What are you afraid of?

I’m not asking a rhetorical question; please take a moment and consider your heart.  What, deep down, are you afraid of?

I asked myself this question and made a list of the things that , right now, are causing me fear.  In something like three minutes my list totaled up to 14 different things, fifteen if you count the final one (“the fact that I can write down so many fears so quickly”).

Several years ago, one of our pastors preached a sermon about “The Fear of Man”.  It was a moving message, and it pierced me to the heart to realize that I give a lot of lip service to trusting God when the reality is that I usually fear man more than I trust God.

Fear of man leads to passivity.  When God directs us to do something, we stand back and quiver on the sidelines, hoping God will call someone else into the game.  Our disobedience may originate from a prideful root; perhaps we don’t want to be seen failing, or maybe it is because we think others will think we are foolish for following God.  Regardless, we fail to act, and we are unable to learn whatever lesson God wanted to teach us through the experience.

Fear of man leads to self exaltation.  That sounds contradictory, but consider the difference between fearing God and fearing man.  A person that fears God knows that God sees past our works and words; God knows the inclinations of our hearts.  We fear God because we know that He has every right to damn us to hell for eternity.

On the other hand, a man-fearer knows that others cannot peer into his heart.  Consequently, he projects an image of himself to the world that is nearly impossible to assail.  This image, being merely an image and not reality, is an extended expression of dishonesty.  A very nice kind of dishonesty, but dishonest just the same.

Consider for a moment the extreme situation of a high-ranking general in the military.  If the president were to ask for his opinion and the general was more interested in receiving the praise of man, he might be tempted to say to the president only what he believes the president wants to hear.  The president might praise him, but would the president be well-served?

In Proverbs 11:14 we read, “Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety.”  It seems to me that this rings true because several advisors are not as apt to simply agree with each other.  Perhaps there is at least one who speaks the truth among the many.  Later we read in chapter 24 that, “…in abundance of counselors there is victory.”

Paul certainly was not a manpleaser, and he lays it right out there for us to see:  “If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (Gal 1:10b)

May we all seek to please our Lord, Master, and Savior, and by comparison give no heed to man.

However you read the narrative of Adam and Eve, one thing is certain: sin entered the human race at some point. You may reject the notion of two actual individual persons created directly by God some millennia ago, but our essential nature is consistent with the story of the fall of man. We are created in God’s image, and we demonstrate His character by our reason, creativity, self-awareness, ability to love, and many other traits. But sin taints that which is good, and ultimately builds barriers between us, resulting in selfishness, hatred, tendencies to use one another, rivalries, and the like.

Lately I have been thinking much about the fall, and about the greater and lesser sins that build walls between us and others, as well as between us and God. C.S. Lewis, in his masterpiece Mere Christianity, explores the nature of sin and its various manifestations in helping build a logical case for the existence of God.

In perhaps the darkest chapter of the book, Lewis describes the “Great Sin” and its symptoms. This lengthy excerpt is helpful in understanding Lewis’ perspective:

I now come to that part of Christian morals where they differ most sharply from all other morals. There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people, except Christians, ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone, who was not a Christian, who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

Does this seem to you exaggerated? If so, think it over. I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, ‘How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?’ The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with every one else’s pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise. Two of a trade never agree. Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive – is competitive by its very nature – while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially competitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likely have wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.

Lewis continues with his theme, but since our current political environment believes torture to be a bad thing, I’ll stop here. Instead, I’d like to share some painful insights on the subject. The irony of that last sentence will become apparent soon enough.

The most obvious manifestation of pride, the one illustrated by Lewis, is arrogance. The arrogant person believes he knows more, knows better, looks better, and has more, and he knows how to manipulate people. Despite the fact that the arrogant person is totally self-focused, he cannot truly see himself as he really is. Arrogance never needs a Savior.

A less obvious prideful expression is false humility. Christians may quickly understand that outright arrogance is unacceptable, so they work hard to look humble and avoid detection. Perhaps you will recall a time, as I do, when I tried to look surprised and slightly uncomfortable when someone publicly pointed out something virtuous I had done. In fact, the virtuous act was done in a way that looked as though I was hiding it, when the reality was that I was secretly hoping someone would notice.

Once false humility is fully internalized, it becomes narcissism. I painfully note that this looks a lot like me (is it narcissistic to make myself the example of a bad thing?). Every time I get together with others, the talk always seems to come back to me. That’s the way I want it. I am most comfortable talking about myself, and others surely would like to hear more about me. Who else combines the wisdom, intelligence, humor, and kindness that I project?

Consider the simple matter of requesting prayer. Does it seem necessary to share more detail than necessary just to make sure others have a very positive view of you? “Oh, I would appreciate your prayers,” you ask, “for my twisted ankle. I was sharing the Gospel with Sad Stanley. By the way, I was able to lead him to Jesus – Praise God! So anyway, on the way home, I stopped at the grocery store to get some popcorn – we always have popcorn when we invite the neighborhood kids over to watch the Jesus movie – where was I? Oh, at the store, I bought the popcorn and twisted my ankle stepping off the curb. Please pray for me.” When sharing a need is more about shopping your character or accomplishments, and seeking affirmation from others, your real motive is pride.

Here are a few simple questions that help illuminate pride:

* Who is at the center of all your stories?
* Are you more interested in what others are doing than you are in telling everyone what you are doing?
* When you are listening to a person speak, do you constantly think of better ways to say it, ways that only you can illustrate?
* Is it hard to see the image of God in others, but easy to see it in yourself?
* Do you think that the kingdom of God is fortunate to have you “on the team” because you are so gifted?
* Is God fortunate you gave your heart to Him?
* Was God smart to pick you because you can reach a particular person or persons?

My friends, pride is found in all of us to a greater or lesser degree. We are not immune to it because we follow Jesus. If Satan wants to attack the church, he can find few better ways to do it than by making Christians the least interested in their fellow human beings and the most self-centered in the world.

May God grant us the grace to lose ourselves in Him, and constantly bear witness to Him rather than our selves.

This is the sixth and final post in the series “Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?” by C. Michael Patton.  In this post Patton shares his own opinions about the emergent movement and the response of the larger (is it really larger?) Church to the challenges articulated by emergers.

You may laugh aloud, as I did, at a certain point in this piece (you’ll know it when you get there).  Indeed, it was this summation that got me to thinking that this series might work well as a conversation piece on Theophilux.  Since I’m writing this intro in late January, and before the first post even comes out, I’ll have to wait & see if the series drew more than a passing look.

Sola Deo Gloria!

Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

Part 6: Random Thoughts of Emergence

Having finished my series about the Emerging Church, I feel that it is important that I say a few things so that people have a better understanding about my thoughts in general concerning the conversation that is going on the emerging conversation.

I have a deep sympathy toward the confusion that postmodernism has brought about. The global culture that has been created in the last 50 years has caused us to change our perspectives on many things. The internet, world news, and globalization of culture has made it less likely that people can stay sheltered in a naive understanding of truth, religion, and morality even if they are right. The ever changing currents in science, exposure to world religions, fractures in the family unit, divisions in Christianity, and subjective change in personal beliefs and certainty have caused Christians to question the reliability of any source of truth. People are suspicious, disillusion, bewildered, and uncertain.

We have seen that things are not summed up in one single confession of faith, one denomination’s take on truth, or one person’s interpretation of the Scripture. The we-have-got-everything-right-while-everyone-else-is-wrong mentality is fading. While a previous generation’s fundementalistic hardening of the categories has brought about the postmodern ethos, the ensuing betrayal felt is producing a hardening of the same sort. Obfuscation (darkening through manipulation) of truth by well-meaning fundamentalists of all varieties has begun to create a different type of obfuscation. This darkening is no less well-meaning, but can be just as destructive. 

I sympathize with postmodern and emerging thought. No, I empathize with it. But this empathy cannot produce a static position of ever changing dynamics. We need to be wise, forward thinking, and responsible.

This generation is postmodern. Really it is soft-postmodern. Soft-postmoderns do not deny the existence of truth, they simply are less naive about the possibility that their particular take on truth sums up the whole. Hard-postmoderns deny truth all together. As Christians we need to realize that hard-postmodernism, by definition, is antithetical to Christianity. Christianity does not exist without truth.

We are asking questions that were not asked in a previous generation, but assumed. These questions are good questions. They need to be asked anew by every generation. This is the essence of semper reformanda (always reforming). We are always reforming, never satisfied with a hardened tradition that characterizes those who have made camp on the journey. Their direction may have been right, but they should never have stopped.

But asking of questions is merely the first step. We have to follow where the evidence leads, otherwise what good are the questions? Why ask questions if, in the end, we are not expecting any answers?

Were we going in the right direction?

Are we following the map correctly?

Should we have made that last turn?

Where do we go now?

These are all the questions that need to be asked. Don’t we expect some answers?

Loving Christ – this is good. Following Christ – this is Christian. Introducing people to Christ – this is our mission. But the question Who is Christ? must be asked and answered. What did he do? Why do we need him? How do we know? What is our problem? What is the future? Who is God? Answers to these questions will produce propositions. While God, Christianity, and faith cannot be boiled down to a set of propositions, it must begin with such.

We are finite, and God is infinite. This is a true proposition that most are willing to admit. If God is infinite, is it possible that finite words, language, culture, concepts, and expressions of faith can really do justice to an infinite God? This is a tricky question that one should not conclude on too quickly. While our propositions are insufficient to explain God fully, can’t they introduce him truly? If they can’t then we have created a self-defeating philosophy of religion. How? Because we have said that the infinite, all-powerful God who can do all things cannot communicate in an intelligible way. Are you sure you want to go there?

The Bible does contain a lot of information. Some information is in stories, narrative, and drama. Other information is in theological themes, propositions, and contextualized principles. Some of this information is hard to understand. Some of it is very easy to understand. Some information good Christians disagree about. Other information good Christians agree upon. Do the disagreements mean that the information should be ignored? Should we tear out the portions of Scripture that cause this disagreement? Should we no longer discuss such, relegating this information to the anathema of a postmodern bias against disagreements?

Believe me, I sympathize with people who are sick of divisions. But isn’t it the unnecessary divisions about which we speak?

Unite around the essentials, right? As Rupertus Meldenius said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” I love this statement. Yes, we unite around essentials. But simply because something is a non-essential does not make it non-important, does it?

I am a Calvinist. I won’t divide with an Arminian because of our view of election. I will say that I believe that he is wrong, I will give arguments for my positions, and I will say that I think my position more accurately represents God’s revelation than the opposing positions. Is my argument a power play? It could be, but it does not have to be. Could I be wrong about my position? Yes. Are there good people who disagree with me? Most certainly good people who love the Lord more than I. Does this mean that we then anathematize such conversation? Not at all. Why would we?  [Hmmmm, thinks I, perhaps the Theophilux gang would enjoy this…-SM]

Vigorous conversation is what we need. Don’t anathematize people because they believe they are right.

But too many people have divided and killed in the name of religion. What about the Crusades? What about the Salem witch trials? What about the inquisition? Yes, these are all ridiculously sore black-eyes in Christianity’s past. What is the solution? How do we keep from repeating the past? I think it starts with each individual. Don’t do such things. As Bob Newhart would say, “Stop it!” Change your perspective. Change your outlook. Change your response. But don’t change your position if it is correct. Don’t kill or disrespect other people who disagree. Make your arguments and leave it to the Lord. He is the judge.

Who decides what is essential?

What is the essence of Christianity?

What is the ultimate source of truth?

Can we know anything at all?

What is the Gospel?

Let’s have a conversation. Let’s engage in the emerging conversation. It is exciting. God is not scared of questions.

Non-emergers, don’t anathematize emergers for asking these questions. You don’t really have every figured out like you think you do. These questions must to be asked. There are reasons for the doubt, suspicion, and skepticism that may not be sinful. Think about it.

Emergers, don’t anathematize yourself or others when you begin to find your answers. As well, don’t regulate non-essentials to non-important.

This conversation is necessary it always has been. Call yourself emerging, evangelical, Christian, missional or whatever, but realize this, we must push forward.

In part five of six, it’s time for a self-test.  You may be very surprised on reading this, as I found myself in agreement with several points taken by emergers.

SDG!

Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

Part 5: Are You Emerging?

Are you an emerger? Is the emerging church heretical? What should my attitude be toward this movement ? These are the questions that started this series of blog posts and I hope by the end of this post you will be better equipped to answer these questions in an informed and responsible way.

I will now (finally!) attempt to give you five ways in which I believe one can emerge or identify with, at least to some degree, the emerging movement.

Here they are:

1. Emerging Ecclesiologically
2. Emerging Sociologically
3. Emerging Theologically
4. Emerging Epistemologically
5. Emerging Politically

It is important to keep in mind that being emerging in any of these categories does not necessarily mean that one is an emerger, it simply means that one identifies, sympathizes, or finds themselves within this particular characteristic of emerging thought.

The examples provided in each group are not meant to be exhaustive or taken as a unified whole. In other words, some emergers may identify with some of the examples and not others.

Emerging Ecclesiologically

This characterizes an attempt or desire to return to some traditional elements of the Christian faith that draw upon a more experience based worship. Many times this will be evidenced by a less formal structure of gatherings or formal church time, allowing freedom of expression without the traditional restraints of more program oriented gatherings.

Examples:

• Less tendency to have a traditional (post-reformation) church program structure
• Movement toward house churches
• Disdain for mega churches
• Lord’s supper/Eucharist practiced every week
• Artwork as expressions of faith
• Candles and incense
• Traditional prayers and creeds
• Prayer walks

More radical Emergent type examples:

• Eastern meditation
• Yoga services

Emerging Epistemologically

A desire for an epistemic humility that recognizes the shortcomings modernistic enlightenment philosophy bent on striving for absolute knowledge and certainty in all things. This humility ranges from radical agnosticism (e.g. a denial of our ability to know anything for certain) to essentials-only mentality (e.g. we only focus on the essentials that are clear and have been held by the historic Christian faith).

Examples:

• Suspicious of all truth claims
• Willingness to question personal traditions at the deepest level
• Doubt and uncertainty concerning an individualistic approach to truth and knowledge we learn in community
• More desirous to broaden perspectives outside subjective cultural norms
• Recognition that our knowledge is not objective, we all learn in a biased context
• Denial of man’s ability to have absolute certainty (this is reserved only for God)
• More skeptical of traditional sources of information and authority (science, denominational authorities, pastors, theologians, media, etc)
• More apophatic, emphasizing mystery and our inability as finite beings to definitely and conclusively define an infinite God [apophatic: of or relating to the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not (such as `God is unknowable') – Princeton online dictionary]

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Denial of the existence of Truth with a capital T (absolute truth)
• Denial of any claims to certainty
• Denial of the analogy of language (e.g. language is not a sufficient conduit of truth)

Emerging Theologically

[Emergers often] call into question many traditional Christian doctrines. This questioning can result in agnosticism toward the particular doctrine, marginalization of the issue, or a settled humble conviction concerning the issue. This is closely tied to being emerging epistemologically.

Examples:

• Missional focus concerning the spread of the Gospel (Christians do not go to church, they are the church)
• Less tendency to recognize or give strong credence to traditional theological divisions (e.g. Catholic-Protestant; Reformed-Arminian)
• Not too keen to systematic theology since to systematize ones theology usually implies a seemingly forced system of harmonization that is seen to be inconsistent with both human ability and divine revelation
• Hesitancy about taking traditional labels such as Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Liberal, or even Emerger since the labels associate them with a systematized system of beliefs and thought
• 1) Agnostic with regards to the destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. we don’t know the eternal condition of the unevangelized)
• 2) Inclusivistic with regards to destiny of the unevangelized (e.g. Christ’s blood can save those who don’t have the chance to hear the Gospel)
• More agnostic toward the nature of hell
• Willing to see value in multiple theories of the atonement, not just the vicarious substitutionary view
• Traditional Protestant theology of imputation questioned

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Universalism (all people will make it to heaven as God will redeem all things)
• Pluralism (all religions are basically the same)
• Denial of hell as a place of eternal judgment
• Complete denial of the vicarious substitutionary view of the atonement

Emerging Sociologically

[Emergers often] engage in and integrate with culture and society in traditionally unorthodox ways. The integration has to do with a belief that culture is not necessarily evil, but can be part of God’s common grace. The engagement is purposed on sharing the Gospel in places and ways that are seen as taboo for many in the evangelical or fundamentalist communities. As well, this characteristic is bent upon the belief that loving one’s neighbor and sharing the Gospel is not limited to our words, but is more powerfully expressed through our actions – actions of kindness, mercy, and justice.

Examples:

• Having church service in a brewery
• Looking like the culture (e.g. dress, nose rings, colored hair)
• Talking like the culture (e.g. getting rid of all Christianese language, less sensitive toward vulgarity, etc.)
• Focus on bringing about justice (liberation of the oppressed, sympathy toward aids victims, women’s rights in society and the church, etc).
• Willing to traverse the Christian sub-culture taboos (drinking, smoking, rated R movies, etc.)

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Denial that homosexuality is sinful
• Social Gospel becomes primary (e.g. Gospel of mercy without preaching of sin, the cross, and forgiveness)

Emerging Politically
[Emergers often] sympathize with many of the more traditionally liberal political concerns. This is closely connected to being socially emerging.

Examples:

• Do not identify with a political party (e.g. they should not be seen as the republican party at prayer! )
• Anti-war or more pacifistic
• Support those with environmental concerns (green peace, global warming, recycling)

More radical Emergent type characteristics:

• Approval of homosexual marriages and unions
• Support of the women’s right to choose
• Definitely identify with more liberal politics

I think that it is important to note that one can be emerging in one category and not so much in another. One might be emerging epistemologically and, to some degree, theologically, but not so politically or ecclesiastically. As well, one might be emerging socially, like Mark Driscoll, but not really too emerging in the other areas. Does this mean that they are still emerging? Yes, but only in those areas. Should they take on the name? I guess if they so choose, but one is always going to have to qualify what they mean.

As I said in previous posts, many of the non-Emergent type characteristics are shared by both traditional Evangelicals and emergers. Therefore, if you are an Evangelical and see yourself in some of these emerging characteristics, this should not surprise you. As I said before, much of the ethos of the emerging movement is simply what I believe to be a revitalization and a next step of Evangelicalism as it arose out of Fundamentalism in the 40’s and 50’s.

As well, there are those leaders in the emerging movement who I would call evangelical-emergers such as Scot McKnight, Robert Webber (deceased), Stanley Grenz (deceased), Dan Kimball, N.T. Wright, Eugene Peterson, Donald Miller, Mark Driscoll, and Dallas Willard (not all of whom would necessarily take the name emerging, but do identify closely with the emerging ethos). In this case, evangelical might be used as an adjective rather than a noun. They may be evangelical, not necessarily Evangelical.

So, are you an emerger? As you can see from this series of blogs, that is quite a question.

Will the real emerger please stand up? No, I take that back. Will the non-emergers just sit back down…that seems easier.

I hope this has been a helpful series.

In this post, Mr. Patton makes a brief confession of sorts, then shares some nice charts.  I particularly liked the charts, which frightens me a bit, since that apparently means I am somewhat emergent.  I should note that when I reviewed this article for print, I added a few comments of my own in [brackets].  I did so for clarification, or to define a term that not all readers may be aware of.

SDG!

Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

Part 4: Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers

OK, I lied. Here is another parenthetical post in my emerging series. The five ways in which one can emerge will be coming soon. However, in my defense, I did not know I was lying at the time I made my original commitment—does that count?

Take heart, this post has a LOT more charts and all emergers love charts, right?

Here is the chart once again. Let me explain further what my thoughts are as to evangelicalism vis-a-vis emerging.

To be emerging does not necessarily have to do with where you land on certain issues. It has to do with your willingness to fly, seriously entertaining anew important and fundamental issues. Not only do you entertain questions (e.g. Why does God allow bad things? Is inerrancy the center of evangelical faith? Do the various traditions—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—all have valid contributions to make?) but you have the same questions yourself. In some sense it captures the Protestant reformation principle of reformata et semper reformanda (”reformed and always reforming”) better than other traditions who have reformed and then hardened in their categories of thought and practice.

In the end, as an emerger, you may land your plane in the field of traditional Protestantism on a particular issue, but it is your willingness to take off that is key. Are you willing to discuss issues from a fresh perspective? This is a key emerging question.

For example, I am Calvinist, complementarian [belief that males and females have different roles to play in society, family, church, etc.], and affirm inerrancy. This does not necessarily disqualify me from being ”emerging” simply because I have landed on these issues. It has more to do with the attitude I have with regard to such and how important these issues are in my doctrinal taxonomy. Am I willing to question my assumptions regarding my stance? I hope. Does this mean that I will change with regards to these issues? Not necessarily. I might even become strengthened in them. But the willingness to listen and change, understanding the questions and difficulties involved is the key, not so much where we land. We go where truth takes us; we do not bring truth to our home.

Here is where I would place myself and Dan Wallace on the chart. Again, Dan and I are both complementarian Calvinists who affirm inerrancy. (NOTE: I did not consult Dan on this one!)

Notice that I see myself as well as Dan as more emerging than Mark Driscoll. Why? It does not have to do with where we land theologically, for we line up very much with Driscoll on key issues. It has more to do with how much focus we place on certain issues. How willing are we to entertain alternative ideas and perspectives? The more willing, the more emerging.

Yet at the same time, I am not comfortable with the label as its associations, at least in my circles, are too closely tied with those who are more Emergent. Plus, I, like Roger Olson, believe that the name Evangelical can be saved. Call me idealistic, traditionalistic, or a bleeding heart, but Evangelicalism is not dead yet. (Maybe emergers can save it? :) )

It is important to know that there are many who are not even willing to entertain any questions. They are not willing take off, being settled and having their fortress built with walls of traditional confidence and conviction. Right or wrong is not the issue, but a willingness to legitimize the flight. This is the essence of fundamentalism (in the contemporary sense). When fundamentalism begins to emphasize non-essentials as essential, this is where they depart from traditional orthodox Christianity thereby creating their own form of Christianity. That is why there is an unorthodox form of fundamentalism—legalistic fundamentalists.

In a sense, I think that there are aspects of emerging that represent and revive the best of evangelicalism. Sadly, much of this pioneer confidence that marked 20th century evangelicalism as it rose out of the clutches of deteriorating fundamentalism has been lost. Evangelicalism is in danger of becoming the new fundamentalism and in many ways emergers look more evangelical than evangelicals! Does that make sense? 

Here, since everyone likes charts so much, let me give you the concentric circle of importance that I teach in my Introduction to Theology course of The Theology Program. I will modify these so that they represent each group: fundamentalists, evangelicals, emergers, and emergents.

The above is the key for the charts below. Notice, the further to the center, the more important the issue or doctrine. Those that are in the center circle are those which the representative tradition believes are essential for one to believe to be saved. Next is the circle of orthodoxy. This represents those issues or doctrines that the representative tradition believes is essential for one to be orthodox, not necessarily salvation. The outer circles represent a depleting belief in importance and emphasis.

Notice the concentration toward the center. Fundamentalists (at least in the contemporary sense of the word) would place just about everything in the center. “If it is in the Bible, it is absolutely essential, and we are certain that we are right!”

Notice that the Evangelical concentric circle is much more balanced, having a definite place for all issues. The center circle would have less representation.

Notice the change. The center circle has little change, evidencing that non-Emergent emergers do have a definite center. As well, there would be fewer items in the “circle of orthodoxy.” Most issues would be pushed to the outside with the result that those toward the center have more emphasis.

Now you can probably see the resulting difference. Those in the Emergent camp seem unwilling to land their plane anywhere near the center. In fact, the most emphasized and essential point may be that one cannot land near the center!

In the end, I want people to notice the difference between emerging and Emergent. I also want to draw attention to the similarities between evangelicalism and emerging.

Of course, not everyone will agree with or like these charts—they are not Gospel—but understand their intent in giving perspective.

Next, I will give the five ways which people can be emerging.

Today’s post, a continuation of the series “Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?”, Michael Patton continues his excellent definition of the emerging church.  I recently heard a speaker describe the task as being like nailing Jello to the wall, especially where it requires an emergent person to state any belief he holds to be an absolute Truth.  Let’s let Michael do what he does best…

SDG!

Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

Part 3: An Emerging Definition of Emerging

Often when I begin a series on the emerging church people approach me with two questions: 1) “Am I emerging?” 2) “Are you emerging?” In both counts this is really a loaded question. I have a hard time answering it because I don’t know what they are really asking. It takes some further explaining before I am ever comfortable with such questions.

In the last post (”Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?“), I discussed the difficulty in finding a one-size-fits-all category for emergers as evidenced by the variety of leaders who claim the name. There is no one emerger that we can go to that represents the entire so-called “movement.” I then attempted to encourage people to see two primary strands of emergers—those that are simply emerging and a sub-set of those who are part of a more definite group of more liberal minded emergers called Emergent (closely associated with Emergent Village).

For this blog, I would like to narrow our definition of emerging by denying the label certain characteristics and giving a brief description of what I believe it means to be emerging.

What Emerging is Not:

The emerging church is not a church. It is important to realize that to label the emerging church as a church is misleading. Most people want to “go” to an emerging church to see what it is all about. I often tell them that this is not the best way to understand what emerging is all about. While there are “emerging” churches out there, the label emerging expresses something much more than a local assembly. Therefore, even though you may see people, including myself, call it the emerging “church,” this is not the best label and can be very misleading.

The emerging movement is not a movement. A movement implies a unified and organized group intent on bringing about change based in a set ideology. The emerging movement is neither unified nor organized. In fact, those who are “emerging” would take the label of a “movement,” in this sense and at this point in time, as an insult that represents the antithesis of what is going on. Therefore, even though you may hear many, including myself, refer to the emerging “movement,” it is not really such.

The emerging “church” should not be associated with the seeker-sensitive church. This is a very common misconception that I find. The seeker-sensitive church is a label used to describe those churches who seek to tailor all their church services and activities for the unbeliever. They try to create common ground with those outside the church. This common ground is found in the way the service is conducted. It might involve the type of music, the length of the sermon, type of entertainment, corporate professionalism, the casual dress, or the times of service. All the primary events are done in order for the unbeliever to feel comfortable while the Gospel is proclaimed. Seekers-sensitive churches want the bridge that one crosses from the culture to the church to be as small as possible.

Emergers, on the other hand, don’t have this philosophy. While many of the elements may look the same (casual dress, times of service, etc.) the reasons for this are completely different. It has to do with how the emerging community views culture. Emergers do not necessarily see the culture as evil as other traditions might. They don’t give people a taste of culture to lure them in and then attempt to change them, but they are the culture. This might help:

Relation to culture (forgive the stereotyping):

1. Fundamentalists: Separate from culture.

2. Evangelicals: Change the culture.

3. Emergers: We are the culture.

Remember the song, ”We are the world”? Well emergers sing “We are the culture.” In this case, biblically minded emergers would distinguish between the apostle John’s definition of “world” (i.e. “Love not the world nor the things in the world”) from “culture.” The “world” is the expressions of a sin infected culture. Emergers would see God’s work in the culture just as much (if not more these days) as in the church. Therefore, they are one more step away from the fundamentalist philosophy of radical separation. They are not seeker-sensitive, but emerger-sensitive. Who are they being sensitive to? Themselves. Culture (believers and unbelievers). The imago dei in everyone. 

What Emerging Is?

Briefly, I believe the best way to get ones arms around what it means to emerge is to define it as a widespread ethos, or way of thinking. This way of thinking is held by those who explicitly call themselves emergers and by many who don’t. It represents an articulated and unarticulated dissatisfaction with the current way that the body of Christ is perceived by the outside world and, indeed, truly is.

This ethos finds expression not in church planting, revitalizations of local church assemblies, or the creation of new denominations, but through conversation—conversations with other like-minded thinkers. People emerge on internet blogs, in chat rooms, and in coffee shops. They emerge through a shared ethos that expresses dissatisfaction and seeks change. These emerging avenues provide people with safety to ask questions—theological questions—that stimulate a conversation. These theological questions come with no assumed answer. In fact, most of the time they are not meant to be answered. Try to answer these questions too quickly with a definite and/or cliché answer and you will have immediately proved yourself disqualified from the emerging conversation. Why? Because you have illegitimized the question. You have insulted the intelligence of the emerging community by acting as if the questions that are bringing about conversation can be answered so thoughtlessly.

It is important to understand that many who are and have been dissatisfied with the church are apathetic to their own disdain. Their questions have never found a place—as safe place—to be asked. Most of these people are no longer active in Church nor are they seeking to be. They may not be able to articulate this dissatisfaction, but there is an ever present nagging within them that says, “This is not the way it is supposed to be.” These may qualify as dormant emergers. They share in the emerging ethos, but have yet to emerge as emergers. It would seem that these dormant emergers, who at present probably outnumber the active emergers, are being awakened by a like-minded call for change—sometimes radical change. They are finding affinity in their naggings and are beginning to rise to the occasion.

Another group is actively seeking to do something about it. They call for and enact change at various levels—change in practice and thinking. Among these are those who are self-identified as emergers. They have come “out of the closet,” expressing their dissatisfaction with others.

So What Does Emerging Mean?

In short, the emerging ethos represents a growing mindset which is, consciously or sub-consciously, willing to legitimize and take seriously anew the type of questions being asked, doubts being expressed, and the distrust and dissatisfaction that the a postmodern (emerging) culture has with the traditional church (and Christianity) because they identify with them.

Those that seem to identify with the postmodern mindset too closely, believing that traditional Christianity may not have the answers, are more on the Emergent side. Emergents call for radical change in doctrine and practice. Those that identify with the postmodern mindset yet feel traditional Christianity, while imperfect, does offer the answers to the most important issues may be part of the more orthodox emerging movement. These call for a more mild change.

But it is not really that simple. There are many ways to call for change and many areas in which this change can occur. Next I will talk about how people can call for change—how people can emerge—in five different ways. (I know I already said that, but this needed to be said first!)

If this has served to obscure the issue for you, this is not such a bad thing. One of my main purposes with this series on the emerging “church” has been to show that confident categorizations of what it means to emerge can do more harm than good and really misses the point.

I submit for your edification a rather lengthy six-part series on the Emerging/Emergent church.  Danny graciously offered me an opportunity to post the first part as a feature article, and I will make subsequent postings so the entire series may be complete.

This series challenged me a bit, as I have been, perhaps, a bit suspicious of those who wear the “Emergent” label.  Mr. Patton’s series did much to advance my understanding of who emergers are, what they believe and how they are influencing the church today.  I found myself, in many cases, in agreement with emergers on many points.

The author, Michael Patton, kindly gave permission for this reposting.  Mr. Patton is president of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries (www.reclaimingthemind.org) and is a self-described historic evangelical.

I look forward to a great discussion.

SDG!

Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

~ C Michael Patton ~

How does one define the emerging church? This is not an easy question to answer. Are you emerging? Maybe you are and you just don’t know it. It is very difficult to define exactly what it means to emerge. Sometimes its characteristics sound a lot like what Evangelical used to mean. Other times it sounds just like Liberal. Often it is hard to distinguish from neo-orthodox or even Eastern Orthodox. Many would just say that emergers are Christian Democrats!

If you compare yourself to a personality to determine whether you are emerging, it is no better. To whom do you choose to compare yourself? Brian McLaren? Doug Pagitt? Dan Kimball? Mark Driscoll?

1. If you go with Brian McLaren, then you may view emerging as somewhat of a political revolution.

2. If you go with Doug Pagitt, then you may see emerging as the hope of God’s redemption through a sort of quasi-universalism.

3. If you go with Dan Kimball, then you see emerging as a mission to win the lost with the essential message of the Gospel through kindness and understanding (sounds a bit like evangelicalism).

4. If you go with Mark Driscoll, then you may find it hard to distinguish emerging from a missional minded reformed evangelicalism.

Maybe it’s not that simple, but my point is that most of these fellows don’t seem like bed-fellows. In other words, it is hard to find the least common denominator with regards to their emerging distinction. They all call themselves emergers, but I don’t think that Driscoll would be too fond of being identified with Pagitt or McLaren. Kimball and Driscoll maybe, Pagitt and McLaren maybe, but not all of them together. It is hard to find the connection. If all of these guys are emerging, then what does emerging mean? Would the real emerger please stand up?

Part of the reason I write this post is because I just finished John MacArthur’s Truth War. While I really appreciate much of MacArthur’s work, I did not find this book helpful with regards to the emerging issue. In fact, I found it very unbalanced and ill-informed. He simply focused on one thought of one strand of the emerging movement. He did not distinguish between those who were guilty of his charges from those who were not. In this he mischaracterized many people and the movement as a whole. He chose one strand of emerging and presumed to attack the entire ununited movement as if it were united.

I also write this because I was recently identified as an emerger (which was news to me) by some of the more antagonist anti-emergers at a Bible conference. More importantly, I was placed alongside of McLaren and Pagitt as a significant influence in the emerging movement. I did not see the connection at all.

I think it is important for us to recognize that there are many types of emergers. Let me attempt to give some perspective.

First, I think that it is important to distinguish between two meta-strands of emergers. Some would separate those that are emerging and those that are Emergent. I think this works well and is becoming more and more accepted. Emergent would be the more theologically liberal minded group of emergers. These are those that MacArthur went after with gloves off.

If you were to graph this out, adding a section for fundamentalism and liberalism, it would look something like this.

Notice there is overlap in many of these areas. There is an overlap of traditional evangelicalism and emerging. There is an overlap of Emergent and liberal. There is also an overlap between fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. Traditional orthodoxy might be found in a balance between the extremes.

Here is how I would chart many of the popular emergers.

Notice, I would place many emergers outside the bounds of orthodoxy at least as it has been seen from a historic Christian standpoint. The reason being is that they deny many aspects of historic Christianity. Among other things, either their doctrine of judgment, the exclusivity of Christ, the atonement, or even theistic worldview is contrary to that of the historic Christian faith. Some would even deny or call into question just about every foundational doctrine to the Christian faith.

Don’t misunderstand the chart. D.A. Carson represents the best of traditional Evangelical scholarship. But being in the middle does not necessarily mean that I believe that he is more orthodox than Dan Kimball. He is just less emerging! John MacArthur is to the far left, not because he is in danger of stepping outside of traditional Evangelicalism into a heterodox form of fundamentalism, but because he is more fundamental and less emerging than the others. McLaren is right on the line between emerging and Emergent.

Well, thus far I have simply meant to communicate the defining emerging is not a simple task. The one thing that I would immediately caution people on is this: don’t lump all those who call themselves emerging into the same category reserved for heretics. We have to be more responsible than this. It is unfair and could damage people’s reputation. If you were to do this, how is that any less an evil than the evil you may be accusing them of?

In honor of the passing of John Updike…

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that—pierced—died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

I tried this a couple of weeks ago, but it failed for at least three reasons.  First, I misspelled the name of the place.  No one wanted to go to Matties, but perhaps they will be interested in…Matty’s!!!  Second, it’s kinda crucial to identify the time.  And third, it probably would help to post it a little earlier than the day of the event.

So, if you are so inclined, please join us at Matty’s, downtown Anderson, this Tuesday night (1/20) at 7:30 p.m.

Post in the comments to let us know you plan to come.  You can post in the comments if you wish you could come too.

I’m posting this out there for everyone to comment on their daily time in the word.  Just say what you read & share, if appropriate, something you got from it.