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.
November 12, 2009 at 9:32 am
Define Emergents, please.
November 12, 2009 at 9:49 am
emergents – those who are part of the emerging church. For characteristics of the emerging church review my previous deep church post
http://holinessreeducation.com/2009/10/14/deep-church-reflection-1-emergents-like-to-protest/
November 12, 2009 at 10:25 am
Do you recognize that there have been “emergent-like people” throughout the entire life of the Church?
November 12, 2009 at 10:48 am
Certainly there have been reformers and protesters throughout the history of the church. The Emerging Church is only unique in the specific cultural and world circumstances that have birthed this movement of our faith.
November 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm
…the more amazed I become at our ability to reduce people, movements, and ideas down to the worst possible scenarios.
If the “worst possible scenarios” weren’t often played out in the writings and speech of emergent leaders/folk, it would be easier to celebrate some things that we have in common. When prolific emergent leaders declassify homosexuality as a sin and, in many ways, deconstruct the historic Christian faith, “traditionalists” are stuck waging a battle, and rightly so, which was advanced by the emergent side.
If certain emergent folks want to claim, among other heresies, that God did not send His Son to die on the cross for our sins, because that would constitute “cosmic child abuse”, while many other emergents nod their heads in collective agreement, then “traditionalists” won’t be seeking to celebrate things that we have in common, but some will correctly offer a sharp rebuke.
When universalism, even in a subtle form, is advanced by emergent leaders, don’t expect “traditionalists” to be looking to celebrate the things that we may have in common.
And…obviously, “traditionalists” are not buying that the emergent protest and reformation effort is about a biblical 0rthopraxy. The Church, since its inception in Acts 2, has had faithful men exhorting it, through Scripture, to live out obedient and holy lives and to put their faith into action…in the culture.
I have seen the orthopraxy of emergent leaders like Bell and Padgitt, who attended the Seeds of Compassion conference, in Seattle, with every other world religion. It was on display for all to see….calling the Dalai Lama “his holiness” and completely avoiding the Gospel of Jesus Christ in front of thousands of lost young people. Their orthopraxy denied the calling of the Great Commission. They did not engage the culture with any Christian/biblical relevancy, just the opposite, they only demonstrated how thay could blend in with every other world religion.
I have read Rollins and listened to his profanity laced “Easter” sermon at the Black Box in which he declared that Judas was the most faithful man that ever lived…real culturally relevant stuff!
I understand that emergents say that the emergent camp is a big and diverse camp, but when an emergent, from any part of the emergent big tent, promotes emergent leaders (books, conferences, sermon series, and etc.) who are advancing the above-mentioned attacks, how are “traditionilists” supposed to discern the difference between friend or foe? What makes a friend or foe?
If you are found in the enemy’s camp, you might just take some arrows.
November 12, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Paul,
The examples you just cited are perfect examples, thank you.
Adding some layers and context to each of the thing you are talking about, how can we find common ground around such issues.
Some emergent leaders have declassified homosexuality as a sin, if you want to use that language, but far more have not gone to that extreme. Far more have embraced a view that is more inline with historic views of homosexuality.
But, the bigger question is whether or not this is an issue that determines our orthodoxy.
What about our theology of atonement? There has been substantial conversation around the issue within emergent circles. Most of it is in regards to moving beyond penal substitutionary theories and embracing other parts of the atonement as well. McLaren talked about his “cosmic child abuse” struggles, but that is a tiny part of the conversations that are taking place regarding atonement. Atonement is a place where we can find common ground regarding our common historical beliefs while discussing the other aspects of atonement.
But all the examples you are talking about are about a handful of leaders, writers, and preachers who may push some limits that many are not comfortable with, but are not representative of the work that is being done in many churches to grab a fuller understanding of the gospel.
As long as we continue to bring up a few specific extreme examples and define a large gathering of Christians by the words and or actions of a few, we will never have positive dialog.
November 12, 2009 at 2:42 pm
You ask a very telling question at the end of your comment. How do we know who is friend or foe? I think that is the wrong question. It is not that we aren’t supposed to be discerning or to question people’s teachings within the church, but that the first question we should have is what do we have in common and what can we learn from each other.
I think that there is a baseline of orthodoxy that we can use as a groundwork for unity. In my next post on this book I will discuss some of what the author suggests as a baseline for orthodoxy, a first tier that lets us know we are on the same side or “friends” to use your term. So that then we can engage with open minds and hearts about second tier issues that we might differ on.
In many ways it comes down to humility. Our knowledge of Christ should leave us with an immense sense of humility. We should start with an assumption that others in the church, even if they have beliefs that we might struggle with mightily, might still have something to teach us as we do them.
November 12, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Adding some layers and context to each of the thing you are talking about, how can we find common ground around such issues.
Does God want us to find common ground with false teaching and false teachers?
Some emergent leaders have declassified homosexuality as a sin, if you want to use that language, but far more have not gone to that extreme.
Man is not the authority on this issue and cannot declassify homosexuality…God’s Word is the authority (and therein lies the crux of the entire matter, which does determine orthodoxy).
What about our theology of atonement? There has been substantial conversation around the issue within emergent circles. Most of it is in regards to moving beyond penal substitutionary theories and embracing other parts of the atonement as well.
It is impossible to “move beyond” penal substitutionary atonement as Scripture is very clear on the issue of atonement:
“God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished…he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3;25-26)
Isaiah, also, makes it clear that Christ was bruised for our iniquities. There is no changing what Scripture defines atonement to be. I undertsand that Christ’s work on the cross also demonstartes that he is a victorious King and a gracious sacrificing servant, but that does
change the fact that, on the cross, Christ paid the penalty for our sins. This is the center piece of the Gospel. It can’t be changed. Men who do so are way outside of orthodoxy. There is no common ground to be found with them.
But all the examples you are talking about are about a handful of leaders, writers, and preachers who may push some limits that many are not comfortable with…
The contention between emergents and “traditionalists” has nothing to do with a lack of comfort, but everything to do with emergents espousing views in opposition to Scripture. Emergents can’t keep distancing themselves from Scripture and then make a plea to the “traditionalists” to come find common ground. The real calling is in the opposite direction and is made to the emergents to stop running away from biblical orthodoxy and to distance themselves from their heretical emergent leaders and to come find common ground in Scripture and in like-mindedness in Christ. That is where unity and peace can be found and accomplished, but nowhere else.
As long as we continue to bring up a few specific extreme examples and define a large gathering of Christians by the words and or actions of a few, we will never have positive dialog.
These few examples come up again and again amongst emergent leaders and the emergent crowd. These issues go to the heart of the matter – Where now is our authority? Tickle, and many other emergent leaders, come right out and espouse the end of the authority of Scripture. Tickle specifically says that she sees the church’s acceptance of homosexuality as the end of the authority of Scripture, which she cites as a positive development. The only positive dialog to have with folks of this mindset is to attempt to restore them (if they are Christians), or give them the Gospel of Jesus Christ (if they are not). Certainly, they should not be teaching and forming the thinking of saints in the Church.
Friend or foe? Right question. What do darkness and light have in common?
November 12, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Paul,
The main problem I have with the manner in which you grab these topics is that there are seldom done in a voice that I can recognize as humble or Spirit filled. There is a stringency in your written voice that is consistent and off putting. That in and of itself is very off putting for a conversation. Certainly a blog is limited in so far as we can hear each others tones, but the way in which you address these conversations just seems to carry so little grace. I know you to be a man of deep faith and generosity but I struggle to find that in your comments.
As to your comments, I will specifically talk about the issue of atonement. There is absolutely a call to move beyond penal substitutionary theory as the only way in which we understand the atonement. If scripture offered only that view as the reasonable understanding of Christ’s work on the cross than certainly we wouldn’t have 2000 years of differing views on the matter. I support the p.s.t (for short) view of atonement, but think that there is more to the atonement than that. There are other beautiful theories that also add understanding to the most significant act in the history of our world.
That is why there is such a call towards humility in these matters. A big picture view of our faith, the history of the church, and the dynamic diversity of the present church around the globe demands such humility. The reality that all we know is revealed to us by an almighty creator redeemer God even further demands that we take great humility in how we express the truths we know.
Have you ever considered that even if Tony Jones or McLaren, or even myself differ with you on a matter such as atonement that we might still be able to help teach you about some part of God? I certainly believe that about you and that your voice has something to teach me about God.
November 12, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I’m not sure it is an adequate analysis to conclude that the end result is that we reduce people, movements and ideas to their worst possible scenarios. Except for a few of the more vitriolic bloggers, I think the discussion of (now) Emergence Christianity has been far more nuanced than this and is rooted in a concern about a broad trend away from genuinely biblical theology (in the best sense of the term) as it has been developed and understood within historically conservative evangelicalism.
Of course there is a broad spectrum of beliefs and practices among those who would self-identify as “emergent / emerging” – so specific concerns in one area might apply to one person and not the next and vice versa. But this isn’t (or shouldn’t be) about the individuals who would be identified with Emergence Christianity, but rather about the beliefs that generally separate Emergence Christianity from historical Evangelicalism.
Of course we will never fully plumb the depths of theological truth found in the Scriptures and there is room to look for common ground with other believers who are genuinely seeking to more fully understand the Lord and His Word. However, there is a broad, general tendency that accurately defines Emergence Christianity which says that we must “rethink everything.” This was clearly expressed by Brian McLaren who as “one of the most influential evangelicals in the U.S.” stated that he wasn’t sure he could define the gospel and that he’s not sure we have it right, yet.
After 2000 years how can we say we don’t understand the gospel, when the apostles’ clearly did understand it and worked tirelessly to proclaim it and to teach others to do the same? Why, after 2000 years do we still say we don’t have at least a basic grasp of the atonement.
When these most fundamental of issues that define evangelicalism and biblical Christianity itself provide no common ground of agreement, then to what end do we search for other areas of common ground? Given this scenario, which is a worst case scenario that is not simply theoretical, but is actually happening, then the task as so clearly prescribed and described in the NT writings is to both point out the false teaching and warn against those who are departing from the faith and persuading others to do the same.
This doesn’t have to be done with unnecessarily inflammatory language, but it must be done in language that is clear enough to contend for the faith that has been delivered to the saints.
In His Care,
Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
November 12, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Thank you, Dave James. Well stated.
November 12, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Dave,
Thank you for a well stated and measured response. Obviously the post and the quote it was based upon were generalizations of the conversation at the most extreme. There are many who have engaged in the conversation on these topics in ways that honor their calling and honor Christ. That is simply the request I am making of both sides.
In response to your comments then I would offer these thoughts.
I am one who has engaged in the emerging church conversation and yet have no problem expressing my Biblical, historical understanding of the gospel. If you read the last post I had about the book Deep Church, which is offering a Third Way between what are generally called the Emergent and the Traditionalist camps, you will find the variety of critiques most emergents would want to change the traditional evangelical church.
http://holinessreeducation.com/2009/10/14/deep-church-reflection-1-emergents-like-to-protest/
Most emergents would say not that our historical evangelical view of the gospel is wrong, but that it has been incomplete. We have not embraced the fullness of that gospel and instead have sought to boil it down to something more palatable. Aside from someone like McLaren I can’t think of a single person in the emerging church who has ever expressed an inability to articulate the gospel or to try and convince other that they can’t either. It is not a desire to turn away from the Biblical gospel, but a desire to return to it that has spawned our part in this conversation.
Thanks for the comments.
November 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Gary,
You note that “most emergents would say . . . that our . . . view of the gospel . . . has been incomplete.” However, I would suggest that the problem has not been an inherently deficient view of the gospel, but that emergents have added a layer to the gospel – making it a different gospel – and when compared to this different gospel the historical evangelical view is incomplete.
However, this new layer is not really historically new – it is essentially the same social gospel which provoked a reaction that ultimately became evangelicalism. And the height of irony is that what is often considered a more liberal, compassionate and concerned form of the gospel is actually the most restrictive legalistic form because it is a works-based gospel.
And I would also suggest that in turn, this problem is directly tied to a break from the substitutionary view of the atonement – which is not the only aspect of the atonement – but is (at least in part) provides the grace-basis for salvation.
As is always true, theological constructs never exist in isolation. They are inevitably part of a larger theological package. And it seems that this continues to hold true in the case of Emergence Christianity – which is precisely why it really is difficult to try to separate out issues enough for conservative evangelicals to seek common ground for discussion.
Whether someone says they can’t define the gospel or someone ends up redefining the gospel through attempts to recover it (and I won’t try to impugn motives) – the result is ultimately the same: The lost will never hear a gospel presentation that is clear enough for them to understand that they are sinners before a holy God, who in His grace and love offers forgiveness of sin and eternal life on the basis of the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ to all who will turn to Him in faith and receive Him as Lord and Savior.
November 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Dave,
I would challenge the statement that what is happening is simply a retreat of 19th and 20th century liberalism. As a matter of fact I would say that the two are intrinsically and completely different.
The liberalism the spawned such a strong reaction from what we now call evangelicals was birthed out of a belief in the progress of humanity. It was an abandonment of spirituality in favor of a secularized version of our faith. We put reason over faith and humanity about Christ and that birthed the liberalism of those days.
The conversation today is birthed out of an effort to recover our faith and to balance revelation with reason through a spirit filled kingdom focused living. This is so different on every level than the liberalism of the past couple of centuries. Both share common concerns for social justice, which has been notably missing from evangelicalism over the past century, but that is about the end of the similarities.
The purpose behind this book and the conversation I am suggesting is to have a clearly defined gospel that shows the fullness of God’s call upon his church. I agree that anyone who says they can’t define the gospel or explain it to someone has gone too far, but so too has much of evangelicalism that has tried to boil down the gospel to something either easily swallowed by the masses or something merely concerned with where our souls go when we die.
November 16, 2009 at 10:35 am
Of course there may be practical differences, but the key similarity is theological – which is ultimately the engine that drives everything. Theologically they are similar with regard to the inspiration and authority of the Bible and to the gospel itself. And the similarities in social action might be a small issue if it weren’t for the fact that in both cases, social action ends up replacing the gospel – and in neither case in such a subtle way – which was the point I made in my previous post. (So, your reply doesn’t address the crux of the issue I raise.) And in both cases, evangelism doesn’t mean telling people that the Lord has provided a solution to their sin problem through explicit faith in the Christ who died as a substitutionary sacrifice and arose again – but rather the “good news” is that God has already reconciled you to himself, you’re already his child, and the best of all possible lifestyles is that of following Christ. This is a deadly and paradoxical mix of universalism and works-based salvation.
Another problem is that an incredibly fragile straw-man has been erected concerning the gospel as proclaimed by historical conservative evangelicalism -that it is something “merely concerned with where our souls go when we die.” I don’t know any evangelical who would agree with that caricature. The gospel has to do with lost sinners having no relationship with the living God and God providing a solution to that problem. Eternal life itself isn’t the point, but it is a real result of having one’s sins forgiven – allowing people to enter into an eternal relationship with the Lord.
Furthermore, the definition of the gospel itself has been hijacked and changed to mean everything about the Christian life after one has been born-again. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul makes it very clear what the gospel is – and it is very specific. It is not about “kingdom living” – it is about what makes kingdom living possible. To confuse the two is to make the classic mistake made by both liberal and Catholic theology – which is, again, a works-based salvation – not a grace-based salvation. And it leaves people who hear such a gospel with the impression that if they just do what Jesus did,then God is pleased with them and welcomes them into his family. However, no one pleases God unless they are “in Christ” – and it must be proclaimed how to be in Christ first.
November 17, 2009 at 9:56 am
Dave,
I just couldn’t disagree more strongly about the nature of liberalism of a modernist construction and the conversations that are taking place within the emerging church and around the emerging church. The point of the book that has spawned this post is trying to offer a third way between traditionalists and emergents so that it may be easier to have these conversations and see our common traits.
So let me say very clearly that I believe fully in the authority of scripture, the power of the Gospel, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the necessity of salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ. And as I believe in those things and grapple with their understanding I have found great lacking in the gospel understanding, ecclessiology, and soteriology of the evangelical church, as someone raised in one, educated at the best Christian college in the world, a graduate of a wonderful evangelical seminary, and an ordained elder in an evangelical denomination. And every where I have been there have been a great number of my peers that have felt the exact same thing.
There is no confusion as to a works based theology in anything that I am writing. I would challenge, however, your treatment of 1 Corinthians 15 and the assertion that gospel is somehow disconnected from kingdom living. That is precisely the limitation many have struggled with in evangelicalism.
1 Corinthians 15 is such a beautiful chapter about resurrection. And it is the belief in resurrection, at the center of our gospel that that makes our gospel about the life we live now. The good news is the Christ came, Christ died for our sins, he was buried and he was raised. And the implications of that concern every aspect of our lives from here to eternity. How is it possible to only focus on one aspect of that? If Christ had merely died for our sins then we would say the gospel is about salvation – being justified before God on judgment day. But the resurrection means that our salvation begins in the moment of our confession and is played out everyday therefore throughout eternity.
That is embracing the fullness of the gospel. That is the conversation we are trying to have. How do we get to experience a part of the resurrected life that awaits us in fullness at the second coming of Christ, right now in this life. As Paul talks about throughout Romans, we are unified with Christ in his death and resurrection through our baptism and faith in his death for us. This is the good news, that right now we get to experience a piece of the joy that ultimately awaits us at the return of Christ.
November 16, 2009 at 9:47 am
Hey Greg,
It was an abandonment of spirituality in favor of a secularized version of our faith.
With humanism as its base, I think that it was an abandonment of verbal plenary inspiration and the abandonment of the authority of Scripture that constructed the two-headed sledge hammer of historical liberalism, which doesn’t look all that different than much of today’s emergent movement. In fact, most emergents are very open in regard to their opposition of the authority of Scripture.
Paul
November 17, 2009 at 9:39 am
Paul,
Any who would abandon the authority of scripture certainly would be those with whom I strongly disagree. I affirm strongly the authority of scripture. Most everyone I have been in relationship with through this conversation would also affirm the authority of scripture. I know many who would reject the idea of inerrancy as a construct of enlightenment thinking, but not reject the authority of scripture along side of it. Once again it comes down to a conversation about what people are really doing with this conversation and how it has shaped the lives of those who are part of it verses the writing and speaking of a few. None of what I am writing is a defense of Brian McLaren or Tony Jones. They can handle that themselves.
November 17, 2009 at 12:15 pm
This is the problem in trying to discuss EC because there is such a spectrum – and appears to be why you are suggesting a “third way.”
We probably went to similar – if not the same seminary.
I am not suggesting that everything is the same as with liberalism. But there are important theological elements – the ones that I think are among the most dangerous, which are similar, if not identical.
There are other elements, at least among some in the EC that are neither truly post-modern, nor modern – but are pre-modern in their return to the mystical (which I think is distinct from spiritual).
I don’t disagree with your comments about 1 Cor. 15 – and I don’t think evangelicals have everything right – or understand everything fully. I do think we are all still working on that.
As much as EC can’t be lumped together, neither can traditional evangelicalism. Those who have allowed tradition to cloud the gospel or what it means to live out being a child of God are wrong, as well.
I certainly do not separate the gospel from kingdom living. I think you read too much into my words. The problem is if we equate the gospel with kingdom living – which then becomes a works-based gospel. I was making a technical point.
I don’t have a problem with having a conversation about these things. However, there are some conclusions that have been drawn – and these are taking a certain segment of Christianity in a certain way – and in a way that arguably departs from biblical truth. It is in response to this aspect that many are concerned and writing and speaking.
November 17, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Dave,
Thanks for your response, it is exactly the point of this post and why I have been engaging with this book. I bet that you and I would find agreement on the vast majority of our theology and can benefit from each other with how our lives in God have shaped us and what they have taught us about the gospel and kingdom living.
But we can only reach that dialog if we are beginning from a place of trust, we are talking about the specific issues that we decide to talk about, and we work hard not to assign labels to each other or lump each other into preset categories that allow us to treat each other in any ungodly ways.
We have to be able to set aside our presumptions about each other and try to dig into the heart of the subject.
November 17, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Greg,
Technical question. Why is it that there is a Reply link after some of the posts – and there isn’t on others – like yours in the case of your last response?
Concerning trust: I don’t start out with any assumptions – or at least many assumptions – about those I don’t know. Some are legitimate as a starting point – for example, infant baptism for many / most Reformed – or believer’s baptism for many / most Baptists. However, there is a difference between making those assumptions and judging someone on the basis of those assumptions.
And I try to never assume anything about someone’s motives – and continue to try to avoid that even when I sharply disagree with someone’s theology. For example, I could hardly be further apart from Rob Bell on certain things – and Brian McLaren on apparently even more things. However, I am not impugning their motives – or even speculating about what those might be.
Concerning labels: I hear people say this rather frequently, but I don’t think this is a problem unless the label is used in a pejorative way. They are often inadequate after a certain point, but they can be a short hand that legitimately saves time. For example, I can make some statements that are generally true about the theology of dispensationalists – and the same is true of covenantalists. And I can even critique dispensational or covenant theology – even though a given person might not exactly fit the generalization.
I think we need to avoid going to the other extreme of developing a theological version of PC. Allowing biblical ethics, love and spiritual maturity and guide our discussions is more important than tripping over ourselves to avoid certain terminology and use other terminology. This is a huge time-waster. And I agree that it comes down to trust as a starting point. At the very least, we have to think the best about one another as a starting point.
A tricky / sticky part of the issue is knowing when someone can legitimately be called a false teacher as a warning to others. I don’t think it is biblical to say that we can never say this about someone – and you would almost certainly agree – for example if someone denies the deity of Christ. To not do so would be to fall victim to theological PC – and to do a disservice to the body of Christ. So, is someone a false teacher if they deny the existence of hell? Or deny the substitutionary atonement? Or the inerrancy of Scripture? (And I would contend that logically the Bible’s authority is contingent on inerrancy – and I don’t think this is too hard to demonstrate.)
November 17, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Dave,
I think I fixed the comment thing, there was a just a limit on how deep the levels of comments and replies could go. I increased it.
I agree on not trying to be pc in the church, but we seem quick to give up unity in the face of demonstrating we are right and others are wrong. That is a generalization, but the ridiculous segmentation of Protestantism is a testament to our ability to be divisive over just about everything. There is a time and place for declaring false teachers and even heresy, but that should be done with great hesitation and humility, especially if the people we are declaring this about themselves are trying to bring about unity. It is a difficult line to walk, no doubt.
November 17, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“There is a time and place for declaring false teachers and even heresy, but that should be done with great hesitation and humility, especially if the people we are declaring this about themselves are trying to bring about unity.”
I’m not sure about the last phrase. A lot of damage has been done in the name of unity. A lot of important theological truth has been sacrificed on the altar of “Doctrine divides, but love unites.” This mantra may make a good soundbite but it is demonstrably misguided and unbiblical. So often we are criticized as being divisive and hateful if we do nothing more than follow the example set by Paul and call people out for teaching the very things that Paul himself challenged in very strong terms. Of course there has been unnecessary division over the color of the carpet, but in reaction to this problem many are going way too far by implying that division over some important theological issues is equally foolish.
November 18, 2009 at 9:12 am
Dave,
I agree, that is why I posted my next post, on the multiple tiers of theology. If we can establish a baseline for conversation then maybe some of that trust can be earned and we can learn from one one another and maintain unity.
November 16, 2009 at 10:16 am
Greg,
I think that you might find a different tone if we were sitting across from one another. And…I believe that is completely possible to sound quite humble in speech, but take completely arrogant positions which are contrary to God’s Word. For instance, saying that substitutionary atonement equates to “cosmic child abuse”, or saying that the Church needs a five year moratorium on making any pronouncements in regard to homosexuality being a sin, or saying that Judas was the most faithful man that ever lived (in celebration of Easter), etc. These are insanely arrogant statements. Where is the concern in regard to the lack of humility, here?
I agree that there are many facets to atonement, but it is impossible to throw substitutionary atonement away in favor of other facets. Substitutionary atonement is THE picture that we see all throughout the OT (the blood of bulls, goats, etc.) and fulfilled in Christ in the NT. Hebrews, among other passages, makes it clear that Christ was the One-Time Sacrifice that rendered the sacrificial system unnecessary. Jesus Christ was our sin offering; He was our guilt offering…a propitiation and atonement.
As to the calling to find common ground, and it may not seem humble to some, but what does God direct us to do as it relates to those who teach falsely in regard to the essentials of the faith? Are we really called to find common ground with them?
November 17, 2009 at 9:43 am
Paul,
I know your intentions so I don’t take anything you say personally, but I would challenge you to find less inflammatory language only because it is often a conversation stopper.
As far as atonement goes, I have stated at least three times in this post and multiple times other places that I have no desire to throw out substitutionary atonement. I do think that our view of the atonement is greatly benefited by adding time considering and embracing additional views as well because of the immensity of Christ’s work on the cross.
My new post today is about this idea. What can we agree on as a basis so that we can have additional conversations to enrich our faith. I think far less people than you think in the emerging church, around it, or intrigued by it, are desiring to strip down and rebuild our faith with some sort of abandonment of orthodoxy.
November 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Hey Greg,
Specifically, which language was too inflammatory?
November 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Paul,
Words such as heresy or talk of false teachers and excluding ourselves from people are all conversation enders. Even if this is true, starting at that point doesn’t help whatever division may already be there. But stating that they are true from the get go really makes it almost impossible to have discourse.
November 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Greg,
I agree with you that those terms are probably conversation enders, but I think that they are supposed to be. Biblically, other than contending for the faith, does God want His saints and His Church engaging with false teachers? Does God want us to learn from them and to engage with them to find common ground that leads to unity?
Dave asked these good questions:
So, is someone a false teacher if they deny the existence of hell? Or deny the substitutionary atonement? Or the inerrancy of Scripture? (And I would contend that logically the Bible’s authority is contingent on inerrancy – and I don’t think this is too hard to demonstrate.)
And/or…how about denying that the rapture of the Church will occur?
November 19, 2009 at 8:32 am
Those are important questions to wrestle with, but historically, as you look at what it has meant to be orthodox over the last 2000 years you would find those who were considered orthodox by the church and yet didn’t believe in a literal hell, had very different views of the atonement, and lived before the idea of inerrancy ever existed.
Looking at the church around the globe it is important to ask do Orthodox (as in Greek, Russian, etc..) use those terms? Can we still celebrate what unity we would have with them? Do we need to anoint them false teachers as well?
There is nothing wrong with celebrating our particular views of our faith and to promote and defend what we believe, but we have often had far too small a view of the diversity of orthodoxy.
November 19, 2009 at 9:48 am
Greg: For some reason the Reply to yours is gone again.
If we depart from biblical theology it does no good – in fact it does harm to look to historical theology as a guide. Why would I look around the globe for certain touch-points of agreement and then celebrate that? Why would I celebrate the fact that the Roman Catholic Church holds to the deity of Christ, when they deny the sufficiency of faith in his work on the cross as the sole means of salvation – and thereby preach another gospel? This is nothing to celebrate.
And yes, they do need to be “anointed” as false teachers. Based on the pronouncements of Trent, which have not and cannot be rescinded because of episcopal infallibility, you too are and always will be considered a false teacher and anathema.
Your suggestion perfectly illustrates the liberal theology – or “Generous Orthodoxy” if you will – that I was referring to earlier. If different on every other point, it is this approach to theology which if not identical in detail is identical in application and result.
When I hear these things, the first thought that comes to mind is “Given the apostolic writings, would those men have accepted your philosophy?” If you look at the kinds of things these men were addressing and calling “heresy” and the promoters they were calling “false teachers” – these are some of the very things that you seem to be suggesting can fit within the parameters of orthodoxy.
I think Paul’s view of the allowable diversity of orthodoxy was extremely narrow – and he is the premier guide to how the church should approach theology and deal with those who depart from biblical teaching. I don’t doubt what is motivating you – and that I can applaud – but where this is taking you is going to do irreparable damage to the generation that follows you. If young people use your approach – and take it further, which is inevitable – then there will need to be a new “fundamentals” reaction to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints.
November 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Dave,
The specific example you give on Roman Catholics is a good one to discuss. There is much theology of the RC Church that is non-Biblical and I would say damaging. So we are left with a choice, how will we as Evangelicals live in relation to the largest single group of Christians in the world?
Do we have anything to learn from this group? Certainly, there is much we can learn from them. Are there things they can learn from us? Absolutely, there are many things especially around the issues you mention regarding the nature of salvation and the place of works in our relationship with Christ.
But how from a platform of denouncing false teachers and being critical of their shortcomings will such blessings ever take place? I am simply at a loss to think of a time when that position, as a starting place, has led to reconciliation or transformation within the body. The question for me is how can we do the most good for the kingdom? I believe it will be by trying to find as much to join us together as the church as possible and trying to find common ground within the truth of Christ to do kingdom work together. If you believe it is better to maintain our separation to insure doctrinal clarity and to prevent unintentional endorsement of false teaching I can understand and respect that, it is simply not the calling God has placed on my life.
So I guess we can certainly agree to disagree about the nature of what is taking place in the church, for the good and the bad. For my part, I will continue to try and serve as a bridge between as much of the divided body of Christ as I can. I will continue to make it my goal to dialog with anyone and everyone who claims to love Christ to see to their true heart and to listen for God’s voice in that pursuit. I certainly believe in the power of the Spirit enough to superintend that process and pray for God’s wisdom in seeking unity.
Thanks for the conversation, it has been both stimulating and a blessing.
November 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Greg,
Sorry I can’t reply directly to you comment.
There are two significant concerns I have with your comments.
The first is that I can’t find your suggested approach in the apostles’ writings or Christ’s teachings. But rather, I find exactly the opposite. These provide both clear prescriptions and descriptions about how we are to do ministry. How can you reconcile with this your suggestion for finding and celebrating common ground with those who teach a false gospel that is deceiving somewhere around 1/6 or the world’s population? By definition the Catholic Church can never preach the gospel of salvation by grace through faith, apart from works. No amount of dialog can have even the slightest influence on what has been declared dogma and official doctrine of the Catholic Church. This doesn’t mean we don’t try to minister to individual Catholics for the purpose of winning them to Christ. There really is nothing worth learning theologically from false teachers.
The second concern is that you have seemingly made the same mistake as Evangelicals and Catholics Together by considering them to broadly be brethren in Christ. That this is at least part of your thinking seems to be indicated by your observation “I am simply at a loss to think of a time when that position, as a starting place, has led to reconciliation or transformation within the body.” But they aren’t within the body as a group. There are undoubtedly individual Catholics who are believers – but the overall problem is not an “in-body” issue. There are “in-body” issues among us that need to be addressed. But looking to Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Church for the purpose of mutual edification can only happen if crucial theological differences are just set aside. If any movement happens, it will only be from the evangelical side. It will not and cannot be any other way. With this philosophy a similar argument could be made for approaching Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same way.
In the short-run – and more importantly the long-run, the philosophy you suggest can only ultimately serve to move us away from biblical evangelism and discipleship. This doesn’t mark a 3rd way – it is merely a variation on the problem that is at the core of EC as a whole.
November 19, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Wow Dave,
I am amazed by the conclusions you stated. I think we have probably taken this conversation as far we can. If that is how you look at the larger body of Christ then there really isn’t any room for the kind of unity or conversation I am talking about and I can certainly understand why you have responded the way you have. Thanks for the engaging and very civil conversation.
Blessings-
Greg
November 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Gary,
Yes, you’re probably right. We have probably taken this as far as we can. And I do appreciate that you commented that this has been a civil conversation. I sincerely desire to do that.
If you’re willing to respond at least once more, I am still interested in knowing what biblical examples you’re using to develop your philosophy of ministry model. You haven’t responded to that part of my comments, yet – and I think in the scheme of things, this is probably the most important point. And, in this regard, how do you explain the consistent apostolic approach to false teaching – particularly with regard to the Gospel – which is the most significant aspect of Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology that is radically heterodox.
November 21, 2009 at 9:53 am
Dave,
(It is Greg not Gary by the way) This desire to find a better way to practice unity for the sake of the church comes from the consistent witness of scripture and the practice of the early church.
John 17 – Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and those who would follow that their unity in him and thus in God would show to the world the truth of who Jesus is. Each instance of division we live with works against our testimony to the world.
Paul’s continual appeal for unity – Philippians 4, Ephesians 4, Galatians 5 and the life in the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12-13 – so humbling and challenging, Romans 12 – a true life of sacrifice and humility in service to Christ
Philippians 2 – Our call to be like minded, sharing the same love, being in one Spirit and of one mind. Putting aside our vanity that living a life of humility like Christ would honor God and keep us united.
1 John 4 – Once again our treatment of one another will ultimately translate into how the world sees us
The work of the early church – not that it was all pure in motive or without outside influence – to gather together, for as long as it took, to create creeds, to develop theology, and to work towards unity and true teaching. Neither disunity nor bad teaching were acceptable.
Those are the witnesses of scripture and the church that urge me on in my ministry of reconciliation and unity.
November 16, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I have adopted Evelyn Wood speed reading tactic to go through these post cause, frankly, they are too LONG. I have come to the conclusion that I am not part of either of these to supposed groups labeled “tradionalist” and “emergent”. I have begun to see a picture of two mountains (one representing each). I find myself longing more and more to hang in the valley with a bunch of drunks and druggies singing songs and eating food together. I see that in this lowland place it is messy and the language is often inappropriate, but it is a lot of fun. The ghosts of radical preacher types linger in the midst. In this place there is a sense of expectation that the grace of God will prevade the masses in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is known that in God’s time the ears of the lost and broken people will burst open and everyone will fall face down on the ground in the presence of our Holy God. Only then, it seems that quite suddenly, the jacked up crowd will burst into a loud and beautiful song that calls the people standing on the mountain top to come to a hush. And suddenly all will hear a voice that rocks everything and everyone, “PEACE!”
November 16, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Maggie,
I can only imagine what kind of songs the drunks and druggies will want you to sing with them.
While you are there, in the valley, I hope that a radical preacher, not like the ones who are always saying “peace and safety” and then their destruction is quickly upon them, but a preacher like an Apostle Paul, or a Stephen, or a Peter comes to preach in the name of Jesus Christ and that by His Word these drunks and druggies repent and, through faith, are saved. Then, I hope that they are baptized, become members of a bible-believing church and, after some maturing, become faithful disciplers. (It ceratinly will not be a peaceful eternity for those who do not have a saving faith in Christ upon His return.)
I hope that this valley experience will be something of an Acts 17 moment – Then Paul stood up at the valley of the drunks and druggies and said: “You Drunks and Druggies, I see that you are a very spiritual people”….
23
For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ 7 What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.
24
The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands,
25
nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything.
26
He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions,
27
so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.
28
For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ 9 as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’
29
Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the divinity is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination.
30
God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent
31
because he has established a day on which he will ‘judge the world with justice’ through a man he has appointed, and he has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead.”
32
When they heard about resurrection of the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, “We should like to hear you on this some other time.”
33
And so Paul left them.
34
But some did join him, and became believers.
I hope that these drunks and druggies, in the valley, become true believers like some in Athens did. Drunks aren’t fun to be around. My Dad was a drunk turned believer by the resurrection power of Jesus Christ. I’ll never forget the Sunday morning that he got up, put on a suit and silently walked out the door leaving me, my Mom, who was contemplating separation and divorce, and three sisters wondering where he was going. What we didn’t know is that three men in his new carpool had been giving the Gospel to him and had invited him to their church. My Dad came back a new man…a saved man. He said to us, “Next week, I want you to go to church with me.” He was radically different. As an eight year old, I went from seeing him come home late and drunk, at night, to seeing him, in the morning, sitting in a living room chair doing his devotions and praying (sometimes with tears running down his cheeks). A few times, without him knowing (I think), I sat down on the stairs, looked into the living room and watched him. He wasn’t perfect, but he was saved. I am forever thankful for his salvation, for mine and for that of my family.
The valley isn’t where drunks and druggies stay. Thank God. When they put their faith in Christ, they get baptized and join a local church (a called-out assembly of baptized believers). It is from this vantage point that we, the Church, the bride of Christ, await His return. Sure, we go out from the Church to preach the Gospel, but as Hebrews 10:25 says: “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another–and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
November 23, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Greg,
But how from a platform of denouncing false teachers and being critical of their shortcomings will such blessings ever take place? I am simply at a loss to think of a time when that position, as a starting place, has led to reconciliation or transformation within the body.
Then…why did Paul and Peter denounce false teachers and false teachings? Is there any NT model for seeking unity/common ground with false teachers and false teaching?
Isn’t THE starting place the Gospel of Jesus Christ? If their is no agreement there…biblically, are we supposed to go any further (with those who don’t believe)? Is there really any other platform or common ground?
What is the purpose of the local church? Why does the local church exist? How is the local church defined? How is the Church defined? What is the Church’s purpose?
November 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm
John 17?
I don’t think that John 17 supports the unity that is being proposed by the “third way”.
6″I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them.
These ones that God gave Jesus accepted and obeyed God’s Word. They didn’t deconstruct it and question it like the EC leadership and many in the EC…they just accepted it and obeyed it. Big difference.
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
Jesus is only praying for His disciples in this part of John 17, not the whole world. Where is the third way unity, here?
14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.
The world hates His disciples because of God’s Word. Uh, oh! Hated?! Instead of being hated, why didn’t they just look for a third way? Wouldn’t third way unity have been better than being hated? Isn’t being hated a horrible platform in which to build bridges and reconciliation? I bet a third way of questioning God’s Word, questioning inerrancy/authority, questioning inspiration, questiong the content of the Gospel, questioning the definition of sin, etc. will make the world hate Christians and Christianity less, though.
17Sanctify[b] them by the truth; your word is truth.
They were set apart, from the world, by God’s Word, which is Truth. They weren’t looking to find common ground with the world to bring consensus and unity…Jesus wanted His disciples to be set apart by God’s Word. Are calling is to be set apart by God’s Word…not finding common ground, which is the opposite of being set apart.
20″My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
Jesus’s prayer, here in John 17< is only for His disciples and for those who will believe through the disciples message. These are the people that Jesus wants united as one…zHis disciples and future Christian believers…no one else. The proposed third way is contrary to the John 17 prayer of Jesus.
May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
The reason that Christians are in the world, set apart by God’s Word, and unified is so that the world will KNOW that God sent His Son and that God loves them. The proposed third way unity works contrary to this prayer of Jesus.
November 24, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Obviously if you are starting from a point that those within the EC are outside of Christ and are merely false teachers then they are outside of a call of unity. I just think that you couldn’t be more wrong about that.
There is a call to call out false teachers and to protect the church, no question about it.
There is also a call to unity.
Separating the true disciples from the false ones is sometimes straight forward, and sometimes not so straight forward. That is a benefit of the conversation, to try and find a way that we can all agree upon to separate the two.
I do not agree that inerrancy or the penal subsistutionary theory of atonement are the lithmus tests for orthodoxy even though I would personally would ascribe to a version of both. Homosexuality is a difficult one, but worthy of another conversation. While I think there is a consistent Biblical witness against homosexual practices, it is debatable as to whether or not we can disagree about it and maintain orthodoxy.
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.