Posted by Helen on: 07.29.2006 /
In comment #12 on Jesus-centered vs Bible-centered faith, Andrew wrote the following:
I think though, there is a disturbing trend emerging in some quarters of the “emerging” church, doing away with Biblical authority, yet claiming to be totally Christ centred. I see this as a reaction to blind faith Christianity, but am troubled by it and unsure of how to counter it.
Andrew continued:
I think that in an effort to avoid old fashioned propositional evangelism/apologetics, we are perhaps dangerously close to abandoning objectivity altogether. At the end of the day Christianity is highly objective (at least it should be) and highly propositional – e.g. Jesus Christ did die on the cross as a sacrifice for sin etc. I think we are leaning towards wanting our cake and eating it too which can be a dangerous path to follow.
I read a testimony from an “ex-evangelical” linked from the Off The Map site and can see a whole succession of bad teaching that lead her to the point that she abandoned an ostensibly objective faith to follow her gut instead – right out the church door.
I think that this where it is important to still be able to “give the reason for the hope that is in you” in objective terms. It is still important to have the answers to things like evolution, death, the Bible as God’s word – even though they may not be needed in the early days of reaching out to someone in agape.
Of course we need to be Christ centred, but in being Christ centred we also need to be Biblical, at least if we are going to grow our new converts to maturity.
Any ideas for addressing the move away from the Bible I am seeing in some of the communities I am currently working with?Your servant,
Andrew
Comment by: Helen M.
1Andrew, a quick question: could you clarify whether “Why I don’t go to church anymore” is the testimony you’re referring to?
Comment by: Rachel
2Andrew, I must respectfully disagree with your premise. It sounds like we have very divergent understandings of the emerging church movement. Could you elaborate more on your experiences?
My understanding of the emerging church is that they take the Bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus, more seriously, not less. One of the things I love about the emerging church movement is their emphasis on helping the poor and needy and on living a life of humility and simplicity. These values are at the core of Biblical teaching.
In my observation, it is the conservative evangelical community I grew up in which disregards or explains away the radical teachings of Jesus about issues such as peacemaking, economic justice and the politics of power. Many traditional churches have been more interested in arguing about the meaning of difficult to understand passages in Revelation, than they are in obeying the clear and simple teachings of Scripture to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick and visit the prisoner.
The emerging church seeks to welcome and include those who seek to follow the Way of Jesus but are completely turned off by the conservative politics, exclusionary attitudes and theological arrogance of traditional evangelical churches. If spiritual seekers today are going to be attracted to the gospel message, it will be because of the way Christ-followers live, not what they say. As Brian McLaren says, “They don’t care if we are right; they care if we are good.”
That does not mean that the emerging church disregards the central role of Scripture in the Christian faith. As I said, I find that the movement is much more willing to allow Jesus’ revolutionary message to challenge their allegiance to nationalism, militarism, consumerism and materialism.
Emerging churches hold to the ancient creeds that have formed the basis for Christian orthodoxy for nearly two millennia. What they are not interested in is doing battle over fine points of scripture interpretation or insisting that people pass a theological litmus test before they are welcomed into community.
Comment by: JG
3I’m afraid it is this sort of black and white, we’re right, you’re wrong sort of approach that cause me to struggle and be concerned. All churches and movements have their strengths and weaknesses and churches and people within certain expressions of church can vary greatly.
I have attempted to summarise the claims made:
Qualities of people who support the emerging church movement:
1 they take the Bible, and especially the teachings of Jesus, more seriously, not less.
2 their emphasis on helping the poor and needy and on living a life of humility and simplicity. These values are at the core of Biblical teaching.
3 seek to welcome and include those who seek to follow the Way of Jesus
4 do not disregard the central role of Scripture in the Christian faith.
5 much more willing to allow Jesus’ revolutionary message to challenge their allegiance to nationalism, militarism, consumerism and materialism.
6 hold to the ancient creeds that have formed the basis for Christian orthodoxy for nearly two millennia.
Qualities of “conservative”/”traditional” evangelicals
1 disregard or explain away the radical teachings of Jesus about issues such as peacemaking, economic justice and the politics of power.
2 more interested in arguing about the meaning of difficult to understand passages in Revelation, than they are in obeying the clear and simple teachings of Scripture to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick and visit the prisoner.
3 turn off emerging church supporters by their conservative politics, exclusionary attitudes and theological arrogance of traditional evangelical churches.
4 fail to live what they say (“… it will be because of the way Christ-followers live, not what they say. As Brian McLaren says, “They don’t care if we are right; they care if we are good.”)
5 do battle over fine points of scripture interpretation and insist that people pass a theological litmus test before they are welcomed into community.
Comment by: Helen M.
4Rachel wrote:
This is my observation (which is along the same lines as what you wrote, Rachel): many liberal Christians, once they’ve decided which parts of Jesus’ teachings they consider authentic, take those teachings very seriously. As seriously as conservative Christians take the teachings of Jesus they believe are authentic.
JG wrote:
Sounds like A Generous Orthodoxy - I really enjoyed that book!
Comment by: Rachel
5I appreciate your criticism, JG. And I certainly do not want to imply that I see everything as black and white. But let me point out that my critique of the conservative/traditional evangelical movement is the critique of an insider who has grown up in that movement and has been totally immersed in it most of my life. Even though my faith understanding has changed considerably, I still attend a Conservative Baptist church. Many of my friends and nearly all of my extended family are evangelicals who are politically and theologically conservative. And I love all of them dearly.
My criticisms are not those of a hostile outside observer. (Although outside observers, hostile or otherwise, are welcome to criticize the evangelical community and I will listen to them with an open mind and heart in the spirit of Proverbs 27:6 “Faithful are the wounds of a friend.”)
In regard to your listing of qualities of conservative/traditional evangelicals as described by me:
Numbers 1, 2 & 3 do accurately describe my experience in the various CE (conservative evangelical) churches I have attended over my life. Those characterizations also describe the large majority of my experience with CE books and other publications, conferences, parachurch organizations, political organizing, etc. And unfortunately, they characterize my faith understanding, and often my behavior and attitudes, for most of my life.
I did premise my statements with “in my observation” but perhaps I still sounded too dogmatic, probably because I am passionate about these subjects. I guess we are always toughest on members of our own “family.” :-)
As to number 4, I did not and would not make the blanket statement that CE believers fail to live what they say. None of us live our faith, or non faith based ethical principles, as the case might be, perfectly. The CE community has given me a tremendous amount of love and support, especially during times of crisis, such as the sudden death of my father. There are many things I value and respect about that community. I would say that the CE community frequently fails to follow Jesus’ teachings regarding issues such as peacemaking and economic justice. But I would not characterize it as “failing to live what they say” because they usually don’t SAY it at all!
In regards to number 5, this again is my consistent experience. My denomination recently experienced a split between two factions, one strongly Calvinist in their theology, the other less so. The theological differences between these two groups would be virtually inperceptible to outsiders, yet caused a contenious conflict that could not be resolved. And this is not an isolated incident. The CE community, and the larger Protestant community, is made up of countless different denominations, nearly all of which were formed as a result of conflicts over issues of faith or practice. I would contend that a great many of these conflicts were not over fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy.
My criticisms of the CE community are those of an insider who has three fingers pointing back at myself, as the saying goes. I see the emerging church movement as a much needed corrective within the evangelical, and broader Christian, community. I see emerging churches as places where spiritual seekers are welcomed and where they can learn more of the radical and revolutionary Way of Jesus.
JG, again let me say, I appreciate your criticism. I certainly do not want to express my opinions in a dogmatic, judgmental or angry manner. But I do think that is healthy for us as Christ-followers to do some painful, prophetic evaluation of our faith and witness.
Comment by: Andrew
6Hi Helen,
Yes – I think the article you refered to is the one I skim-read – your article :) which I didn’t realise when I made my post.
Hi Rachel,
I hear where you are coming from and I guess, a little like JG I am really struggling with lables. My background sounds similar to yours – I am cut from the conservative cloth but have the benefit (I think) of not having been a church-lifer, i.e. church born and bred. I am also Australian so culturally working in a slightly different context to you yanks! ;)
There is much about the EC that I am greatly excited about and some things (I perceive a move away from the objectivity of Scripture which troubles me – maybe because my science/journalism background) which trouble me.
My comments were not intended to be general – I am working closely with a number of Christian communities – from the traditional CE through to Liberal. A number of those that I would once have described as Pentecostal are experimenting with new things that in many ways relate to the EC movement, however they seem to be missing the boat in a big way and are floundering as a result.
These are all churches that would describe themselves as “Spirit Filled”. And this, at the end of the day, seems to define them (at least from their perspective). Biblical authority seems to have become secondary to Spiritual authority.
As I said, I think this is perhaps a reaction to the old conservative ways of doing things that were (wrongly) identified as biblical, but it is a path, once taken, is very difficult to move off. At least that is my experience. Everything becomes so subjective that it is impossible to even have a discussion without offending someones “faith”.
At the end of the day though, the fruit isn’t present – even if the intentions are.
Well … I think I have succeeded in rambling enough. One last thing – While I agree with JG on one level, I am ideologically closer to Rachel. I just really, really hate labels – they are so easily misunderstood, misdefined and …. anyway.
Let’s hear your thoughts – I am particularly interested in ways to bring these energetic “Spirit filled” (by their definition, not mine) Christians into a place where they can be truly effective and biblical in their approach.
Cheers,
Andrew
Comment by: Eliza
7What does it mean to be “biblical” in approach? I thought I had a sense of this, but now I’m getting more confused about the meaning. Could different churches and people have different understandings, also, of what this means???
Comment by: Eliza
8Sorry, I’m not quite sure whether this and my above comment fit here, or in “Jesus-centered vs. Bible-centered” thread (or, not at all!).
But here’s another thought. At the risk of doing the “WWJD” approach to death, let me ask this question:
What do you think Jesus would think of your church, and say about it, if he came to service one Sunday and sat near the back (unrecognized, of course)? (Not anyone else’s, but yours?)
How about if he observed a weeks’ worth of activities at the church? How about if he spent a week with a “typical” church member? What might he say, as feedback? (Would he get angry and turn over tables? Or chide the church gently? Or praise the church firmly and gladly?)
(And, what would Paul of Tarsus think, and say? And, whose opinion would your church value more?)
Comment by: Andrew
9Hey Eliza,
Jesus opinion over Paul’s any day. But I think you are setting up a trap here! ;)
Paul is not in conflict with Christ in his NT writing. Paul say it is the greatest attainment to be like Christ in every way humanly possible (emphasis on the humanly).
If Jesus came to my church I am positive we would get a pretty mixed report card. There are somethings that I beleive we’d do ok in and others that definitely would rate an “F” or pretty close. But I hope that He would be able to say that regardless we are seeking Him first, trying to imitate Him and His ministry in the world.
What does “biblical in their approach” mean? It means that they search the Scriptures, allowing them to speak into their life and ministry (or life as ministry). The other approach is to follow ones own “gut” and hope that it is the Spirit.
Believe it or not a book is a fantastic way to pass a message down through the ages. It is the best way I know of doing it. But it also means that to understand it you have to know how to read (at least in the first instance – of course an illiterate can have the story re-told by someone who can read but the listener is always at the mercy of the reader in this case).
With knowing how to read also comes knowledge of grammar, context etc. etc. When we read the newspaper we apply all the techniques we have learnt at school quite well and are usually able to understand the message that is being relayed by the author of the articles. We can usually pick up the use of literary device and different styles and genres without too much trouble.
The same techniques need to be applied to the Bible to understand what it is saying (in the broadest sense). When we do this, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s guidance we end up with a fair understanding of the message. This is why most of the churches that would call themselves Christian agree on pretty much all the stuff that is considered “not negotiable”.
The real problem with reading the Bible, however, is not in understanding it, but rather in applying it or doing what it says to do. This is where most of us (myself included) come unstuck. What has happened in the past is that the church has, for the most part, become reliant upon tradition without question.
This is one of the great things about Post Modernism – it has taken the ivory tower away from the expert (in much the same way as Luther took it from the Pope during the reformation) and allows everything to be questioned by everybody. The down side is not everyone comes up with the same answer. To avoid conflict we are told we need to be tolerant – everyones opinion matters and there is no such thing as right and wrong. This abrogates deep discussion on meaningful issues (particularly theological issues) and leaves everyone feeling warm and happy.
But, unfortunately it isn’t logically possible for everyone to have conflicting truth claims and all be right. They can all be wrong, or one of them can be right, but they can’t all be right.
This leads us right back to where we started. The need for biblical authority in life/ministry as an objective benchmark. Of course there will always be things that we will disagree on – but discussion and debate around these issues absolutely has to continue.
I’m rambling again – :(
Andrew
Comment by: Helen M.
10Andrew wrote:
Awesome – it will be fun to have your perspective here as an Australian. When we get too ethnocentric you can call us on it!
I was born and raised in England, moved to the US after graduating college and have been here ever since.
So I have some first-hand knowledge of the church between the UK and US and the differences – but none about the church in Australia. I would guess that the church in Australia is more like it is in the UK.
I think of the three the US has worse problems with
1) the way the visible church is often made synonymous with the religious right, which rather than helping the poor seems to be more about having to interfere in other peoples’ lives if their moral choices fall short of what the RR approves. I have never understood why the RR thinks people who don’t share their beliefs should live by their values. The only CE approach which makes sense to me is – try to bring them to share my beliefs, then they will voluntarily accept the limitations on their lives which are consequences of living by my beliefs.
2) extreme forms of ‘Christianity’ which perhaps make people feel good/secure but don’t seem to place any emphasis on Biblical teaching about being out there helping make the world a better place in practical ways. Too much emphasis on spiritual experience falls in this category.
So, the EC here is reacting against such things. In other countries the particular things it’s reacting against will be somewhat different. In the UK and Australia I would think that rather than the problem of having a visible church too linked with a right-wing politic agenda or manifesting in various forms of wacky extremity which are irrelevant to what the unchurched see as the real problems of our world today – in the UK and Australia the church probably has to be fight to even have their existence noticed. Because they are much more ‘secular’ countries than the US. Which is not necessarily a ‘worse’ state to be in, than that of a country where the predominant forms of Christianity are messed up and so mentioning the word to outsiders tends to bring up all kinds of negative stereotypes rather than “huh? I didn’t know there were still such things as Christians, here in 2006…”
Sounds like you have a very interesting job!
I thought so but I didn’t want to respond to your comment about it until I knew it was referring to something I wrote! So, now I will respond. You wrote:
If I may respond with an analogy: suppose you run a restaurant priding itself on serving healthy food. One day a fast food place opens nearby. You know the food is enticing but less healthy than what you serve. You write an article about your concerns. You mention an ex-customer of yours who you used to see all the time and say “I can see exactly how that fast food led her away from my restaurant”.
But – see, if you ask me, that’s not actually how it was. If you asked and I was brave enough to tell you this to your face, I would say “It wasn’t fast food that led me away from here. I used to eat here because I thought it was good for me. But one day I started to ask myself “Do I really like this food, if I’m honest?” And the answer was “no, I don’t”. Not only that but I started looking up how healthy your food was. I found that it’s not clear exactly what ‘healthy’ food is; that there is difference of opinion on that. But I didn’t find that by reading books promoting their own ‘teaching’ on healthy food. I looked up nutritional values and then I looked up all sorts of articles about what the human body may or may not need to be healthy. And this was all on my own initiative.
After that it didn’t make sense to come to your restaurant any more. I eat fast food occasionally but in fact I agree with you that it’s unhealthy. So while I’m on the lookout for restaurants serving healthy food I like, I mostly just buy my own from the grocery store. That way I buy exactly what I want, I can see exactly what goes into my cooking and if my choices aren’t healthy I only have myself to blame.
Anyway, the point of that was supposed to be that I don’t see myself as having been led out of the church by the very teaching which you have concerns about. I see myself as having found I was unable to stay in the church with the teaching I was under, regardless of what other teaching is out there and whether it’s good or not. If it has turned out that in some ways I’m a poster child for postmodernism and/or the EC, then the order of events was: I got there on my own, then I discovered “ah, there are some other people like me out here”. Sort of like the ugly duckling, maybe – I knew where I didn’t fit and left, and found out later that there are places I do fit somewhat better ;)
I hear you but I have become deeply skeptical that all churches which call themselves Christian agree on what is ‘non negotiable’. I think what really happens is, churches who have a non negotiable core of doctrine say “all who share our non negotiable core are Christians; everyone else is not”. Do you see how beginning here, then saying “see, all Christians agree on what is non negotiable!” is circular reasoning?
I can demonstrate this to you. I sometimes call myself an extremely non-traditional Christian. You would probably disagree that I’m a Christian. Why? Because I don’t hold to your non negotiable core. By saying I’m not a Christian, you can hold onto your belief that all Christians agree on a non-negotiable core. But you aren’t dealing with the reality that I do say I’m an extremely non-traditional Christian.
That’s very CE of you ;) (I’m not saying you’re a CE, only that you just wrote something very CE) The CEs I used to hang out with loved to say that.
This is what I’ve found: I work just as hard at being the best wife, mother, friend, community member and citizen of the earth I can be as I did when I thought the Bible was inerrant. Not only that but I can more single-mindedly work on it because I’m no longer distracted from that by trying to figure out what a very old book, written when the world was extremely different, says I need to do if I want God to be happy with me.
So, basically, yes, I agree in theory that when there are competing truth claims only one of them can be right. But in practice I have a life to live and I needed to get off the “who is right” merry-go-round in order to get on with my life.
Comment by: NCxian
11Andrew, please tell me you didn’t mean here that the Bible is easy to read and understand. Otherwise I have to reassess everything you have said in light of the fact that you’ve apparently never tried to read the thing! ;)
Comment by: Rachel
12That’s a great question, Eliza! Since the Scriptures tell us that Jesus comes to us in the guise of the hungry, the naked, the sick and the prisoner, I imagine he would stand out in my predominately upper middle class church. And if he started sharing his views, I’m afraid he might be labeled “liberal” or “unpatriotic” or “socialist.”
But in spite of all that, most of the people in my church are kindhearted and helpful. And I know that at least some of them would welcome the stranger and offer assistance, if needed.
Comment by: Rachel
13Americans?? Enthnocentric?? (gasp) Never!!
Comment by: Rachel
14(chuckle) Well, if anyone did think that the Bible was easy to understand, they would be contradicting the Apostle Peter!
“This is just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him – speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture – and the result is disaster for them.” 2 Peter 3:15-16
Comment by: Eliza
15Ohhh, I just had a quick mental image of an quick & easy “Cliff’s Notes” of the Bible. (There probably is such a thing, since there are classes on the Bible as Literature.) Seems like there’d have to be a bunch of different versions, one for each church almost, & many churches would object (of course) to the entire idea.
As someone observing from outside Christianity, I have to concur with Helen in seeing this differently from Andrew’s view here:
In March, I asked on the Discussion Board, What Does It Mean to be a Christian? – wondering what core beliefs defined someone as Christian. The single core belief I’ve found, in that line of questioning and other inquiry, is: belief in the resurrection of Christ, which as far as I can tell means belief in the literal, bodily resurrection. Yet there are people who consider themselves Christian who don’t believe in bodily resurrection – John Shelby Spong, for example, who wrote a book about his thoughts on resurrection as a metaphor. (And then there’s Paul, who writes about resurrection and ascension as one event, and emphasizes resurrection as spiritual, at least in 1 Corinthians. I don’t think anyone would argue that Paul wasn’t Christian! ;) ) I don’t know how any of that translates into creeds of different churches, though.
Comment by: Eliza
16Andrew said (regarding my question about J and P observing church):
I wasn’t intending to set a trap! Clearly, I have a harder time seeing different NT writings as complementary than others do – quite possibly from trying to read it on my own, without help from others who have gone before (or gone to seminary) and have already wrestled with some of the same questions of “how we understand these parts, together?”
But, then, I picture Paul sitting in the back of a church, harrumphing that the women are speaking too much, have their hair too short, and don’t have their heads covered, and who knows maybe they are having impure thoughts. And I picture Jesus sitting next to him on the pew, telling Paul that no, it’s OK, they have faith and they are doing good works; they are my Father’s children; the rest doesn’t matter.
Comment by: jim
17He would have to conclude that he told his followers to put on a show
Comment by: Helen M.
18…and the two guys arguing at the back would attract the attention of the perfectly-dressed usher nearby, and he would go over and say “Excuse me – could you keep it down over here? People are trying to worship!”
LOL :)
Comment by: JG
19Rachel,
Many thanks for your response and apologies for not having responded sooner myself. I hear all you say and should hasten to add that I do not see myself as a Conservative Evangelical.
I agree that often new movements are started as a response to some failing or shortcoming in the existing scheme of things and bring a much needed correction. But I also see that most if not all new movements tend to end up having just as many shortcomings as existing groups, just different shortcomings – hope that doesn’t sound too cynical.
I’ve experienced a range of different churches and can see strengths and weaknesses in all of them. I fully support the need to challenge weaknesses but it helps if we are able to recognise the strengths at the same time.
I think things are different here in the UK compared with the USA but I can still recognise many of the issues and difficulties you refer to.
In any church, group, movement, whatever, you have got a combination of different human natures and human nature is not perfect. No matter how good the ideals are, human nature will get in and spoil and mar. But just because we can see failings and weaknesses doesn’t mean we should write off the people, church, group etc and dismiss what they stand for – even though it is standard human nature to do so.
We also need to recognise that often (I can’t judge how often) people have very good and genuine reasons for believing what they do and we should be very wary about assuming wrong motives. I feel I can fully understand why people believe or don’t believe things – I might not agree with them but I can understand where they are coming from.
Comment by: Julie Marie
20I think if Jesus went to my old church he would see a lack of humility. No so much on the part of the senior pastor…but the church has gotten so big, it seems to swagger around town. I bring it up because I’m still steamed over an incident this weekend.
The church has sports outreach. They have a softball league that is pretty big and fields many teams, with church members and nonmembers. Its supposed to be a good witness. They play on the municipal ballfields. There are signs posted “No Dogs” on the ballfields. Many bring their dogs. The facilities manager there last weekend is an older gentleman, from a different era, who is very protective of the lovely facilities the town provides. He expects the rules to be followed. He walks with an unsteady gait, but he’s still working…and asking people who use the fields to respect the rules about dogs, or at least have baggies to clean up. He was treated with derision by the church softball league yesterday.
Now I don’t play softball, and I don’t attend the church anymore. But I was there…and I heard about it, I saw the frustration and the humiliation in the facilites managers eyes, and heard it in his voice. Its a voice I know well…because that facilities manager is my father.
Some witness, huh? Disrespecting an elderly man just trying to do his job by pointing out posted rules.
Comment by: Rachel
21Actually, Jesus did give us a “Cliff’s Notes” of sorts!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-39)
Comment by: Rachel
22JG, I’m sure that you can give us a better idea of faith communities in the UK… But my understanding is that the almost complete melding of evangelicalism with right-wing politics that has occurred here is pretty much a US phenomenon and not duplicated elsewhere in the worldwide evangelical community (or so says Jim Wallis after his book tour).
It would be difficult to overstate how complete this alliance has become, to the point that evangelical Christianity in the US is perceived as an extension of the Republican Party and vice versa. For examples, try googling “Justice Sunday” or “values voters” or “Christian Coalition.”
JG, I’m very interested to hear how this compares to the experience of Christians in the UK. And I’d love to hear more about faith in Australia from you, Andrew. It’s great to have both of you giving your input from your vantage points.
We definitely agree on that, JG. That belief is what keeps me going to my Conservative Baptist church (that’s not a label I’m giving them, BTW, that is actually the name of the denomination – Conservative Baptist!).
Comment by: Helen M.
23Julie Marie, I’m sorry the softball team wasn’t more respectful to your Dad :(