Today I unsubscribed from another 'emerging church' type blog I started reading some years ago. When they asked 'please tell us your reason' here was my reply:
"i became disinterested when your theological conversations led you to arrive at a boring, familiar vantage point - essentially that of mid-20th century mainline protestantism. yawn. and I'm not talking about politics at all. I hope to keep emerging in a missional direction with others journeying along the two rails of biblical infallibility and historic doctrinal orthodoxy. but i do wish you well"
I have been active to varying degrees in what came to be known as the 'emerging church' movement for a number of years. In order to keep me and our church from being unhelpfully pegged with any particular stream of this movement, i mostly used the word 'experimental' the past few years. I used the word to describe aspects of Lake Forest Church that I felt were contributing to the international dialogue of the church's need to 'emerge' from a settled spot in Christendom ("I'm a Christian, you're a Christian, everyone's a Christian! So pick a church, any church!") to a missionary-outpost-on-the-edge of post-Christian culture ("Christianity is one option among many to choose from, when people happen to notice their spiritual hunger in a pluralistic society").
In my humble opinion, the ascendancy in ministry circles of 'missional' as a renewed biblical theology for who the church is in the world has ended up being much more helpful and more rooted in Scriptural imagery, than the imagery of 'emerging.' Understanding that the church doesn't have a mission, but instead it exists for mission ("As the father sent me, so send I you" - Jesus) is bearing fruit across the Christian landscape. Particularly, a missional understanding of the church is causing churches and leaders of all stripes to repent of church-centered ways of being, and creatively follow the Spirit into others-centered ways of being on mission with God to love the world.
On the other hand, many in the emerging movement have felt the need to keep the metaphor ever alive by 'emerging' past even the bounds of historic Christian theology and submission to the infallibility of the Bible, humbly shared by almost all Christians for 2,000 years. It is this stream of 'emerging church' from which I am now completely unsubscribed.
Friends, if you engage with various theological and missional movements, enjoy. Feel no need to judge or throw stones (that's why I'm naming no names in this post). But I suggest you not commit your heart, your identity, or your best reading energy to journeying with other Christians who have strayed from historic Christian orthodoxy. In my experience, the best way to know this is to find the writer's doctrine of Scripture and how it is authoritative. "Infallible in all Scripture teaches" is a quick summary of the standard I hold myself and our church to.
Love!
Posted by: D. Poppen | February 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM
Good to hear Dr. Mike! What can we do about the silly Lent habit? Silly Protestant, Lent is for Roman Catholics.
Just giving you a hard time...
I sense great nuance in LFC's use of infallibility but never any mention of inerrancy. Is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church not into inerrancy of Scripture?
Posted by: Mark Denning | February 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM
mark - good catch on 'infallible' vs 'inerrant' (and do ARP presbies practice Lent?).
The EPC and I use 'infallible' purposefully as our standard, not 'inerrant.' However, in almost every popular and scholarly understanding of what 'inerrant' means, myself and the whole EPC affirm that position. But 'infallible' is a more historical reformation position/word/concept that says all that needs to be said. 'inerrant' only came into vogue in the past hundred or so years, as an overly modern response to modernistic scientific questions being asked of the Bible. In my opinion, its simply not necessary. In the 70's and 80's in America, the word 'inerrant' turned into a shibboleth that evangelicals would use against one another to prove themselves more doctrinally hard core than others. to me, an exercise in missing the point. Infallible gets it done well, as it did for the reformation - now lets get on with mission.
pastorally, 'inerrant' to me begs all the wrong questions of Scripture - its meaning in our language seems to by nature point to miniscule items of fact or history - not what I care to focus our church or spiritual seekers on when they are looking for truth or hope.
When a group in the EPC attempted to re-state our position as 'inerrant' two years ago, a large number of our clergy rose up and said 'no,' receiving it as a reactionary move to spend precious energy among Christians battling over the minutaie of Scripture, rather than getting on with the mission of pointing hurting people to the incarnate living Word (Jesus)of God using the infallible Word (Bible) of God.
I have no issues with those who prefer 'inerrancy,' but please don't drag me into a fight about it.
Posted by: Mike Moses | February 25, 2012 at 08:41 AM
Touchy…touchy…just trying to liven things up a bit in the comment section. Not much interesting in the way of conversation going on here in a while.
Yes, of course you can find ARP’s who practice lent. My long time, and dear friend Todd Jones (another previous LFC intern) has his church doing it. He’s not asked me what I thought about it. I promise to give him a hard time too.
http://www.hopechapelgreensboro.org/lent.html
By the way did the ARP ever call you as a reference for me? I put you and Mitch down on my personal data form.
Anywho…thanks for sharing with us why the word inerrant is avoided. You may be interested to know that some scholars are calling into question and referring to as new the "historiography that biblical inerrancy is a fundamentalist doctrine” (Scholars words not mine) that you’ve so eloquently posited.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/evangelical_self-identity_and_the_doctrine_of_biblical_inerrancy#a7_top
As for mission trumping doctrinal precision: sounds like a false choice to me but what would I know; your missional (why won’t my spell checker approve that word?) expertise far exceeds mine.
Posted by: Mark Denning | February 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM
good link, important for me to read - I don't want to misrepresent these two views. but as I read, it mostly all the way through equates classic 'infallible' with 'inerrant'- and does not deal with many of our contention (and the EPC's tacit recognition) that in the 1970's especially, a redefinition of 'inerrant'(to replace 'infallible' as supposedly weak) came into play. documents and especially adherents over the next decade from the chicago big fat summit on inerrancy increasingly seemed to identify 'infallibility' with a certain set of literalistic interpretations of scripture (in practice, in my first original EPC presbytery, the inerrantist police tried to insist that an 'inerrant and infallible' reading of scripture = literal 7 24hr days in genesis one - which is fine as an interpretive choice, but certainly not the only view of those holding a high, infallible, divinely authoritative, inerrant view of scripture through history, especially recently). i'll stop so I don't seem touchy again! as always, impressed by your extensive reading and links
Posted by: Mike Moses | February 26, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Well... the way the inerrant police make you feel, is how the "historic Christian orthodoxy" police make me feel. I find that discussion leads to a boring, familiar vantage point - namely, "you really think that's a valid interpretation, when 2,000+ years of Christians have said otherwise?" as if we've never changed our mind about anything before (obviously not the case).
(waving at Mark) Hi, Mark! If we get Huntley, Goeff & Jaye to jump in here, we'll have the old gang back together! ;)
Love and respect, Mike. Always.
Posted by: Michelle McConnell | February 28, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Waving back Michelle. The Purple People discussion group was the best theological discussion @ LFC though every one probably got tired of me using the word false-dichotomy and always agreeing with Huntley.
Thanks for being impressed with my reading Dr. Mike. Always trying to keep up with people from the public iveys; like you.
Posted by: Mark Denning | February 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Mike, I just read your tagline under the pic above:
"a fresh imagining of what it means to follow Jesus, while escaping liberal/conservative, mainline/evangelical, ancient/future ways of reading scripture and following Jesus."
To me, this is exactly what is emerging out of emerging church discussions; from emergent thinkers and writers; from theologians and poets, and artists/prophets of many kinds who have dared to ask the questions and enter into loving/risky conversation.
I have joined with Steve Knight in leading the Emerging Church Discussion Group. Based on what you wrote, people might think you were directing such critiques our way... And so, your advice, Mike, to not commit your heart, your identity, or your best reading energy to such feels like a broad, rather dismissive brush.
How about a follow-up blog that recommends emerging ideas that you think are worthwhile, and helpful to think through. Those that promote unity and imagination toward this kingdom of heaven here. That reflect your tagline? It doesn't have to mean you agree with them, just that they are possible theological threads we should be pulling on, thinking through, to either center us on what we already know, or broaden our base of thought including, but not soley on, "historic Christian orthodoxy" (especially in a day when church and politics are under a hot lamp.)
I heard someone say it well recently, we shouldn't forget or dismiss what this history has taught over 2,000 years, but we should hold it loose enough to be able to navigate as the Spirit and new light leads.
Is it risky? sure.
What is worse, in my mind, is to "wall off" from this and protect what we believe to be the final word.
Posted by: Bill Sahlman | March 02, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Movements such as the emerging church, are defined in many ways as they evolve; sometimes accurately, sometimes not so much. If I were to present my own definition of what it's meant to me (a non-seminary trained "regular guy"), it would be: the seeking of truth, no matter where it may take you, as opposed to the practice of seeking to reinforce one's position by choosing authors, seminaries, churches , etc. that are in agreement with your current beliefs. Unfortunately, this definition lacks the self-sustaining element that's essential for mainline orthodoxy and thus can be a dangerous direction to take for churches.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | March 03, 2012 at 10:42 AM
Bill - to your question on facebook, i have not unsubscribed from all emergent conversations, but I have from some of the most celebrated authors in that specific sub-movement of emerging church. Believe me, i get and value and will continue the risky part of experimenting in a real live congregatoin of Jesus-followers - one of many examples: when i led our 'evangelical presbyterian' church to host the local catholic church's stations of the cross for holy week, some people left our church who couldn't envision any rapprochement like a 'post protestant/catholic' approach to such a beautiful historic Christian practice (anti-catholicism was too important for them as evangelicals). But I've also discovered that in emerging church circles its also risky to hold to orthodoxy in a disciplined, submitted-to-historical-authority-of-the-Church way (see, I'm getting more catholic all the time). That's where I'm de-linking, from those writers for whom orthodox doctrine has become reflexively evil (i'm overstating, of course). So I guess I've come to feel sometimes the way I hear a lot of republicans talking today about 'my party has left me and gone to the radical right - I don't recognize my party anymore,' in some ways I've felt that way in emerging church circles - some seem to have moved to an anti-orthodox position. Once again, St Patrick is my historical mentor - he radically rethought mission, methodology, and the communication of the Faith (in fresh ways - he even used/co-opted pagan concepts of God in his gospel preaching) - while remaining painfully connected and submitted to the larger church of his day. His original writings are so mystically trinitarian and Scripture-soaked in their content in beautiful ways. I'm all about reading and discussing issues of re-thinking the way we do our faith. And I will always read people who disagree with me from time to time as a spiritual discipline (the Northumbria Community calls this 'the heretical imperative' its fabulous), but I don't think its healthy or wise for Christians to sympathetically, mostly read discussions about church/Bible/Christian faith by authors who have devolved outside of biblical Christianity. Admittedly, a lot of people will have long arguments about what 'biblical Christianity' is - I am personally, publically, and confidently submitted to my denomination's essential definition of that.
Steve is a great guy, and I hope you and he serve as helpful, faithful agents provocateurs in the regional Christian community.
Posted by: Mike Moses | March 03, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Haven't been on the blog posts in a while - so thought I would also "wave back" at Mark and Michelle (insert big smile here). Just gotta add - I have deep conviction on the inerrancy of scripture...it is the errancy of human interpretation of scripture that I struggle with (insert another smile here...).
Regarding emerging vs missional vs mainline vs evangelical vs ... I think all the labeling is getting us more divided than united. Even the early church had their fundamental differences on what they were "about"...remember the big conference on whether gentiles could become believers? We have struggled for centuries with that. Why do we spend so much time and energy on what separates us as Christians instead of what unites us? Because while we are doing all the internal bickering, there are lots of folks watching and walking away. I don't know the answer, but I painfully watch the struggles.
Posted by: Jaye | March 07, 2012 at 10:57 AM
PREACH, JAYE. and that's all i have for today. execept, HEY Mark. miss you!
Posted by: Tracygrubbs | March 08, 2012 at 09:09 AM
Bill- re reading some comments here and realized I didn't answer your suggestion - that is a great idea for a blog post. but even better, as an exercise for myself. I'm gonna think about that and post something - might take me a while. Cause even regarding those with whom i disagree in their content, i share their holy dissatisfaction with 'how things are' and their love for Jesus and His Church enough to want to invest time, energy and conflict to work toward change/further sanctification of the Body of Christ in our generation. Thanks for being one of those people too, and for the helpful suggestion
Posted by: Mike Moses | March 08, 2012 at 09:30 AM