It's happening again, that feeling like you're being sucked into the vortex of a black hole of theology. That black hole is the Emergent Church. It is a vortex because it means that when you get sucked into it, you put on the mantle of critic, apologetic, polemicist, and pastor, of course. I don't like being the first three, but sometimes that is part of the last job. Pastoring is shepherding, keeping the sheep away from danger, away from pasture that may not be good for them, and water that might poison them.
Paul Schafer, over at Thoughts on the Christian Life, floated me an email about the website popularly, yet strangely, known as Open Source Theology. Now if you've never heard of this before, I want to put before you what the goal of the website is, along with a few other definitions of what Open Source Theology actually is.
First, the website asks, "What is Open Source Theology?" Here is the answer.
So, what we gather from Open Source Theology is that it seems based primarily on a concept of computer software known as 'open source.' According to the OpenSource.Org website,OST is a model for doing community-based 'theology'. This site makes use of drupal, a flexible and increasingly popular open-source (appropriately!) content management system. The format offers the possibility of developing collaboratively an applied theology appropriate to a particular missional purpose. At the moment this site has two basic objectives.
The first is to explore and promote the idea of an open-source theology. Is this a viable method for developing an applied, contextualized theology? What sort of rules would be needed? How does it relate to other forms of doing theology?
The second objective is to implement the open-source model as part of, and in support of, a renewed mission to the emerging culture. Can we use OST to develop a belief-system - a rationality, a theology, a rhetoric, an ethos, a style - that will give intelligent, convincing, and powerful expression to the gospel within the emerging culture?
"The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing."To be sure, Open Source Theology, as far as I can tell, doesn't necessarily derive its name from this software. Yet everywhere I look to find definition about this theology, it does to the gospel and theology for Christians just what the software hopes to do for programmers.
Now, many of you may not be software lovers, or programmers. And most of you are happy just to be able to know how to turn on your computers and log on to your email server. Read what the Open Source software hopes to accomplish. Why read these paragraphs? Because the comparison to Open Source Theology is frightening. The Open Source Theology seems to be heading in the same direction with Scripture that Open Source software is with programming.
Now compare this to the description that Seven Magazine gives of Open Source Theology in their April '02 edition."We in the open source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world.
"Open source software is an idea whose time has finally come. For twenty years it has been building momentum in the technical cultures that built the Internet and the World Wide Web. Now it's breaking out into the commercial world, and that's changing all the rules. Are you ready? This site is still evolving as we think through the implications of open source in the commercial world. We don't claim to have all the answers yet, so mail us with your thoughts and criticisms."
"The open source theology site (www.opensourcetheology.net) is an attempt to redesign the structures of faith for a postmodern environment. I strongly believe that the crisis of postmodernism has given us the opportunity to rethink what it means to be authentically Christian in the world and to recreate a compelling public Christian discourse.I have taken the 'open source' model from computer programming and applied it (with some poetic license) to the process of creating a 'theology'. The website essentially provides an arena in which a community of interested people can collaborate in the development of an applied, contextualized theology."Sounds alot like the aims of the software, doesn't it? Listen to the rest of the description.
"The project will be collaborative and community-driven. No one will have proprietorial rights over the ideas and arguments that emerge: it will simply be the expression of a collective struggle to articulate biblical faith in the space between God and the world. [does this refer to being 'in limbo'? If so, no wonder's Open Source Theology is so hard to define! Each OST'er is a parachuter floating in the sky against gravitational forces, unable to land anywhere.] As a natural extension of this, the open source theology model may work best if it is done within a real-life community, such as a church or a mission organization.
"There will be a strong emphasis on openness and open-endedness. [Primarily because it is 'in limbo' and will be unable to land anywhere.] The thinking and discussion that give rise to the theology should be transparent [does that means it's okay to tell them they're going to die from a lack of oxygen if they stay up there in the atmosphere for too long?] and responsive to feedback from others. If an argument doesn't work or doesn't make sense, [and it can't because every argument is 'in limbo.'] then the model must be able to respond to the feedback [which is also 'in limbo.']. The emerging theology may be consolidated and summarized at certain points but it will not be nailed down [thus, limbo theology]: in many respects the integrity of the process [of floating in the atmosphere] will be more important than the end-product [finding a safe place to land].
"The theology will be functional [even though it won't land anywhere]. Just as a computer program is designed to fulfill a particular purpose, an open source theology project requires a clear and shared understanding of how the resulting theology is to be applied. [Even though no two parachuters in limbo will be able to agree on how to apply it.]."
Why my snide remarks? Sorry if I'm letting my crucified sarcasm rear its ugly head again! You see, the Emerging Church has made an exodus out of postmodernism, seeing the many problems inherent in it. And their OST has come as the result of an attempt to chart where the Emerging Church is going.
Surely you see the problem then in the definitions and explanations above? Though it has weathered the gale storm of postmodernism and has come out on the other side, albeit living in makeshift shelters, sitting around the campfires like spiritual refugees (not my words, but the words from the rest of the article above), the problem is still inherent within the refugees. Let me put it this way:
The truth of this statement can be seen in the very way in which the Emerging Church and OST hopes to handle the gospel, the Scriptures, and theology itself. They want to rework it, redefine it, reshape it, add to it, and do everything to it that Open Source software hopes to do to programming. That's where the danger to the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ comes in.
If the focus turns to utilizing what amounts to postmodernized methods of handling the Word of God (e.g. there are no absolutes), then when you attempt to interpret the Scriptures and make a conclusion on anything, there are no absolute interpretations or conclusions. Thus, you are floating around in an endless state of limbo, like a parachuter with no place to land, forever stuck in the air. And what is more, OST unwittingly deceives its thinkers into thinking that in such a state of limbo you can actually 'apply' your theology. To be sure, OST's "Rules of Engagement" clearly state that this is not what they want. They expressly desire,
"...to apply a basic missiological hermeneutic to the development of a
biblically grounded theology: How do we speak about these things to outsiders? "
But this becomes nearly impossible, as the "Rules" themselves seem to imply when they state:
"We should also expect an open-source theology to be modular. This is partly a
means of resisting the tendency to systematize doctrine..."
All of this is really dangerous for the gospel. Why? What are you going to tell the lost person who needs a Savior? If you allow for the gospel, like any other focus of theology, to be open-ended - to be modular - asking those who handle it to be open-minded, then the gospel loses its decisive, conclusive truth, and therefore has no more power save. No, OST would never say that it is ashamed of the gospel. It would agree with Paul on that. It would merely say that they are afraid (or 'ashamed' to put it biblically) of making a 'systematized' conclusion about the gospel.
My fear is that the EC and OST movements are not moving forward, but moving backward...backwards into the post-enlightenment period when the higher criticism of Scriptures began formulating in Germany and floating towards Britain and America. Scripture and theology, and the gospel especially, became merely 'talking points,' rather than truths on which to live and breathe and act.
The caveat to all of what I've said above is that I may have misunderstood the movement and its concurrent theology. That said, I did pastor five miles from one of the mainstays of the Emerging Church Movement - Mars Hill Church near Grand Rapids, MI, where Rob Bell is pastor. I watched over the course of two years as the Scriptures became all of the sudden 'not so clear' on particular issues anymore. And now it has come to be associated with a movement that seems to want to put everything on the table for discussion and rehashing again. That's terribly disturbing.
What ever happened to the creeds? Those documents that were forged out of years of rehashing and discussion...those documents that were formulated in the fires of heresy...those documents on which the gospel of Jesus Christ stands. Why the 'felt need' to go back and put all that on the table again for another round of endless discussions? Here's a thought: what if we just accepted them (since without them there is no gospel of Jesus Christ), and believed them, and studied by them, and preached according to them, and applied all of it to advance the kingdom of God?
If I'm off base here, get with me and straighten me out. I'm 'open minded' enough to see where I'm wrong...at least I believe I am!
For more critique of Open Source Theology and its comparison to Open Source software programming, see Warren Kelly's blog.
Posts
18 comments:
Thanks for all of this information...I had never heard of Open Source Theology before but will check out their website.
Hi, Rob, I’m responsible for the open source theology website. I noticed a link to your blog in the logs. I hope you don’t mind me responding to some of the points in your challenging critique. Whether this is a matter of ‘straightening you out’ I don’t know, but I hope it at least contributes to a useful interaction.
1. I don’t follow your ‘in limbo’ argument. It starts from a remark about struggling to ‘articulate biblical faith in the space between God and the world’. This has to do with the framework within which we engage with the world, do mission, etc. The argument is that too much theologizing has been a response to internal issues, too little has been done in response to the actual challenges that believers face as people who, like it or not, are immersed in a thoroughly non-Christian and anti-theistic culture. It was not a vertical metaphor – your parachutist suspended been earth and heaven. It was a horizontal metaphor, a recognition of the gulf that exists between the committed, God-centred community and the rest of the world and our manifest failure to communicate across that gulf.
2. Why the sarcasm? It is ugly, as you admit, and it is exactly the sort of thing that has driven huge numbers of people away from contemporary evangelicalism. The emerging church is motivated in all sorts of different ways, not all of them laudable. But most people associated with it would claim that they have a deep desire to be better followers of Christ. Sarcasm won’t win them back: it will only reinforce them in their search for the liberating, life-giving grace of God outside the walls of the evangelical movement.
3. I disagree that the emerging church is committed to a relativistic postmodern hermeneutic. The issue is not whether there are absolutes or not, but whether we are allowed to bring into question culturally and historically determined presuppositions about what scripture is actually saying, how themes are to be prioritized, and so on. Emerging theology is not stuck in an ‘endless state of limbo’: it is going through a process of re-examining the grounds of faith in order to arrive at something that (we believe) will be more not less compelling than what we had before. But the only way to do this is to ask questions. Of course, that only makes sense if you see the need. A lot of people have simply become so uncomfortable with the mind-set of contemporary evangelicalism that they have had no choice but to pursue this course and trust that it will lead them to solid ground.
4. I do agree that this is disturbing. We are all disturbed one way or another. I’m sure you won’t like the suggestion that the emerging church has a prophetic edge to it, but surely we must allow that the church, even the evangelical church, needs to be disturbed out of its complacency by the voice of God at times?
5. You may well be right in your fears about the gospel – for the time being at least. If the emerging church is seriously asking itself, ‘What exactly is this “gospel” that we are proclaiming to the world?’, the likelihood is that there will be some loss of clarity and conviction. My own view is that this uncertainty has to be gone through. The hope is that we are working towards a renewal of clarity and conviction. The emerging church would argue that modern evangelicalism has been so focussed on a narrow, highly individualized, ‘reformed’ gospel that it has neglected the larger epistemological, historical and narrative context to which that gospel belongs.
6. As for the creeds, why should we suppose that the church fathers, who had their own presuppositions and prejudices, were in a position to provide a definitive summary of the faith for all time? The same applies to the reformers. Creeds are always shaped in response to particular questions, particular debates, in particular intellectual environments, and they are inevitably limited and distorted by these factors. We have our own debates, to which we must be allowed to respond intelligently and faithfully. Having said that, I detect rather a high regard for the creeds of the ancients in the emerging church.
Hi Rob,
Sounds like your existing power structure is being threatened. I mean your rant sounds a bit like the Catholic Church's response to Martin Luther.
Let's take a calmer look at all of this.
First off: I've been involved in Open Source Software development and the Open Source programming community for several years now (one of those hippie guys who runs Linux :).
Lots of people misunderstand what we're about calling us communists, etc, so I'm used to that sort of thing (just as now lots of folks are referring to the 'emergent' church as being relativistic and liberal). I just heard about this Open Source Theology site and thought I'd check it out and saw the link to your article. At this point I'm not sure I consider myself an 'Emergent Christian' (whatever that might mean) but I am in agreement with a lot of the movement. I attend a church that is considered to be an 'Emergent' Church by others in our community in fact some would consider us the prototypical 'Emergent Church', however we don't put that label on ourselves (we have the idea that that would just be cheesy marketeering).
Just as Open Source software is scary to Microsoft (the establishment) so Open Source Theology could certainly be scary to those in control in the Church. But I tend to think of the Emergent Church as a reaction to the current state of American Evangelicalism. I tend to think of 'Emergent' as 'Post-Evangelical'. What's wrong with the American Evangelical Church? Where should I start? It's married itself to the Right-Wing of the Republican party for starters. Today in many Churches being a Christian is synonymous with being a Republican. Does that mean I think we should all join the Democratic party - no way! What it means is that we need to not join either team - both are worthy of the Church's rebuke. The conservative party ignores the plight of the poor and starts needless wars, but the church is looking the other way because we need to stay with our team.
OK, so why do I bring up politics? - because some have labeled the Emergent Church 'liberal' because our politics may not be quite as conservative as theirs. We tend to care about God's Creation, for example. We tend to be concerned about social justice. But that doesn't make us theologically liberal. In fact (as Don Miller points out in "Searching for God knows what?" - great book , BTW) I think it's the vast majority of the American Evangelical Church that is theologically liberal because they're ignoring many different biblical injunctions about being peacemakers, to take care of the poor and creation while being overly concerned about gay rights and abortion (things we should be concerned about, sure, but much of the Church now sees these as the main things). And most of all we need to be concerned about the Gospel of Jesus.
As far as your comments on postmodernism go: I don't think most 'emergents' have married themselves to postmodernism. However, we recognize that postmodernism is the zietgeist; it is the cultural water we swim in, especially if you're in one of the larger cities especially on the West Coast. So we need to be able to build a communication bridge to the postmoderns. Does postmodernism have problems? - sure, the radical relativism is problematic. But the postmodern age offers great opportunities to the Church as well: people are more open to mystery and belief for example. I think much of the Evangelical church has become too comfortable with modernism, to be honest, and postmodernism just looks scary to them. The can't see the trouble that embracing modernism got them into - like reducing the mystery of the gospel to 4 little laws. Yes those 4 laws express truth, but they do not tell the whole story. It's the story that postmoderns want. The good news: the bible is full of stories. Again, Don Miller's book is great on this topic - I just got through reading it. He's a prophet (not in the crazy Charismatic sense, but in the Old Testament sense of calling the Church to rethink what it's doing and how).
I've rambled on too long... let me just close by saying that the 'emergent' emphasis on narrative (vs. propositions as used by the Modern Church) has opened my eyes to see that the Gospel is much more beautiful and mysterious than I could have ever imagined in the modern context. I'm 42 and I grew up in the Church - I really needed to see what the 'emergents' have shown me. Again, I hesitate to use that label 'emergent', but that's probably the category you would put them in and I'm just postmodern enough to know that communication is a tricky business.
God is bigger than our questions. He can handle them. The existing church power structures might not be able to handle them, no matter the questions need to be asked. Martin Luther asked a simple question: If the Bible says we're saved by grace why are we trying to work ourselves into heaven? The emergents are asking a very similar question again and it just could shake up the Church power structure like it did back in Luther's day. And that could be the very thing that needs to happen now.
phil
Phil,
I wasn't aware of the accusations of EC as being associated with liberalism. To me the EC's political tendencies are neither here nor there. But what is crucial is whether the tendencies are biblical or not. And the things you mentioned, like the social justice issues, are biblical....so long as they are motivated by and methologically driven by the gospel of Christ.
The whole power-structure challenge you perceive, as it relates to Luther and his time is interesting and worthy of remark. Was Luther really recognizing the zeigeist of his time? Did the reformation he causes come about by means of him recognizing a cultural change that the church needed to address?
I think that, unfortunately, is a bad reading of history. History shows that the reformation happened not because Luther's perception of cultural change challenged the existing authority and structure of the RCC. No, it happened because he challenged the RCC's use of the Word of God. They had misinterpreted and misused the Scriptures for so long that it needed challenging. That's why the reformation happened.
Thus, the comparison of the two is really irrelevant, which makes the overall argument regarding the challenge or perceived threat to the current church structure also irrelevant.
Thanks for your comment and for taking the time to interact with me here, Phil.
Rob,
No disagreement with what you're saying about Luther. He was not reacting to something going on in the culture, he was reacting to problems in the Church of his time.
I tend to think its the same with the Emergents (many of them anyway; it's too early to identify a monolithic group yet) - they are reacting to problems they see in the Church (I want to say 'American' Church here, but perhaps I should say 'Western' Church since there are Emergents in Europe as well). To be honest, it can be difficult to tell an Evangelical from a Mormon. (Note: I use the term 'Evangelical' here to be synonymous with 'orthodox'. This seems to be the current meaning and usage of that word). It seems to many that Evangelicalism has devolved into a works-based system based on external morality. And then there is the cult of personality that seems pervasive, as well as the Church's absorbtion of corporate (as in corporate capitalism) culture with all of it's marketing surveys, and attempts at maximizing the market appeal (very modern). It seems to me that these are some of the things that the Emergents are reacting to (as well as the issues I listed in my previous post).
It just so happens that a lot of folks outside of the Christian subculture are getting burned out on these same things. They don't see true community when they see modern Evangelical Churches -they see the very same corporate capitalism that they're tired of because it is so pervasive, enslaving and manipulative. So when they see the Chruch, they see another institution that is trying to manipulate. This is not something they feel inclined to identify themselves with.
Yes, in some sense the questions the emergents are asking are an outgrowth of the larger cultural context, but on the otherhand we're wondering why the Church has so readily absorbed this modern corporate capitalism. We're asking some basic questions about Church: What is it supposed to be? Does the current state of the Western Evangelical Church reflect what the Church is/was supposed to be? Why has the modern Church become so disconnected from the historical Church? Why is there a lot of talk about salvation by grace while the focus is often on Law (you'll be accepted if you behave and vote certain ways)?
Phil
Rob, here's the biggest "flaw" I see in your aguments - at least from my perspective.
When we look at the Gospel, what do we find? We find a series of books by different authors, each of which covers the same ground in a different way. The Bible itself is anything but a monolithic structure. It's not even always internally consistent (at least on certain points).
Even just reading the Synoptics and no other books in the Bible is an intentional challenge, an invitation for believers to compare and contrast, and use their individual skills of discernment to really get at the heart of God's Word.
Based on what you've written above, it seems that you're a bit fearful not of Open Source Theology as a movement, but of trusting the powers of discernment of the individual, of the ordinary person.
If this is indeed the case, why do you think it's such a problem? Does it relate to people not being as well trained to make these kinds of decisions as, say, a pastor like yourself? How in fact did you yourself get trained in this manner? I suspect it was by other people - people who trusted in your individual commitment, maturity and discernment.
If an individual can be spiritually mature enough to respond to the Word of God and take Jesus into their heart, what prohibits them from being mature enough to study and make other spiritual decisions on their own?
If it's only a lack of training, then let's train them. But this means that we're going to have to be open and trusting and allow people to make decisions on their own, and possibly even some mistakes. for some people, its all a necessary part of the learning process.
"If you allow for the gospel, like any other focus of theology, to be open-ended - to be modular - asking those who handle it to be open-minded, then the gospel loses its decisive, conclusive truth, and therefore has no more power save."
In my understanding of the Gospels this was exactly Jesus's message - that we should trust our direct experience with Christ-consciousness and not the temptingly "conclusive" rules of the Pharisees. Salvation consists in realizing that the rules of man (our attempts to systematize everything, including God) are not absolutes.
"It would merely say that they are afraid (or 'ashamed' to put it biblically) of making a 'systematized' conclusion about the gospel."
Exactly, any systematized conclusion about the Gospel is inherently suspect because "systems" thinking is only a tool men use to apprehend and control reality - it is not the ultimate reality itself. Therefore, our experience of god is necessarily unsystematic - God's will is subjectively discerned through gnosis - anyone claiming otherwise is in effect putting themselves in the position of god - the great sin of which the Pharisees were guilty.
Dear Rob,
I appreciate your concerns about the post-modern/emergent movement and its embodiment in Open Source Theology. I don't want to see the eternal truths of God which can be found in scripture lost or neglected any more than you do. Once we begin focusing on ourselves more than God, we fall prey to humanist and egocentric ideals -- even if that refocusing was birthed from good intentions (e.g. examining cultural assumptions to interpret scripture).
However, I tend to agree with other commenters here that you have missed the point. Perhaps I should explain by giving a little background info:
I am 29 and was raised a pastor's kid. My family definitely falls into the fundamentalist category; I learned the basic expected behaviors of a "good Christian" such as no drinking, smoking, or R-rated movies. All my friends (the few I had) attended the same church as me; I didn't associate much with unbelievers. My family was loving and supportive at times, highly critical at others.
When my early twenties hit, I experienced a radical upheaval of my assumptions. I discovered that there were actually some decent people that didn't share my beliefs, that taking a sip of alcohol once in a while wouldn't lead to instant death by lightning-bolt, and that, in many ways, the world was not such a place to fear and spite after all.
These realizations led me further to question my entire belief system. If my parents were mistaken about such matters, how could I trust anything they told me regarding greater issues? Has all my time spent sitting in pews been beneficial, or wasteful? Is there even a God? If so, what is he/she/it like? And what about this Jesus character?
These were questions from one who had always given correct answers in Sunday School. My entire framework of otherworldly knowledge had been flattened in a few short years. I no longer took anything for granted; everything was up for inspection and introspection. And this time, I would formulate my own beliefs rather than just assume those of my parents and their friends.
Now, I am a firm believer in Jesus. I love him and worship him as my savior, Lord, and friend. I love reading the Bible and letting the Holy Spirit breathe life and truth to me through it. I love getting together with other followers (and non-followers) of Christ to examine the mysteries of life and how we should then live. These are all matters closest to my heart.
Would I have reached this point in faith without the honest deconstruction and rebuilding experience of my early twenties? I doubt it. I would probably either continue to live a stagnant, church-going existence or become gradually hardened to a God who seemed increasingly irrelevant.
My experience, which is similar to many others of my generation, is a microcosmic example of the postmodern/emergent community. We have grown up with a detailed portrait already painted for us of God, his church, and the world. But we are not satisfied with someone else's artistry; we wish to create our own portrait. So we begin anew with a blank canvas, cautiously applying strokes of paint (belief) here and there until we begin to formulate something that represents how we have come to see life. We also ask others to join with us in our repainting efforts, as we share our different talents and approaches to the Artistry of Faith.
This is, I believe, the approach of Open Source Theology and other such communities (whether tangible or virtual). We are in this struggle of redefining our beliefs together, and we are not content to "paint by numbers". We also will not kid ourselves to think that our painting will be good enough for the next generation -- they will also need to create their own from scratch. All we desire is honesty and community in our search for Truth.
I hope this helps you to better understand the mission of the postmodern/emergent community. I also ask that, as a fellow follower of Jesus (which I have no doubt that you are), you decide to struggle with us rather than against us in seeking God's kingdom.
Sincerely Yours in Christ,
Paul
Rob,
As a "reformed, charismatic, evangelical" pastor I can only assume that you agree with the following doctrines:
Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est
"The reformed church must always be reforming."
The ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit in revealing truth to believers
The priesthood of all believers.
I would submit that these doctrines compel you to affirm the activities of OST. I believe that OST is the fullest expression of the ideals of the protestant reformation, and the only reason protestants would not accept it as such is if we have forgotten our mission -- like walking away from a mirror and forgetting what we look like.
Hey, look, it's July 4! Fitting.
Phil wrote:
Where should I start? It's married itself to the Right-Wing of the Republican party for starters. Today in many Churches being a Christian is synonymous with being a Republican. Does that mean I think we should all join the Democratic party - no way! What it means is that we need to not join either team - both are worthy of the Church's rebuke. The conservative party ignores the plight of the poor and starts needless wars, but the church is looking the other way because we need to stay with our team.
OK, so why do I bring up politics? - because some have labeled the Emergent Church 'liberal' because our politics may not be quite as conservative as theirs. We tend to care about God's Creation, for example. We tend to be concerned about social justice. But that doesn't make us theologically liberal.
This is precisely the same ... I hear from every EC/pomo type, including the lead ECer, Brian McLaren himself (who I heard speak in person this past weekend, and he said basically the same thing). The fact that you start your case with politics, and the phrasing you use displays an inherent liberal bent ("conservative party ignores the plight of the poor and starts needless wars", and later you mention "modern corporate capitalism") and your claim that "we need to not join either team" simply doesn't hold water. In one breath I hear ECers claim that they don't want to be Democrat or Republican, but they clearly espouse liberal political thought. Frankly, I believe that the EC thing is a smokescreen to make social liberals feel more comfortable without having to join a mainline liberal church (e.g. UCC, UMC, UU, etc.).
The reason the Evangelical community is "married...to the Republican party" is because the Republicans (far more than the Democrats) represent the interests and beliefs of the Evangelical community. They support the ideals that conservative Christians believe in. If the Democrats did, we'd support them as well. Again, I see the objection to an affiliation with the Republican party as a direct correlation between EC and liberal politics.
As far as liberal theology goes, I'd like to see evidence that EC believes in ANY theology, liberal or conservative. But the reluctance to voice a belief leads me to the conclusion that all they wish to do is wring their hands and talk about how "we can't know the truth, so we just need to discuss it". So when will you/they come to a conclusion? Tell me what you ("you" being a generic "you") believe about theological concepts...I KNOW you have an opinion! If you can't tell me what you believe personally, then we can't have a dialog, which I keep hearing is what you want.
There is no "fear" of the EC community on behalf of the rest of the Evangelical community. There is a frustration at (at least the appearance of) the reluctance of ECers to state what they believe. This is why there's a natural tendancy to associate the EC types with postmodern "there is no absolute truth" thought. All I see is a constant drone of what I refer to as "linguistic gymnastics" - parsing words and arguing over semantics rather than the core issues of doctrine.
Sorry about the harsh tone, but when you start your case with politics, you immediately throw down the gauntlet. To state that "We tend to care about God's Creation, for example. We tend to be concerned about social justice." is an implicit accusation that "traditional" Evangelicals and conservatives are unconcerned about these things. And that is pure, unadulterated (nonsense).
Bill said:
The fact that you start your case with politics, and the phrasing you use displays an inherent liberal bent ... and your claim that "we need to not join either team" simply doesn't hold water. In one breath I hear ECers claim that they don't want to be Democrat or Republican, but they clearly espouse liberal political thought.
Bill:
I apologize for bringing up politics first. Politics is basically just another team sport. The word 'team' carries with it a connotation of competition. Competition has no place in the Church. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and it's agenda and His agenda should be offensive to both the Left and the Right.
As for my own political views, well let's just say that at one time I was a conservative Rush-listening Republican. I even walked my precinct for a slate of very conservative "Christian" candidates several years back. Would I do that now - definitely not. A lot of those conservative "Christian" candidates got divorces and compromised in different ways. How were these 'good' christian candidates any better than those 'bad' agnostic Democrats that they replaced? No better at all it turns out. Power corrupted even the nice Christian candidates. I became disillusioned with all of this politics - but that was a very good thing indeed. It's a good thing to come to distrust human power. I'm less likely to confuse God's kingdom with the earthly kingdom of politics these days, though it can still be very tricky.
The reason the Evangelical community is "married...to the Republican party" is because the Republicans (far more than the Democrats) represent the interests and beliefs of the Evangelical community.
My point is that if the Church has become too familiar with either side it indicates a problem: the church is not being the Church My conclusion is that the American Church is now much too cozy with the Republican party. Is that a political conclusion (as you assert) or a matter of spiritual conviction (as I would maintain)? Just as Jesus was an irritant to the religious leaders of his day, so the Church should be an irritant in a materialistic society such as our own. We should oppose the raping of the environment because it is based on greed (the love of money is the root of all evil) not because of some political ideology. "All creation is groaning under the weight of man's sin" and these days it must be groaning louder than ever. We should be concerned about the poor not because we are 'liberal' and adhere to a particular political ideology, but because we've read Amos, Jesus, Moses and Paul. And, we should also oppose the de-valuing of human life that is so prevalent in a society such as ours: abortion, capital punishment, wars to obtain property or resources, lack of access to medical care.
...but they clearly espouse liberal political thought....
I fear that if Jesus came and mingled among many of our Evangelical communities that he would be labeled a 'liberal'. Think about it: a guy shows up showing concern for the marginalized of society, talks about caring for the poor, is very critical of religious leaders and the rich, has no place to lay his head... would this guy be accepted in many conservative Evangelical Churches?
But the reluctance to voice a belief leads me to the conclusion that all they wish to do is wring their hands and talk about how "we can't know the truth, so we just need to discuss it".
I never personally said that and I haven't heard even the so-called leaders of the emerging Church movement say that (McLaren et. al). This I think is a characature of what the emerging church believes. If anything we believe that the Truth is very important and knowable. However, Truth is ultimately embodied as a person and that person is Jesus the Messiah.
All I see is a constant drone of what I refer to as "linguistic gymnastics"
This, I take it, is referring to the postmodern aspect. Yes, there can be a radical relativism in some Postmodern thought - the Church would do well to understand and engage this relativism, however, instead of just fearing it. What has led some to adopt relativism? Can we open a dialog instead of criticising?
One thing that the Postmoderns teach us is that language can be a tricky communication medium. Take the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' as discussed in earlier paragraphs. I have a suspicion that when I read those words I attach different internal meanings to them than when you read those words. It's just a hunch because I can't get inside your brain and you can't get inside of mine. Is that relativism? I don't think so. It's just an understanding that we all have different ways of inerpreting and parsing language. This seems very realistic. Does this mean that we can never communicate? No, I don't believe that. It means that we need to be very careful when we try to communicate. It means that we might often need to define terms and perhaps use tools like word pictures, stories and maybe even the visual arts. It means that we need to really try hard to be quick to listen and slow to speak.
As someone said in an earlier post: Please struggle with us rather than against us as we seek to follow Christ and encourage others to do so. To struggle with is kind of like the Jewish idea of midrash where participants passionately discuss issues in the belief that the whole community will arrive closer to the Truth because they've had the discussion. Please listen to us and try to figure out what we're really saying. Yes, it's difficult. words often fail us, but the incarnate Word never fails us.
phil
In response to Paul,
Hey bro, I so appreciate you posting to my blog here. It means a lot to me that you think enough of the issues at hand to comment and feedback on a microcosmic blog in the world wide web!
That said, there are a few things you mentioned in your comments that I'd like to address, if I may.
First, you stated, "These realizations led me further to question my entire belief system. If my parents were mistaken about such matters, how could I trust anything they told me regarding greater issues? Has all my time spent sitting in pews been beneficial, or wasteful? Is there even a God? If so, what is he/she/it like? And what about this Jesus character?"
I think you are right that this sort of testimony you give is patternistic for so many in the EC movement. But the reason I view the EC movement as another pendulum swing in the opposite direction of failed fundamentalism is because it operates on an either/or mentality, rather than a both/and. Let me explain.
The fact that you encountered other believers who sipped alcohol and perhaps smoked or listened to Christian rock, or perhaps had navel or nipple rings, long hair, etc. ad nauseum doesn't necessarily have to lead to the questioning of the rest of your beliefs. And therein lies the rub. Just because they drew the lines in the wrong places, doesn't mean they are unbelievers, or that they don't have the right belief system, theology, or whatever. It just means that they, like yourself, were doing the best they could in trying to please God, and they got much of it wrong. But what they got wrong doesn't discredit everything else they did right.
That's been the overall attitude I've sensed from EC'ers. They feel that because their parents (and my father was a pastor too, who tended toward fundamentalism in many respects) got some things wrong, that everything their parents taught them needs to be called into question and 'deconstructed,' and found out for ourselves.
You sort of indicated this tendency yourself when you believe, "I no longer took anything for granted; everything was up for inspection and introspection. And this time, I would formulate my own beliefs rather than just assume those of my parents and their friends."
You also believe, "Would I have reached this point in faith without the honest deconstruction and rebuilding experience of my early twenties? I doubt it."
You further believe, "We have grown up with a detailed portrait already painted for us of God, his church, and the world. But we are not satisfied with someone else's artistry; we wish to create our own portrait. So we begin anew with a blank canvas, cautiously applying strokes of paint (belief) here and there until we begin to formulate something that represents how we have come to see life. We also ask others to join with us in our repainting efforts, as we share our different talents and approaches to the Artistry of Faith."
These kinds of statements indicate that like your parents, you too are drawing the line in the wrong place. It is not either my parents were right about everything, or they are wrong about everything. That's the sort of attitude with which you come across, as well as so many other EC'ers. I'm not sure if you notice that or not, but that is the way it strikes me.
I think the balance is more a both/and approach. My parents got many things wrong and they got many things right. And I would be foolish and arrogant to toss out the baby with the bath water, just because the bathwater was lukewarm or cold. No, the baby is worth saving.
The Scriptures are filled with the obligations of parents to pass on to their children the things we ought to believe. Gees, I mean if ever there was one thing that parents failed in throughout the OT it was this one thing - failing to pass along to their children the belief system taught by God Himself in Torah. The Torah leaves no room for a concept of deconstruction or introspection. It merely says to each Israelite, 'look to the Law and do what is written in it.' It also teaches, 'definitely look at the failures of your parents, and study the consequences of their failures.' But it does not say or tend towards an idea of, 'hey, if your parents get any of this wrong, chuck it all and start over again and come up with what you need to believe on your own.'
That said, I'm all for every Christian coming to know Jesus Christ in an intimate, personal way. That's what Jesus wants from us...not some cold, dead, stale, stagnant, mental assent to some list of orthodox doctrines. No, what gives those doctrines meaning is the person who is reflected in them, the person who loved us with His death, and loves us now with His life.
Again, I think a revisitation of Hebrews 13:7 is in order for the EC and OST. There is a dangerous, pendulum-like, tendency to reject and cast off and deconstruct what our fathers believed, when the Bible commands us here to find that which is worthy of imitation and follow it.
Thanks again for the comments.
Phil,
I'd also like to respond to something you said. I'm not sure if you know how fitting the critique is in using the very illustration you used, but consider this. You believe,
"As someone said in an earlier post: Please struggle with us rather than against us as we seek to follow Christ and encourage others to do so. To struggle with is kind of like the Jewish idea of midrash where participants passionately discuss issues in the belief that the whole community will arrive closer to the Truth because they've had the discussion."
The problem, however, is that the midrash is just the kind of thing Jesus was battling with the Pharisees of His day. The midrash is for the Jew just what OST is for the evangelical. It provides a place where comment upon comment upon comment can be left on the meaning of God's Word. And comments upon comments galore can be made about the meaning of someone's meaning of God's Word. And the cycle continues to this day, never ending, always providing intellectual and doctrinal fodder for argumentation and debate. But have the orthodox Jews to this day seen their OT God-given mission to be a light to the world? No. Instead, they have gathered around their midrash and debated meanings and interpretations.
And that's precisely where the EC will find itself with OST if it believes that route to be the best. It will end up becoming a black hole in which no one can escape to get the work of missions and evangelism done. So if this is what the EC is really about - missiology and evangelism - it won't see it come to pass with a midrashic approach to theology and interpretation. It will not be able to help itself out of this quicksand.
Thanks again for taking the time Phil AND Bill, both of you, to leave comments on the blog. If it is noteworthy to read, it is noteworthy to debate, and I appreciate the interaction with you men.
The problem, however, is that the midrash is just the kind of thing Jesus was battling with the Pharisees of His day. ...And that's precisely where the EC will find itself with OST if it believes that route to be the best. It will end up becoming a black hole in which no one can escape to get the work of missions and evangelism done.
I'm a bit confused. Let me explain: There is a website about Open Theology. You have a blog in which you decided to critique the Open Theology website. Various people from various positions have now posted responses to your critique and you have critiqued those as well. Isn't this a very midrash-ic process?
Perhaps I pour different meaning into the word midrash than you do? It's quite probable. I view it as a process of discussion where each side respects the ideas of the other. They don't have to agree and often they won't. The responsibility of each person is to listen carefully to what the other people are saying. There will often be vigorous debate, but in the end everyone leaves the table (and often it is around a table with food) with respect for the other person(s). You mention evangelism; some people are actually using this kind of approach in evangelism. It can work if all parties coming to the table feel that they have been heard. We must hear people's stories and beliefs so that they will then listen to ours (but I digress).
What are the alternatives to midrash? Sola Pastora would be one. In that case an authority figure (pastor, priest, etc.) tells his followers what they must believe. Seems very Catholic, no? I'm sure you'll say that Sola Scriptura is another approach. But often it can become a cover for Sola Pastora.
Phil
Phil,
Thanks again for the interaction. I think we do mean different things by midrash, to be sure. And to be certain, the real documents I believe we are talking about, at least in adjectival/figurative terms, is the Talmud, not the midrash. I was initially confusing the two, thus the Talmud represents the documents where interpretation upon interpretation abounds, essentially covering over the real and initial heart and soul of the meaning of a text.
I was not aware that you were using the Midrash (Talmud) in figurative terms. I'm sure you can see the confusion that occurred in my mind since I only assumed you were using the Midrash (Talmud) as an example of what the OST is doing. Discussing theology across a table is not what the Midrash or Talmud are about. There really isn't a lot of discussion going on there between parties, since modern day interpreters are busy interpreting the previous generation of interpreters who themselves have interpreted the generation of interpreters which preceded them, and so on, and so forth. That's what's going on in the Talmudic documents. So if it's discussion we must do, then perhaps neither of those sets of documents are a good illustration.
I'm all for discussing views on theology. I told our flock that yesterday at lunch as we sat around the table of food talking about the effect of postmodernism on Christendom, and vice-versa. It was good discussion. I concluded with two thoughts.
First, there is such a thing as truth, and it must be able to be detected, identified, and understood. Christians (and the church, historically speaking) have done all three because they believe that the Bible is God's divine revelation. In that revelation is perspicual truth, or truth that is clearly and unmistakably understood. And the beauty of regeneration and conversion is that the Spirit of God, the Anointing as referred to in 1 John 2:20 and 27, has convinced each Christian of the nature and truth of that revelation. In New Covenant language, God has written His word in their hearts.
Second, when it comes to communicating this to the rest of the world who has yet to be convinced of that truth, there are important things to remember, not the least of which is humility. A humble-mindset, which grows from the knowledge that it took a special revelation of God to our hearts for us to even see and embrace the truth, demands our association with unbelievers in a humble manner. This means sitting down and working through their concerns, issues, questions, etc. - sort of clearing the obstacles so they can better see what we see. Humility also means humbly offering what we believe to the scrutiny of others, and not being afraid of what they will do with it. After all, if it is the truth, it will stand up in the end. And things like this involve discussion, debate, argumentation, etc. The hope is that through all of this the unbeliever may be won to the kingdom of God.
However, and this is a BIG however, each one must walk that razor's edge of realizing that even in our best attempts at discussing, convincing, debating, arguing, etc. the Spirit of God is that One who must enter into our discussions and ultimately convince that person of the truth, just as He did us when we first believed.
My concern with OST is that it seems to leave no place for this other side of the razor's edge. Christians must not, indeed CANNOT, rely on dogmatism to get their point across to the lost. Dogmatism is an emotional response to a truth they hold which they often are not able to express with logic and thoughtfulness. And to be sure, in the case of many Christians, it is truth shielded by layers and layers of emotion interwoven with tradition. That will never win the lost, because when they ask questions or bump into that shield, they are shocked, jolted and thrown back a hundred yards.
No, if Christians believe with certainty that what they believe is true, then they will have no fear of setting it on the table for discussion and observation and consideration, even if the unbeliever asks questions the Christians can't answer. But what OST must come to reckon with, I believe, is that ultimately it is the Spirit of God who must accompany any and all discussion with the lost, with an unbelieving postmodern culture, if they are to embrace Christ and enter the kingdom of God.
When this is not taken into consideration, the pneumatological influences on anthropological communication, humans grow more prideful than they already are, actually coming to believe that their discussion is making a bigger difference than it really is. It is a vital means to win the lost, to be sure. But it is a means, and just that...nothing else. It is a tool that the Holy Spirit uses, when He wills to use it, in the way He wills to use it, to convince the unbeliever of the truth of His revelation about Jesus Christ. I admire OST for its attempts to discuss, and more particularly, for its attempts to discuss how we might win others to the kingdom of God with a more biblical gospel. But its failure to identify the Spirit's role in this process will ultimately exalt the mind of man more than it will the Son of God, I fear.
I recently read a statement in an interview Brian McLaren did with PBS, as part of their two part TV series on the Emerging Church. This little clip speaks to the very thing I initially spoke about in this post, namely, the fear that open source theology (not specifically the website, of course, but generally speaking) and its similar veins of thought in the ECM will lead to endless discussions and never actually land anywhere. Here's a great word from McLaren himself on this point. To be contextual about this comment, McLaren is discussing the contribution that blogging makes to the ECM world. But the comment he makes is applicable to my point as well, I think.
Interviewer: Can it [blogging] also provide an endless conversation that's just exhausting and never goes anywhere?
McLaren: Well, this is one of the great dangers, and something I hope that bloggers themselves will pay attention to: that if you spend day after day, week after week blogging about what we ought to do for the poor and you never actually get out and do anything, you can have entered into a new kind of -- what some people call the "paralysis of analysis." Eventually probably what everybody ought to do, whether it's a writer like me, we ought to say, "Let's put the books down, and let's actually go do something for somebody and not just talk about it."
Additional Comments?
Great information on your site folks. I also am working on a natural calm magnesium supplement site. I'll bookmark yours if you bookmark mine. You can find it at natural calm magnesium supplement.
Again, nice site folks...I'll be baak...:)
"The problem, however, is that the midrash is just the kind of thing Jesus was battling with the Pharisees of His day." ???
That's narrowing things down just a bit, don't you think? I don't think he was speaking so much against the midrashim as he was against applying the midrashim with similar authority as Torah, as though the midrashim were mediating Torah to (what was then) the modern world, so different from the days of the patriarchs and strange compared to them.
And that sounds familiar -- i.e. Jesus' scathing remarks (and his teaching, "as one with authority" would contrast most) towards what our Roman brothers and sisters call "Sacred Tradition", but just as surely, it would be leveled against the Denominational Distinctives of the last generation, or Sign Gifts as marks of God's approval (more recently), or "in" vs. "out" of the Renewal (still more recently) and in this age part of or shunning the Emergent Church.
Before anyone says about any one group who lays a (reasonable) claim to being part of the Body of Messiah that they are outside the fold, they should consider the following (speaking as a Canadian, since that's where I'm from):
We really want to reach all of our neighbours, right?
Only about 1/10 of the population are actively involved in the existing churches, no matter how hot/cold/lukewarm the local bodies in their area are, right?
Churches are between 1/3 full through packed out, right?
Do we have room for 10 times the number of people inside the conventional churches as are currently involved? NOT ON YOUR LIFE!!
So... although their methods and thought forms (which have always been _somewhat_ negotiable through history -- unless you agree with the way Rome dealt with the Albigenses or the Anabaptists, for instance) may be a little strange or uncomfortable, investigate them as possible brothers and if at all possible, rightly dividing between those things that are absolutes and those that are not, hold out the right hand of fellowship, pray for their growth in maturity and THANK GOD that in _this_ day he is providing a new way potentially to reach more of your neighbours than the existing structures possibly could.
Will it be messy? You bet. Will mistakes be made? Point to one move of God in the last 20 centuries (consisting, as God insists on acting, of fallen but redeemed, immature but growing, corrupt but being-renewed humans) that hasn't had those problems.
And keep on walking in two worlds, as though the Resurrection really mattered to us the way it's always mattered since the first day of THAT week...
And as to politics, American Evangelicalism is a global anomaly in the depth to which it is married to neo-Conservatism: And _that_ situation reminds me of the unholy church-state marriage that we only began to escape from after Hus and Wycliffe were burned at the stake for translating the Bible into local vernaculars. Is that deception (to deceive even the Elect, if that were possible) coming round again? Even if it's only happening in America (still the richest most powerful nation on earth), God save us all! (and I'm _so_ glad He has done/is doing/will do so)
And, Rob, your final quote of Brian McLaren encapsulates a basic problem that the church has been facing since it penetrated society enough to engage a significant number of its "haves" (vs. the "have-nots" who seem always to respond first). We the "haves" are so good at talking (myself included) that we all too often forget to "do" and "be" what we're called to become and to grow into doing.
cheers...ank
Post a Comment