he was speaking of prevailing homosexual practices of his day, which were non-monogamous trysts purely for gratification.  Such an interpretation would leave open the possibility of covenant gay relationships, and their response to this possibility is roughly the same as how liberals respond to the possibility that Jesus is the only way, or slave owners, when presented with possibility that God might not look favorably, in these times, upon you owning people.    (*I’ll bet some of you are wondering right now if I’m in favor of gay unions, and you’re deciding whether to continue reading or not.  Relax.  you can listen to the sexual orienteering sermon, available on this site to discover that you can keep reading.  But your response illustrates the point I’m trying to make)  There are always grenades being tossed at other booths, under the tent, in Jesus name.  It sort of sickens me.  There are lots of issues to discuss (Is divorce OK?  When do we take up arms and when do we not?  Is the consumerism of our culture an idol which we’ve indiscrimnantly bought into?  Is caring for new life, so that the uninsured working poor can take their children to the doctor, as important as protecting life in the womb?  And yes, significantly, is Jesus the only way?  What does it mean to be saved?)  All of us have convictions on these matters (I hope).   But what are we to do with them? 

 

3.      We should hold our convictions with humility. 

That doesn’t meant that we hold them with less conviction, or that we become rudderless, or paralyzed in some state of epistemological nihilism.  Rather it means that we have the humility to acknowledge that God’s truth is something we’re (hopefully) moving towards, and so we’re both holding our ground, and open to further revelation that will bring us closer to the heart of Christ.  This is what the church was doing continually in Acts, and they changed their positions on several things (including Gentiles, dropping the circumcision requirement, changing their view on dietary restrictions, dropping the meat sacrificed to idols thing).  These conclusions weren’t arrived at quickly or universally.  I know this is tricky, know that some things are foundational.  That’s why Paul was merciless towards the Galatians and the circumcision thing.  But that’s just the point.  The Galatians were changing the rules about what was required to know Jesus.  They were changing the essence.  To put this in perspective:  don’t mess with the apostle’s creed please, for therein is the essence of a faith that has stood the test of time.  But beyond the creed, there’s a big playing field.  Can’t we have some good conversations together on what it means to faithfully follow Christ? 

 

4.      E.T.:  Recognize the value across the isle. 

The Emergent church is giving us some wonderful gifts as it recovers the priority of unconditionally loving and serving our world, and allows people room to breathe and grow in Christ through exploration, rather than insisting on a wooden dogma as a precondition for salvation.  They’re more interested in living the faith than defending it.  I find this refreshing and a much needed course correction. 

 

At the same time, I’m terribly concerned that the Traditional church’s values of the centrality of Christ, the necessity of preaching and teaching, and the confidence that our truths are solid, are evaporating in the heat of an emergent critique of the older generation.  The loss that comes from disengaging from that which has gone before us is immeasurable, and we’re already seeing it, as cynicism and disengagement from commitment become characteristics of numerous emergent communities.  Ironically, they’re in danger of becoming another form of the very consumerist communities from which they’ve removed themselves to start something new. 

 

The reality, of course, is that we need each other, for Jesus is revealed not only His word, but in His body, and when the body is fractured, each little piece is cut off from much that is life giving.  

 

5.      Let’s recognize our commonalities. 

E. and T. (Emergent and Traditional) are both filled with broken people looking for meaning and intimacy.  Both are carrying burdens.  Both want, not only refreshment, but a better world.  And to both, Jesus offers the same call:  “come unto me”.  Perhaps we can learn to see the value in the very one’s we’ve been throwing grenades at; not because we agree with them, and not because we don’t care enough about our beliefs to be concerned.  Rather, we see value because we realize that God is no doubt bigger than any of us know, and that perhaps, just maybe, people with whom I don’t agree can see reveal to me a facet of God’s character that I’ve not yet considered.  If this becomes our collective mindset, maybe the bombs going off under the tent will die down, and maybe those passing by will start to see something worth considering.

 

Of course, how could I not welcome your thoughts!  What needs to change in order for us to work together to make Christ visible to the world?

Comments

    Hi Pastor. I don't know where to start. I agree with much of what you have written. I'm not sure I like your analogy of the carni-barker, but I can see where you are coming from. I see it as a propaganda war, kind of like US bombers dropping leaflets over Europe from 30,000 feet during World War II.
    I think the CL forums would be a great place to discuss this topic, instead of commenting on a blog article or email, which I have done a lot of in the short time I've been a part of this community. Before I became a part of this community (less than two months), I had never heard of the "emerging" or "emergent" church, but I've seen this same ideology in the secular world and opposed it and of course caught flack for it. Now I see the same relativism taking the church by storm. I'm not talking about the unbelieving secular world. I'm talking about mainstream denominations, and now splinter factions and start-up churches. If the bible is not the absolute truth, our faith, the Christian faith, is an absolute lie, and our faith is in vane. You know the verse; eat and drink for tomorrow we die.
    I whole-heatedly agree with your statement that waiting to discuss this further, while more books are written is not the answer, it will only serve to give our adversary more strongholds. It needs to happen NOW. What is the run-of-the-mill Christian suppose to do when they see aberrant and heretical teaching spreading like gangrene? I have limited resources, e.g., time, effort, money, intellect, etc. I cannot travel to every pastors church to confront them in person or speak to each person already in the "emergent" fold or contemplating a move to the fold. I can't afford dozens of long distance phone calls (which I've don before). Will they return their voice mail and email? I think not.
    I see a handful of evangelical Christian pastors that have the conviction to confront this movement head-on. Personally, I think this movement is the biggest threat to the latter day body of Christ. The ideology and theology that many of the emerging/emergent church psuedo-pastor/teacher (leaders?) are feeding the sheep is out and out aberrant and even heretical teaching. The teachings are close enough to the truth that the average Christian (especially young and immature) are not discerning or discriminating enough to know false teaching. What do you propose that we (Christians) do next?
    The conversation has been going on since 1996, at this rate we will talk ourselves into the grave (lest Jesus return). What did Jesus do? Jesus cleansed the temple. I wonder if Jesus prayed about it before he overturned the moneychanger's tables, fashioned a scourge of cords, and drove the moneychangers out of the temple? One man did that. He must of been an opposing figure, or He was doing the will of God (being God) and had His favor. What did the apostle Paul do? Too much to discuss in this comment. Paul said "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened." I've seen the spirit of the emerging/emergent church in this community.
    I have my thoughts on what should be done, but Pastor, what do you propose we (Christians) do?

Richard,
The issue you raise is huge. How we move through this giant weather pattern and what the church will look like on the other side will have implications for many generations. (I hate to reference my own blog on your comment thread, but I was thinking of many of the same issues in a piece I wrote earlier this year: http://www.conversantlife.com/church-substance-or-church-style-how-about...
The second half in particular speaks to the idea of malleability that you mentioned.)

As a thinker, I'm in danger of pondering too much and praying too little. Lately, I've been wondering if more personal communion with God (no blogs, no writing, a crying out for wisdom, an open spirit in an undistracted place of silence) might replace some of my angst with wisdom and peace. I think of my brilliant mother who lived in a generation that didn't offer much of an outlet for her to comment, write, or teach. So instead she spent many hours praying humbly and quietly for the Church, her family, and God's kingdom. I've never seen her topple over to one side or the other, or chase a trend, or snap an absolute truth in two. I'm convicted by that. How much more could God teach us through the mysteries of his Spirit if we let him in?

Oh shoot, you got me thinking again, Richard, and that's what I'm trying not to do today. Your book idea? Go to it.

Thanks, Richard, for opening this dialog. Your approach is so needed for our time, when so much for what is passed off as conversation is really grenade lobbing. What's interesting is that the grenades are being thrown by people on the extreme ends of the tent (to follow your analogy). It seems like each side wants to destroy the other, or at least marginalize it into oblivion. You are suggesting a kind of "third way" or "third language," which is really the language of the gospel.

Mako Fujimura wrote of this in a blog not long ago. He was referencing a conversation he had with Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Church in Manhattan and the author of the excellent book, "The Reason for God." Here is Mako writing about Keller:

"The way he talks about the gospel is the third language; it’s not mere conservative talk, but it’s also not liberal. It’s “radically comforting, and radically challenging” at the same time. It’s not “Christianeeze” words that have no context or meaning to non-Christians, but it is language that very much points to God’s intent to redeem all of creation and restore humanity to the original intent – bearers of God’s image."

That's what you're calling for, but not at the price of sacrificing truth. I especially like this line in your post:

"Don’t mess with the apostle’s creed please, for therein is the essence of a faith that has stood the test of time. But beyond the creed, there’s a big playing field. Can’t we have some good conversations together on what it means to faithfully follow Christ?"

Absolutely! Let's continue to have good conversations. Regardless of the preferences and viewpoints we bring to the table, when we talk about them in the context of truth, we are all better for it, and God is glorified.

Thanks for an excellent post. I'm somewhat of a concrete thinker, rather than abstract, so let me offer an example. While we were in Jordan for Arabic language study, we were in school with Roman Catholics, Baptists, "Jesus only" Pentocostals, non-denominational evangelicals, Christian and Missionary Alliance, and...(you get the picture). In a country that was 90% Muslim and where the secret police broke up a new church start while we were there, the fellowship among believers was sweet, "like the dew of Hermon which falls on the mountains of Zion." We recognized each others' doctrinal differences, listened to each others' testimonies, studied together, prayed together, shared our ministry goals together, ate together, took care of each others' children in time of need.
Maybe all we need is a little persecution ;)

Man this is confusing, so many flavors, no wonder GOD's people don't know which end, is up. I go to a small Christian church, Bible based to the word, small congregation (120) everybody knows everybody, good message, sometimes boring. But I like my church because there is no fill the seats at all cost attitude, no consumerism of the big churches that I think lose site of the individual. I guess this is a Cheers approach where everybody knows your name, but its nice. No grenades. Just a little old building that teaches the word of GOD that is filled with the Church, that is the People. I think we lose site that its not the building but the people that fill it. I'll leave my pin in.

»  Become a Fan or Friend of this Blogger
About
The sunny days are fine because clarity allows for freedom of movement, and depth of vision. But don't forget the mist, where waters bless the parched soul, saturating us with grace and truth, providing needed sustenance for the journey.


Media
Resources