Pastor's FAQ File: The Emerging Church [Part 4] What does the Church need to hear from the EC?

What do we need to hear from the EC?

 

There are some who won’t like this question because the word “emerging” itself has become such a negative term that the idea that anything of value might come out of the EC is anathema. But I believe that even the most ardent opponents of the EC need to have more of a hermeneutic of charity (rather than a hermeneutic of suspicion) with the EC because like many renewal movements there is most likely much at work here that the Church at large needs to hear. Certainly the fact that many people resonate so deeply with the emerging conversation ought to cause all believers to pause and reflect on the reasons why the EC has sparked such interest (beyond simplistically sighting “deception” as the cause).

I’ll suggest five things the Church needs to hear from the EC:

 

First, the Church is reformed and always reforming.

The Body of Christ is never a fixed entity it is always alive and developing. Certainly the Scriptures form the “rule of faith” for how and in what ways the Church should be formed, but it is nevertheless the reality that in every culture and successive generation the gospel of Jesus Christ finds ways to be re-formed. The great Reformation of Luther’s era was not the end of the Church’s development theologically, ecclesiastically, liturgically, etc. It certainly marked a unique moment of massive transformation, but the Church that is reformed is continuously reforming.

 

The EC is one group that is keenly aware of the current re-forming taking place in the Church. I am not convinced that the Church will look as dramatically different in 25 years as some EC thinkers argue. I tend to see the EC as one important renewal movement among a whole series of renewal movements and not as the “next Great Reformation” as some EC thinkers seem to think. But nevertheless, I do believe that sweeping and significant changes are taking place as we move increasingly away from the state-church model that dominated modernity into whatever ultimate form the Church will embody in postmodernity.

I especially think we need to glean some insights from those EC folk who believe that the church in 25 to 50 years will look more like the Early Church than the churches of the last 500 years. Certainly the culture around the Church philosophically may be more like AD 30 than 1930.

 

Second, discipleship and living as citizens of the kingdom of God matters.

Certainly the EC are not the first nor the only group to emphasize radical discipleship, but I do believe that many people (especially young people) are attracted to the EC because of the creative ways the EC is trying to embody the holistic life of the disciple in the world. In particular, the EC is trying to find ways to embody the present but not-yet reality of the kingdom of God through practices of love, compassion, and justice.

This is a gross overstatement, but to some degree the American evangelical church has tended to emphasize a Pauline formula for salvation that emphasizes making converts whereas the “Jesus model” (if I can call it that) emphasizes becoming a disciple and living as a citizen of God’s reign. As I said in an earlier post, the EC emphasizes holistic discipleship over cognitive conversion. I don’t think that Jesus and Paul are really in conflict with each other. I think what I’m calling the “convert model” that has been largely taken from Paul’s letter to the Romans is in actuality a very poor reading of Paul. But nevertheless, what the Church needs to hear from the EC and other renewal groups is their emphasis on radical discipleship and kingdom living.

 

Whatever else the gospel proclaims it is centrally a message of Christlikeness. The Church must be first and foremost Christocentric. If the EC and other renewal groups do nothing else but help the Church recover its Christ-centeredness then they have performed a great service for the kingdom.

 

 

Third, the Church needs to learn to do ministry in the midst of many “posts.”

 

Maybe more so than any other Christian renewal group around, the EC takes seriously what it means to do ministry in the midst of the many “posts” of our culture. I think the Body of Christ needs to hear what the EC is saying about how to be a postmodern, post-Christian, post-denominational, post-liberal, and a post-national Church.

 

[Postmodern] I have mentioned this several times in previous posts, but the Church needs to pay attention to some of the ways the EC is learning to “see through a glass darkly.” We have to reject any movement that abandons ultimate truth, but I don’t believe we will ever have anything like the modern culture of certainty again. From now on truth and meaning will have to be connected and the evidence of existential truth will come from communities of people who are living the truth in non-coercive ways.

 

[Post-Christian] Some churches seem convinced that if they just hang in there long enough that a Constantinian or “churched” culture will come back around. It may, but I certainly don’t think it will happen in any of our lifetimes. In an increasingly secular, globalized, and multi-religious world the Church has to wake up to the increasingly post-Christian culture around us. Again, the EC is far from the only group recognizing this reality, but certainly one of the core tenets of the EC is reaching the post-Christian world with the gospel. The Church needs to hear what the EC has to say about embodying the gospel in a post-Christian world and also finding places to work together for the common good with those outside the Christian faith.

 

[Post-denominational] EC writer Phyllis Tickle argues that American Christianity has been lived out in four primary quadrants or camps. She names the four groups the liturgicals (high church traditions), the social-gospel (predominantly mainline churches), the renewalists (mainly Charismatics and Pentecostals), and conservatives (particularly fundamentalists and some evangelicals). Tickle argues that what is happening today is a merging toward the middle as conservatives discover the importance of social justice, renewalists discover the significance of spiritual disciplines, liturgicals discover spiritual gifts, the social gospel folk find need for theological boundaries, etc… etc… Christians seem less and less concerned about staking out a particular territory or building a particular denomination or institution, but are finding the need for what each quadrant brings to their spiritual walk.

 

At the same time that many Christians are merging toward the middle, others are running to the corners of each quadrant terrified that all is being lost. So while some merge into others areas, others are working diligently to defend their territory. Some liturgicals are convinced that their people are abandoning the history of the church. Some in the social gospel movement are concerned that their folk are becoming too conservative. Some in the renewalist tradition are concerned that an emphasis on community and good works is taking the place of a direct and personal relationship with God. And some in the conservative camp are quite sure that everyone is abandoning Truth (with a capital “t”).

 

By the way, I believe that this is largely what is taking place within the Church of the Nazarene currently. When one looks at the four quadrants that Tickle articulates it is difficult to know where one should place the Nazarenes within those four boxes. It is hard to argue that we have ever been “liturgical” (although John Wesley was deeply devoted to the sacraments). But in many ways we are “renewalists” because of our history in the Pentecostal movement and our emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit. Our roots among the poor through Phineas F. Bresee certainly have ties into the “social gospel.” And certainly in life-style issues and over the last several decades in politics we have been part of the conservative quadrant. I believe that most of the current criticism of the EC within the Church of the Nazarene comes from people staking out the corner in the conservative quadrant. Nazarenes increasingly drawn to the EC and other movements that emphasize liturgy, social action, and even the work of the Spirit are criticized by conservatives for being “monastic, liberal, and dismissing the inerrancy of the Bible” among other conservative complaints.

 

I don’t know how this on-going battle between the middle and the corners will turn out. Part of the dialogue within the EC conversation is that the two camps will not be able to sustain relationship with one another and the middle with break off and emerge. I think there is certainly a battle going on within parts of the Church of the Nazarene regarding who really has control of the church - the middle or the conservatives. I hope we will stay together, but I believe the jury is still out.

 

I will say, however, as a child of a particular denomination who has been at times more concerned with sustaining the institutions of the denomination than building the broader kingdom of God, there is much that the EC is saying about the post-denominational Church that I have needed to hear.

 

[Post-liberal (and Post-fundamentalist)] I believe the Church has to find a via media (a middle way) between liberalism and fundamentalism. In my opinion the fundamentalist reading of the Scripture is too naïve in its approach and liberalism dismisses the particularity of the unique community of Christ that is formed by the Scriptures. The EC is at least one example of Christian thinkers trying to hold to the inspiration of the Bible while taking seriously the scholarly work done by biblical, form, textual, and historical critics.

 

I think it is important to mention to Nazarenes that we have always (from our very inception) been trying to be a via media tradition between the extremes of liberalism and fundamentalism. Middle ways are always tricky, but I think this is a critical via media that we cannot abandon, so if the EC can help us navigate this path we need to glean what we can from them.

[Post-national] American evangelicalism has at times been guilty of the idolatry of nationalism. People, like me who were raised largely in a Christian tradition merged with Americanism need to hear some of the global, non-violent, ecological, and strongly anti-imperialistic theology from the EC and other movements trying to give voice to those at the margins. Someone recently said to me that they considered the EC “anti-American.” They considered it such because the EC writer that this person was reading was questioning the cultural arrogance, consumerism, militarism, and misuse of resources that many in the world associate with America. I don’t see those questions as anti-America, I see them as anti-idolatry. If being a good American means that I have to subscribe to national arrogance, consumerism, militarism, and inequity in resource distribution, then we have made the “American way of life” an idol. I deeply love our country but I also am aware of how easily throughout history national identity for Christians from many different nations became idolatrous. Certainly, the EC is not the first or only voice speaking prophetically about nationalism, but nevertheless, this is a message we need to hear.

 

 

Fourth, the EC is trying to help the Church move away from institutionalism.

 

Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan stated that “Tradition is the living faith of dead people. Traditionalism is the dead faith of living people.” The Church has to be constantly re-narrating the tradition of the faith for living people. There is a part of me that loves the EC emphasis on not waiting for people to return to the Church but taking the gospel to where people are. In particular I find the sanctifying of secular spaces interesting and invigorating.

 

As I have said before, I do think this is a double-edged sword. I am concerned that those leading the EC conversation not lose accountability to those traditions that have embodied the Church in the world, but at the same time I think for several decades the Church has been living out patterns of traditionalism and expecting people to come to us. The gospel implores us to go into the world.

 

Eric Barger has criticized Brian McLaren for saying that if John Wesley were alive today that he would be an emerging church leader. Brian made that comment in the light of Wesley’s tendency to take his preaching into the fields and to use methods around him (including bar tunes) to extend the gospel. We need renewal movements like the EC reminding us to take the good news to where broken people are.

 

 

Fifth, the EC is optimistic about grace.

 

Those of us from Wesleyan traditions need to hear this. I believe that the primary distinctive of Wesleyan traditions is our belief in a grace that is both prevenient and transformational. This is an optimistic and hope-full view of God’s gracious activity. Prevenient grace means that God desires for every person to enter into a redeeming relationship with him. And transforming (or sanctifying) grace means that God does not just want to pardon people but transform them into image.

 

The evangelical theology of the twentieth century tended to not be very hopeful. In fact, I think the popular dispensational theologies of the twentieth century have lead to some of the “conspiracy” language that shapes a good deal of the dialogue on Christian radio and television (and largely shapes the debate over the EC). The saints are continually being stirred up to be against something.

 

I think we need to hear balancing voices of hope that stir the saints to be for something. As I have said earlier, the EC can potentially fault by becoming humanistic and placing its hope in human schemes and agendas of peace. But personally I would prefer that risk than to miss out on the redeeming movement of God because I lived in continual suspicion. We are not optimistic about humanity’s ability to build the future but we need to hear the voice of people who are hope-full about what God may do through his obedient people. To quote Cornell West, “I am not optimistic or pessimistic – that is an attitude. I am a prisoner of hope.”

 

As I have said before, there are certainly things that we would want to be wary of or discuss as differences with some EC thinkers. But as general themes I think these are at least five areas where we (Nazarenes) ought to at least listen to what those in the EC are saying.

Comments

[dr dobson]

Scooter

Again, you've hit it on the head of the nail: My fervent hope and prayer for anyone reading this, especially those who have blessed themselves with the cloak of defending the Traditionalism you speak of above, is that they will consider the breadth and depth of your analysis. My overriding fear, however, is that they'll just call you a liberal and a defender of the EC.

So, while those who seek something to be against continue to throw rocks, stay encouraged to keep up the good work of excellent analysis and foundation to your material--the Church of the Nazarene is hungry and in need of you and those of your ilk. Keep it up.

[Greg D]

A good read Scotty and some of the things I've tried to highlight with our self-insulating brothers and sisters of "concern." But they really don't want to listen or can't listen because of their course of violence against others. I appreciate your participation in the conversation despite the political mess that could be dropped in your lap for doing so. But then it wouldn't be your first mess courtesy of another, would it?

One of my primary frustrations against the EC critics is that, not only do they misquote or quote out of context as you suggest, they refuse to listen to the original source material at all. Most critics who continually attack Nazarene pastors do so while they refuse to call them, email them, listen to their sermons online, or take into account the numerous ways they embody Christ among their communities. Sound familiar? In such circumstances, claims of "discernment" are grossly inflated at best and certainly violent at most.

Keep writing

[TheGroundworks]

Great overview, very balanced and objective. Keep up the great work!

I hope that more people who have been tainted by groups that do not paint EC in a balanced light may read this in its entirety.