Deep Church Reflection #2 – Bridging the Gaps between Emergents and Traditionalists
Is there something about being a Christian that makes us believe the worst about each other?
That seems to be an antithetical description of what it means to be a Christian but our behavior makes it appear to be a naturally occurring Christian characteristic. The more I participate in dialogs between those engaging with the emerging church and those who are concerned about the emerging church the more amazed I become at our ability to reduce people, movements, and ideas down to the worst possible scenarios. The result being of course the result of all sin, we find the ability to dehumanize each other and treat each other as if we are not all created in the image of God.
In his chapter on Defining the Emerging Church, Belcher has the following two paragraphs. (pg 49 of Deep Church)
“The emerging conversation is bigger than postmodernism and more expansive than even Brian McLaren. Brian would agree. As Scot McKnight says, we must define our conversation partners in a way that they would recognize. Most definitions of the emerging church would not even be recognized by them. This would include McLaren. It is wrong, cautions McKnight, to narrow emerging to emergent, emergent to Brian McLaren, Brian McLaren to postmodernity and postmodernity to denial of truth. This is a stereotype that is not fair to Brian, who is not a hard postmodernist, and the emerging conversation.”
“The same bone can be picked with the emerging church. They too need to recognize the vast differences in the traditional church. Linking everyone in the traditional church with the worst case of fundamentalism, sectarianism, foundationalism and irrelevance is simply not fair. Doing this can be just as sectarian and divisive as the worst kind of fundamentalism.”
And there is the rub. Both sides too often engage in a style of conversation that diminishes the complexity of all of our faiths, looks outside of our underlying motives, and reneges on our calling to seek unity with one another through our common bond of Christ. How do we move beyond this behavior?
Maybe we should start each conversation with or about someone else views by celebrating what we have in common. If we started by exploring common motives, shared frustrations and commonly desired end results and made those the basis of our conversations we could reestablish dialog that actually honors Christ. I for one pledge to do my part. I will commit to working towards not oversimplifying for my own benefit anyone’s views or practices. I will work to celebrate the unity we share and to treat each person with the respect due them. This may not lead to perfect understanding of each other, but it could at least remove some of the nastiness and dehumanizing conduct that has too often defined both side of the conversation.
Tags: deep church, Emerging Church, evangelicalism
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
November 16, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Amen, Paul! Thanks for sharing your story. Some day maybe you can hear mine. You’ll like it. I too was a drunk (and occasional druggie). I too was radically saved, was baptized, joined a bible-believing church and then was called to preach the gospel. You will appreciate that God used Greg Arthur to proclaim the Word to me (in the company of others), teach me the truth of Jesus Christ, walk faithfully with me to the point of becoming a true disciple of Jesus. My sense of calling is very strong, Paul. God is calling me, it seems, to spend time on the mountain and time in the valley. You know the reality of the power of God to save is great. I, thankfully, know too. I will live the rest of my new life passionately seeking the Kingdom with the hope of living a life as powerful as those men you noted…radical preachers like Paul and Peter and Greg Arthur.
November 17, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Hey Maggie,
Sometime, I would love to hear your testimony. It is always good to hear about the great saving work that God, through Jesus Christ, has done. We have much to be thankful for and many reasons to give God glory!
I do greatly appreciate that God used Greg Arthur as the feet that carried the Good News to you! To know Greg through his teen years and then to see him now serving as a pastor, especially in light of where some of his former youth group peers are, is a tremendous blessing. He has a great and high calling.
Have a great day, Maggie.
November 19, 2009 at 8:11 am
Did you block me?
November 19, 2009 at 8:22 am
Block you how?
November 19, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I can’t read all the comments for this post. I’ve never seen that happen before. It is so strange.
November 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Click on the link at the bottom that says < Older Comments
November 23, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Greg,
You said: “I think we have probably taken this conversation as far we can.”
I thought that conversation enders were a very negative thing? What kind of platform is this to build reconciliation from? Does it only depend on what type of coversation ender is used?
That is a pretty short conversation and doesn’t it prove that the third way is not going to work to bridge “traditionalists” and the EC together?
November 24, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Your comment doesn’t make much sense to me. Dave and I in our conversation came to a point that offered no clear path, at least on this topic. None of that was because of inflammatory language or an unwillingness to dig into it. It is a pretty short conversation, but obviously the medium only allows for so much. What does it prove? Nothing, other than it takes a long time, intentionality, and the Spirit of God to bring reconciliation and unity back into the divided church. I don’t think that was ever in question.
November 24, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“The whole point about talking about a third way, however, is that there are many of us who believe that we need not be so divided, that both sides do uphold orthodox beliefs,”
I think this illustrates a point that is actually foundational to the divide itself. The question is not whether someone holds any or some orthodox beliefs – because even cults arguably hold to some.
One the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church upholds one particular orthodox belief that sets it apart from cults by definition – the deity of Christ. However, at the same time, the RC holds to another belief that I would contend is heterodox and is also characteristic of cults by definition – that works are an essential component of salvation.
So, solving the problem becomes rather impossible – and paradoxically, the solution itself is at the heart of the problem – namely, identifying those doctrines which are the “fundamentals of the faith.” But wait, haven’t we been down this road before? Seems so – and it is that very road and departures from that road that have brought us to where we are.
But is this a bad thing? Isn’t it actually the right path – and also God’s ordained path for passing the faith from generation to generation?
And haven’t side-tracks from the road always taken those on that new path into the ditch? Christ himself said that the road is narrow and there are few that find it – and we find in the apostolic writings that there were also many who didn’t remain on it. Paul found himself abandoned by most of his co-workers in ministry. He found most of the churches he planted in trouble over time because of teachers who were departing from apostolic doctrine – some a little, some a lot – but all were a problem.
Going back to the similarities between the EC and historic liberalism, the EC tends to play down doctrinal differences for the sake of the unity you are seeking. Seeking unity is not a problem – it is seeking unity at the expense of truth that is the problem. And it is the question of this problem that I asked several times now that you haven’t yet answered. You have offered your reasons for seeking unity – which are legitimate. But you haven’t explained how to handle the many more passages that set the boundaries for the doctrinal limits that must be met for genuine unity.
November 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
The whole point about talking about a third way, however, is that there are many of us who believe that we need not be so divided, that both sides do uphold orthodox beliefs, and that both sides have a great responsibility for the future of the church. If you don’t believe that, are unwilling to consider it or can’t see that then obviously this conversation will bear no importance to you.
Some division is necessary…Some is not. Who/what is really causing division and how are they causing it?
I submit that it has to do with this:
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 18:17 & 18)
If the goal is to really bridge the gap between emergents and “traditionalists, as stated, then this biblical command will have to be taken seriously. If this action command is not undertaken by emergents, and only the creeds are put forward as the basis for bridging the gap, then the mentioned desired bridging and unity will not, and cannot, occur.
November 30, 2009 at 12:49 pm
oops…It should read Romans 16, not 18
December 9, 2009 at 10:09 am
[...] am still working my way through Deep Church as well and will have a post later in the week continuing that [...]