how far is too far?

Perhaps we can finish this series of blogs on Christology by exploring how this central force of spiritual mDNA actually guides our missional conduct and activities. (Matt Stone will love this post.) As an incarnational missionary I have often been asked the question “how far can we incarnate? How far can we take on a culture in order to communicate the Gospel meaningfully within that culture? How far is too far?” It’s a good question. How can we know when our attempts to incarnate the gospel do not just result in syncretism (a blending of religions)? I believe that the concept of Christocentric monotheism as defined in previous blogs is our guide. When the surrounding culture intrudes on the lordship of Jesus and his exclusive claim over all aspects of our lives, then monotheism functions as the defining criterion by which we can discern between syncretism and incarnational mission.

Syncretism effectively dilutes the claim of the Biblical God and creates a religion that merely diminishes the tension of living under the claim of Jesus and ends up merely affirming the religious prejudices of the host culture. The example of apartheid has been referred to above so we can further analyze it here. But this can be applied to any context: What happened in South Africa is that to a large extent, white European Christianity actually sanctioned the racial prejudice and legitimized the oppressive power structures of the white peoples of South Africa in the name of a doctrine called ‘Christian Paternalism.’ As this little piece of theology played itself out socially and politically it resulted in what we now know as the policy of apartheid.

Why this was syncretism and not just political expedience is because the vast majority of whites in South Africa lived under a very religious, Calvinist, code—they are a deeply religious people (there are traffic jams getting to church on Sunday) It was the theologians who gave apartheid its original legitimacy and sustaining authority. God, under the syncretistic influence of the apartheid theologians, became a racist god who justified the suppression of the inferior black peoples. But if we analyze it more simply, we can look at apartheid as simply the refusal to live under the claims of love and justice that are part of what it means to worship the one true God. How can one worship the God of justice by acting unjustly? Clearly the Biblical answer is that one cannot. In this case, acting in love and justice towards the Black peoples was perceived as a threat to the ongoing identity and viability of the Afrikaner people, and so they put race and politics out of the equation of the Lordship of Jesus in the name of racial survival and dominance. Or rather, acting syncretistically, they co-opted God to their racist agenda. Paradoxically, the rest of the culture was deeply Christian but the god over politics and social life was a different god to the God in the church.

Perhaps another example from Africa will serve to bed this down—that of the Rwandan genocide, a murderous frenzy that involved active professing Christians and churches in the slaughter. Lee Camp comments on this as a failure of the lordship of Christ.

In fact, the Rwandan genocide highlights a recurrent failure of much historic Christianity. The proclamation of the “gospel” has often failed to emphasize a fundamental element of the teaching of Jesus, and indeed, of orthodox Christian doctrine: “Jesus is Lord” is a radical claim, one that is ultimately rooted in questions of allegiance, of ultimate authority, of the ultimate norm and standard for human life. Instead, Christianity has often sought to ally itself comfortably with allegiance to other authorities, be they political, economic, cultural, or ethnic. Could it be that “Jesus is Lord” has become one of the most widespread Christian lies? Have Christians claimed the lordship of Jesus, but systematically set aside the call to obedience to this Lord? At least in Rwanda, with “Christian Hutus” slaughtering “Christian Tutsis” (and vice versa), “Christian” apparently served as a brand name—a “spirituality,” or a “religion” –but not a commitment to a common Lord. [Lee C. Camp, Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World (Brazos Press, 2003.),16]

It is a difficult thing to truly worship the one true God. And we don’t need to analyze large systems like apartheid, or the horrors of the Rwandan genocide, to see this dynamic at work, we need only look into our own lives; when we deliberately sin, or when we refuse to allow his claim to seep into all the dimensions of our lives and respond in obedience, we effectively limit the lordship of Jesus and his claim of absolute rule. (eg.Lk.6:46 )

When practicing the missional discipline of incarnation, we need to always have our eye to the Lordship of Jesus and the exclusive claims consistent with his nature. How far is too far? I suggest that it is when we refuse to bring aspects of our cultures and lives under the Lordship of Jesus—that simple. Although it requires a deeply prayerful and discerning approach, the application of Christocentric Monotheism provides missional leaders and practitioners with a working discernment principle by which we can measure incarnation against syncretism and hopefully, guided by the Holy Spirit, we will end up doing the right thing. It is Jesus (as portrayed in the Bible and perceived throughout history) who must decide what elements in a culture are right of wrong and as missionaries we must try to avoid tampering with the application of monotheistic spirituality in a given setting. Our process is to teach the principle and let the people decide from within a cultural system what is, and what is not, under the rule of God.

July 4, 2007 | Filed Under following jesus, mission, the forgotten ways |

Comments

32 Responses to “how far is too far?”

Peggy Brown on July 4th, 2007 5:08 am

I’m having one of those “C.S. Lewis flashbacks”, Alan…where I read something that I sense is right on, where I know all the words, but I’m left thinking, “what exactly does this mean?”

I need the “working discernment principle” fleshed out with a bit of a working definition…I’ve got bits of too many threads starting to get tangled!

Sorry to be so dense ;(
alan hirsch on July 4th, 2007 6:57 am

I think this harks back to the meaty discussion we were having a few blogs ago where we explored the idea of ‘discernment’. I think of it this way, if monotheism provides us with our most basic assumptions about God, and that it is an all-inclusive claim, then this can provide the reference point from which we can take guidance. Especially for us as Christ-followers who take Jesus as our reference point. In a real sense, the WWJD movement has the right instincts. It just narrowed down the scope to personal piety. God becomes a matter of personal taste and preference when we do this and we syncritize our faith away.
Peggy Brown on July 4th, 2007 8:29 am

For me, then, this means that my workig discernment principle is covenant-keeping: That which is “on target” with God’s mission, which encourages and enables faithful covenant-keeping between all members of the covenant, the measure of which is being like Christ…works for me.

Now I just have to go back and plug this into some of the discernment scenarios, with the Christcentric monotheism context, and avoid the sacred/secular divide.

Well…lots to think about and process there

And I still think that we need a very robust and central understanding of what Christ said and did, rather than relying so much of the OT and the Epistles and later church writings.

This feels very much like a less-is-more focus, a kind of fall back and group…to those forgotten ways, eh?
Bob Carder on July 4th, 2007 2:57 pm

Who is Peggy Brown anyway? She pops up allot, so I thought I might ask! I never hear a challenge, she just agrees and agrees. Who are you Peggy? Are you Alan’s sister or what?

This is really going to get me into trouble. Sorry in a sort of sorry way. I’m just dying to know!

I know Peggy will nail me good on this one. I’m waiting to know, who are you anyway?
Peggy Brown on July 4th, 2007 3:32 pm

Hello, Bob…

Curiosity is a risky thing…

Well, I am Alan’s sister only by the blood of Christ–but that is a bond that cannot be broken. I am your sister in the same way, Bob…

I am a former missionary and pastor/future organic meta-church planter trying to understand and process both the contents and implications of Alan’s very significant book, along with most of the rest of the “regulars” here at TFW.

I find that I have great resonance with Alan, which forged an immediate connection when I had the pleasure of hearing/meeting him and Debra at an Organic Church conference in Long Beach back in January. We had a number of conversations over the three days, and I picked up his book and began to join the conversation here. I was “on his wavelength” right from the start, following the gist of what he was talking about even before reading his books. It is quite a remarkable connection.

There are plenty of people around who challenge Alan…I do try not to repeat what others are saying, if I can help it. But I do listen to what they have to say and I either agree or disagree or ask further questions. Sometimes I challenge those who are asking questions. Sometimes I don’t say anything. Sometimes I have been known to hijack a thread to chase rabbits…but we usually catch something interesting–to us, at least!

Perhaps I am the mother bear protecting this precious place and the tone and content of our conversation. I do not have my own blog–yet. So this, along with Scot McKnight’s blog, is my “adopted” home. I care about the brothers and sisters here and try to build a relationship with them that facilitates our coversations.

Of course, if you wanted to know anything more specific, I would be happy to respond.
bob roberts on July 5th, 2007 12:38 am

Alan - the simple approach here and your paremeter I would agree with 100% and I think most would. Who can argue with that - it’s like the little kid giving the answer to every question in Sunday School - Jesus! If you want a lively debate - let’s talk about how we apply it. I’ve learned it’s easier to “incarnate” with anyone else other than a “religious” leader of another faith. That’s the challenge and elephant in the room in incarnation - do all roads lead to Rome - and I would say no. Great - so how far do we take it. I used to view other religious leaders as “us against them” and “the enemy” that we have to compete with and win. That was a very very wrong approach - A man serious about looking for God even in another religion and as a religious leader demands our attention perhaps more than anyone else. Some things I’ve learned:

First, don’t view them as the enemy.
Second, realize we live in a world where we have to get along and though there isn’t common salvation there is common grace to get along with. Third, some of the most significant early converts were the Jewish rabbi’s - the religious leaders of the “opposition.” Had Paul and others taken an us against them mentality - Christianity wouldn’t have gotten it’s needed traction to grow like it did. Religious leaders of other faiths may acutally demand more attention than others because they influence so many. One thing I’ve learned in working globally you have to engage both the masses and the gatekeepers - no movements started without both being engaged even if at first they weren’t visible for particular reasons. Fourth, sweat together and pray together and where the Scripture is silent - don’t prohibit. I pray with immams, monks, and others when they have their prayer times - we don’t necessarily pray to the same God. One of the most spiritually moving times in my life was kneeling in the middle of the Afghan desert with Muslims- I took a knee and prayed to Jesus for them while they were doing their prayers. I’ve prayed for and with government leaders of athiestic nations asking God to reveal himself to them and bless them - audibly and in their presence. Do those prayers matter? I was in a country in a room filled with pastors who faced persecution - we began to pray - government officials were present and as we prayed we began to pray for them - they weren’t laughing - many were moved but still consider themselves athiest. For cultural reasons, the Jewish Christians continued going to the temple - many Muslim Christians are doing the same because of persecution and other cultural issues. Do we have the right to tell them what to do and how to do it when it’s their lives on the line - not hours. Do the know things about God we may not know? Can we give them space?
Matt Stone on July 5th, 2007 12:45 am

Alan

Would have responded here but I had a diagram to add to the discussion so I launched an initial response here: http://mattstone.blogs.com/journeysinbetween/2007/07/can-you-be-too-.html

There’s more but I must retire for the evening.

Matt
alan hirsch on July 5th, 2007 2:44 am

Hey Bob Carder, play fair.

Bob Roberts, you are one out-there dude…that’s all I can say. Thanks for trailblazing the path for us.

And Matt, thanks. That post was truly excellent.
Peggy Brown on July 5th, 2007 2:54 am

Great diagram, Matt! Thanks for weighing it so significantly. I look forward to the rest of your thoughts.
Matt Stone on July 5th, 2007 10:23 am

Hey Peggy, why not visit https://www.blogger.com/start?hl=en and start up a blog today? It’s free and the hardest part is coming up with a name. It’s how I started out. Don’t worry if it’s not perfect as you can always revamp it as you learn or shift to another one later. You don’t even have to make it public if you don’t want to. Just experiment to begin with till you learn what works for you.
James Nored on July 5th, 2007 4:39 pm

Alan,

Syncretism has ever been the danger of God’s people. We don’t recognize this in the West, because our gods are not named gods.

Here are several sources of syncretism and accomodation to the dominant culture of the recent past and present:

1. Freedom–The United States was founded on freedom. Today we celebrated the 4th of July, the day Americans declared their independence from England. Soon they began a war, killing people. Why? Because they were being taxed without representation.

American Christians don’t even think twice about the way our country began. It is so engrained in our culture that our forefathers were brave, heroic men that we don’t even question whether or not their genuine heroism was justified. This support for freedom leads American Christians to applaud even the use of force to install democracies, and we buy into the idea that democracy is God’s chosen form of government. Look at President Bush’s 2nd inaugural address. Biblical concepts are used and invoked in speaking of freedom and democracy.

2. Materialism–Other blog posts have covered this, but it amazing how much Christianity in the West is tied to material things. I don’t know about you guys down under, but we Americans have the “American Dream”–big house, summer vacation home, nice cars, and a boat. In my recent research on suburbia, I discovered that biblical language was used to sell homes. (i.e. The Garden of Eden was the first subdivision, according to one ad.) Most Christians in the West see no incompatiblity with being a Christian and consumerism. Again, as you say, Jesus is Lord over one area but not this.

3. Modernism–In order to meet the skeptical, scientific challenges of the modern era, the church responded with syllogisms, diagrams, logic, and simplistic steps. To a certain extent, this approach was necessary; however, in striving to meet culture, the Christian faith was grossly distended. Narrative was lost. Complexities were suppressed. Tensions and paradoxes were “harmonized,” ignored, or explained away. Much more could be said here!

4. Postmodernism–I find postmodernism to be a breath of fresh air compared to modernism, though neither worldviews are completely good or bad. At least in postmodernism, each faith system and person gets a chance to be heard (theoretically). In postmodernism, we are approaching the pluralistic world of the 1st-4th centuries–a time in which Christianity thrived. However, where are the syncretistic dangers inherent with seeking to connect with postmodern culture?

This, it seems to me, should be the question that the emerging movement–which rightly seeks to connect with postmodern culture–should be asking. Syncretism is hard to spot, and it feels so natural.
Isaac on July 5th, 2007 5:51 pm

Hi, it’s been a while but I would like to comment.

“How far is too far? I suggest that it is when we refuse to bring aspects of our cultures and lives under the Lordship of Jesus—that simple. Although it requires a deeply prayerful and discerning approach, the application of Christocentric Monotheism provides missional leaders and practitioners with a working discernment principle by which we can measure incarnation against syncretism and hopefully, guided by the Holy Spirit, we will end up doing the right thing.”

Sorry for the big quote, I am sure I could have quoted more! (The whole last paragraph).

I trust this wasn’t far from Alan’s mind when he posted this, but he didn’t mention submitting what we do to the Word of God. It isn’t enough to ask, “Does it compromise the Lordship of Christ?” whenever we are about to do something new. How can we know if it does? Except by searching the scriptures (yes, even the epistles) and search for a principle that applies to our situation.

Maybe I am reading more mysticism into Alan’s post than was intended, but we do want to check the scriptures don’t we?
Matt Stone on July 5th, 2007 11:53 pm

Isaac, you know I was very tempted to mention the scriptures more explicitly in that post I linked in comment no 7 but I held back to see what people made of it.

But to be explicit I think having a firm grasp of the scriptures is essential for understanding who Jesus is, what he was on about and what it means to be Christ centred. Being Christ centred may involve more than just consulting the scriptures, but it certainly involves it.

When talking about being “in the world but not of the world,” I think knowing the scriptures relates very strongly to the second half of that phrase and it corresponds closely with the vertical axis in my diagram.

At this point I would also suggest you read Mike Frost’s article on contextualization at http://www.cegm.org.au/articles/risky-negotiation.html. The process outlined by Hieburt explicitly includes scriptural exegesis as well as cultural exegesis.
Matt Stone on July 6th, 2007 12:51 am

James said, “Syncretism is hard to spot, and it feels so natural.”

I agree. And you know, the only reason why I might be more sensitized to it than some others is because I’ve been SO guilty of syncretism. In embracing Christianity from within the New Age Movement I went through an extended transitional phase of syncretism (called myself a “Zen Christian”) whilst I was learning what it meant to be more incarnational, more Christ like. But being sensitized to syncretism by going thought it is not a path I recommend for already Christians and this raises the question of how to pass awareness onto others.

I find it very frustrating to find many within the emerging church are relatively indifferent to cautions about syncretism. People think they can spot syncretism so easy, that they wont slip. But it is easy to slip and we need to be vigilent. You said, “where are the syncretistic dangers inherent with seeking to connect with postmodern culture?” I would say the chief risk is pantheism and its handmaiden, the perennial philosophy, manifesting in split level Christianity. That’s the problem I have observed emerging most frequently in emerging conversations. In particular, getting down to the more subtle here, I have observed widespread confusion on the difference between panentheism and immanent monotheism.
Peggy Brown on July 6th, 2007 1:43 am

Hey, Matt, the link in #13 is “not found.”

This is an awesome conversation…

By the way, Matt, I have four Wikidot.com sites I’m working with…one of them, CovenantClusters, is the organic, meta-church planting vision I’ve been working on for 18 months or so. It is a closed site, but I will invite a number of folks to process the stuff there with me soon. Wanna come?

I’m also the President of my son’s Middle School PTSA, and developed a site to encourage greater communication and collaboration between the members and the potential members and the Executive Board. It’s fun…we’ll see if they will bite…it went on-line July 1st.

All very low tech…Wiki style suits me just fine for now, especially since I’m using it as part of the Wikiklesia Project…

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled programming….
Bob Carder on July 6th, 2007 1:48 am

ALAN, O.K. if I have to. Really, I was/am truly interested in “Who is Peggy”? She answered my question both here and on my blog.

I do respect the heart of tone of this blog and have come to appreciate Peggy and her integrity. Her “mother bear” instincts to protect are certainly flowing out of her passion. I also enjoy the challenge you bring and also the comments that are shared by Peggy and others.

So am I playing fair?

I wish we could also meet sometime.

ISAAC, how do we know we are led by the Holy Spirit? Everyone I meet in leadership circles claim to be led by the Spirit. I am concerned that the church in America attempts to create the new thing, the missional thing without first visiting at the feet of the Holy Spirit (if He has feet) and waiting until He comes upon us in Power before doing anything. I fear we sometimes start at the wrong place in missional movements and anything other than the priority of the Holy Spirit and His leading role is that wrong place.

When we start with the Holy Spirit assuming we have been redeemed by Jesus, the Holy Spirit will always bring us back to Jesus and His mission, the Great Commission. If we get that right all other things come back in line. I appreciate your reference to the Holy Spirit. He is often neglected and perhaps that is why we attempt mission man’s way with man’s resources. Look at the church today and some movements and you will see just another man led deal. I have no time for man led deals, we need the Holy Spirit and we need to engage what only God can do.
Alan Hirsch on July 6th, 2007 2:44 am

James, good comments. Those sneaky bloody idols!

Isaac, I didn’t mention scripture here but my understanding of the lordship of Jesus assumes it. I assure you that I believe in the authority of the Bible. And we need a definite grasp of the Bible to discern our way through the maze. So thanks for the reminder.
Patrick on July 6th, 2007 7:44 am

The theologian Jurgen Moltmann has some helpful guidelines he developed in regards to his reading of Scripture and how we are to work out what is asked of us. He is emphasizing what it means for the coming of the Spirit (who brings freedom), but I think it’s clear that the emphasis on Jesus is an essential bit.

He notes:

“We shall work out what furthers life, and we shall subject to criticism whatever is hostile to life.”

Then he lists some points about what this means:
1) “What furthers life is whatever ministers to the integrity of human life in people and communities”
2) “What furthers life is whatever ministers to the integration of individual life into the life of the community, and the life of the human community into the warp and weft of all living things.”
3) “What furthers life is whatever spreads reverence for life and the affirmation of life through love for life.”
4) “What furthers life is whatever heals broken relationships and liberates life that has been oppressed.”
5) “What furthers life is whatever leads to the new beginning of life in hope.
6) “What furthers life is whatever ministers to God’s covenant with life, and whatever breaks the covenant of human beings with death.”
7) “What furthers life is, first and last, whatever makes Christ present, Christ who is the resurrection and the life in person; for in an with Christ the kingdom of eternal life is present, and this kindgom overcomes the destructive powers of death.”
“But life from the divine source does not just mean full human life; it means ‘deified life too, the life Paul and Athanasius saw in the children of God–in the sonship and daughterhood of those ‘driven’ by God’s Spirit (Rom. 8:14 ).”

Even though Moltmann is coming from a very different emphasis and background I see a lot here that matches up with what Alan wrote. Whatever can promote life, and fit within these guidelines, is acceptable syncretism, so to speak. That which opposes these should be opposed. Of course, this means there’s a lot within the traditional church that should be opposed. Forms of syncretism don’t become okay just because they’ve taken on the name of tradition.
Patrick on July 6th, 2007 7:44 am

Oops, it makes my 8 and parentheses into a smiley face! Ah well, seems perfectly appropriate.
Matt Stone on July 6th, 2007 8:42 am

Peg, if you google “risky negotiation” you’ll find the Mike Frost article easy enough.

And yes I would be interested in the meta church plant thingy.

Recent events have forced me to reconsider the whole virtual church thing, despite the serious limitations I see with it. I think it might have been you who asked me the question some weeks ago about “what happens when people have no other option?”

Well, not long after a NeoPagan lass who’d been visiting my site posted how she’d been trying to earnestly explore Christianity as an option but had decided to give up as it prooved all too hard. It was obvious she was receiving no localized instruction. I was left feeling very heavy. I can see I need to give people like her an alternative option, an online option, lees than ideal as that might be. I have commenced work on a “Beginners Guide to Christianity”. I see potential to offer it as an online correspondance course but it would work best within an online community setting I think. Would love to bounce these issues around with others interested in virtual church.
Peggy Brown on July 6th, 2007 9:53 am

Matt, I must have gotten that somewhere earlier, I already had a copy saved! But I printed it out so I could read it…no wonder I don’t buy books, I have a million articles waiting to be read

I will let you know when CovenantClusters is ready for discussion.

Your Neo-Pagan might be one for a kind of virtual mentoring…we can brainstorm some of my ideas about that off-line. I’ll e-mail you….
Isaac on July 6th, 2007 4:11 pm

What have posted patrick, I must say I find most intriguing.

“We shall work out what furthers life, and we shall subject to criticism whatever is hostile to life.”

Without knowing the broader context of your quotation here it would be rash of me to make a sweeping statement about Mr. Moltmann. However, this strikes me as a particularly pragmatic statement.

Couldn’t it equally be rephrased, “Whatever works is true, and what doesn’t is false.”?

Patrick said, “Of course, this means there’s a lot within the traditional church that should be opposed.” I would like to hear what you think is specifically “hostile to life” within the traditional church (not at all assuming that there isn’t anything).
Patrick on July 7th, 2007 1:31 am

Isaac, it certainly is pragmatic, but I think your rephrasing guts the sentence of its most important aspects. We can’t just say whatever works, because that’s too vague. Works towards what? What is the goal? What is that which would define ‘what works’? For some this would be whatever contributed to the sanctity of the established hierarchy. Or whatever brings good order to society. Or whatever fills my bank account with the most money. Or whatever fills the most seats. Or whatever is the most trendy. Or whatever is least offensive.

Depending on how you define what you are working for there could be many ways of having things work. For Moltmann, this sentence is clarified by his following points that express what it would mean for it to “work”, and that is what brings wholeness and life to our society, reflecting, in essence, the Kingdom of God among us.

Essentially, this means the emphasis is on the goal rather than the methodology. So that is a pragmatic approach, albeit with profound impact if succesful.

What is hostile to life within the traditional church? Well, church history abounds in literal interpretation of this. More though, and bouncing off of Moltmann’s points, we could argue that emphasis on money, sharp distinctions between clergy and laity, services with enforced passivity, professionalization of missions, staid and fixed church buildings, de-emphasis on art and creativity, neglect of Christian formation, Sunday-Monday divergence, complete watering down and limitation of the Gospel message, sharp sacred and secular divisions, emphasis on Oprah style sermons accompanying a de-emphasis on Jesus, distrusting the stranger, closed and clique-filled communities, overworked and over-emphasized pastors, consumerism - both from clergy and from laity, emphasis on Tradition more than Spirit, and basically a good many of the criticisms made in Alan’s book and elsewhere that lead to depressed participation, understanding, and involvement. All of which are a lessening of the life that God intended, and leads to encroaching spiritual death.
alan hirsch on July 7th, 2007 3:06 am

I’m with you Patrick. And I think the best biblical concept to go with Moltmann’s terminology here is ’shalom’ or wholeness, holiness, integrity, peace. Whatever makes for these is good.
Peggy Brown on July 7th, 2007 5:45 am

What a listing, Patrick…yikes! God have mercy on us….
Patrick on July 7th, 2007 8:52 am

He does Peggy! That’s what makes this all so much fun even with all the issues. There’s hope. I think this is a great time, maybe one of the best, to be part of the church. God’s doing a work.
Peggy Brown on July 7th, 2007 9:10 am

Yes, that this hope does not disappoint us….

This is certainly another instance of what C.S. Lewis would call a “severe mercy” — a great pruning in preparation for explosive new growth.

Fasten your seat belts…
Isaac on July 7th, 2007 5:26 pm

I have to wonder how Mr. Moltmann came up with this list. As for “whatever works…” etc. being vague, the same could be said of Mr. Moltmann’s formula. Why not simply say, “Read the bible and do what it says.”?

Most of the criticisms you have leveled Patrick are fair. There are a couple which I don’t think are particularly “hostile to life”.

“Services with enforced passivity…” by this I assume you mean the typical minister-speaks-while-everyone-listens deal. I really don’t have a problem with this, and here’s why: It makes up only a very small part of the Christian life. Half an hour of listening a week is not going to kill my spiritual ferver, further more it is what we see happening in the book of Acts (Acts 2:42 ; 11:26; 20:7). Listening to teaching is good.

As for, “…de-emphasis on art and creativity…” I’m not really sure what that means but if it means that the arts have been pushed out of the institutional church then maybe we run in different circles (and how this is “hostile to life” I’m unsure). “…neglect of Christian formation…” ummm?

“…staid and fixed church buildings…” don’t have a problem with this either, so long as it isn’t empty most of the week, wasting space (which most of them are unfortunately).

“…complete watering down and limitation of the Gospel message…” I’d like to explore this one. How in your mind has the gospel been watered down, and how does the EC correct this?
Patrick on July 8th, 2007 1:41 am

Isaac, of course there are churches which exemplify the pursuit of life. My broad brush hits a good many congregations but there are certainly a good many exceptions as well.

Moltmann has a good many pages explaining his list, with this coming in his more recent book on his whole approach in theology for the last 40 years. Realize he became a Christian while in a British POW camp, after seeing a good friend of his blown up in the fire bombing of Hamburg and after learning of the German atrocities of the Holocaust. His pursuit of theology seeks to answer how do we see God. This is a deep pursuit because Germany of the mid-20th century was one of the most theologically advanced countries in the world. The Reformation started there. Church was extremely culturally embedded. Yet, they so quickly devolved into barbarians.

These were people who read the Bible and knew it fully and totally. So, it’s not enough to say read the Bible. Church history says that’s not enough. People make terrible interpretations and do terrible things with Bible verses in support.

The points you mention are certainly varied according to congregations, but I’ve been around churches my whole life and have seen the trend being mostly what I’m saying, though certainly not totally. To clarify:

Services with enforced passivity isn’t just about having a sermon on a Sunday. It’s making this appear to be the entirely of what church means. When a person says they are ‘going to church’ they mean going to a passive service. Your interpretation is right on, but that’s just not how many churches, pastors, or congregation understand it. I have gone to many churches where there was a very strong bias against having any other activities besides organized services. So, it’s out there, and by limiting participation it limits people’s exploration of their gifts. Sure, people can do this on their own, but if a church community doesn’t facilitate that, then that church community is basically extraneous or harmful.

Artists have been pushed out of the institutional church. I know a good many and there’s just not a feeling there’s room for their participation. Go into a Christian bookstore, for instance, and it’s not exactly highlighting brilliant Christian art. We are a subculture obsessed with kitsch. For the most part creativity is expressed by pastors who do their public speaking and teachers who teach. There’s very little happening in most congregations that would spark creativity from the broader congregation. Many churches do. Most don’t.

Neglect of Christian formation. Absolutely. There’s absolutely no reason a person should pay tens of thousands of dollars for a theological education. I learned things in my undergraduate and graduate studies that I should have learned in church. But in church I was only taught evangelism. Nothing more. I knew absolutely no church history, no doctrine, nothing. A survey of the broader church reflects a pretty strong ignorance about Christian doctrine. But people are starved for it. Again, some churches have good teaching. Most, I have found, emphasis little more than milk.

Your parentheses is basically my point about church buildings. I think they could be great community places, but most are very limited in use. Plus, this gets into the sacred-secular thing Alan has talked about. Church should be something we bring to people, not something we have to bring people to.

The Gospel has been watered down by emphasis on one particular aspect. The forgiveness of sins. That’s great. Amazing. But that’s by no means the extent of what Jesus was talking about. Even the forgiveness thing has been limited so that there’s a forumulaic pattern of expression that a person has to accept or reject, instead of embracing the idea that Jesus approached everyone in a different way, with a different answer to their particular questions. The Gospel has been limited to getting into the club, then inviting others to join the club. Everyone hangs around the gates. But, the Gospel is about salvation as a starting point, in which the Good News is the fullness of Christ in our lives. This is a lot more than forgiveness of sins, as the epistles consistently note. Paul has his “therefores” which seem to fill out the meat of the Gospel.

Plus, it’s just really difficult to have any kind of thorough teaching in a half hour once a week. The Gospel permeates all of life, in our salvation and our sanctification, something Wesley taught well and ended up sparking massive revival.

Again, this isn’t to say this reflects all churches. There are wonderful, wonderful communities and leaders out there who are bringing renewal. They are, in my experience, the exceptions at this point.
Isaac on July 10th, 2007 7:38 pm

I read a lot in the more emerging circles people saying things that seem to be in the same vein as what you have said above about the Gospel, Patrick.

They say something like, ‘The Gospel has been reduced to “winning souls”…’ or similar…
I would love to know where these churches are. Since for the most part of my church experience, I have witnessed only (without exception) insular church. Me church. iChurch.

When people do talk about evangelism it nearly always refers to a “no strings attached” relationship that ultimately doesn’t bother to present the Gospel message (nor Christianity for that matter).

So again, these churches that ARE concerned with the salvation of souls, God bless them! I haven’t yet come across a church which was dedicated to the one thing for which we were commissioned in the first place (and the only thing we won’t do in heaven); Make disciples of all nations/preach the gospel to all creation.

I am very interested in precisely what you meant by this: “Even the forgiveness thing has been limited so that there’s a formulaic pattern of expression that a person has to accept or reject, instead of embracing the idea that Jesus approached everyone in a different way, with a different answer to their particular questions.”

BTW I agree that the Good News is more than one thing. I would say the very focus is the forgiveness of sins. It’s the point. It’s what animal sacrifices couldn’t provide and why we needed Jesus’ sacrifice.
Patrick on July 11th, 2007 11:56 pm

Isaac, I think we all come to this conversation with difference church experiences that sometimes affects the conversation. For me I come out of a long line of fundamentalist, Evangelical, parachurch, missionary oriented churches whose failing was never passion but generally depth. There were always mission trips, street evangelism, door to door work. In the last church I worked at a ministry I was leading got slashed because the leaders wanted to focus the church on getting out into the neighborhood doing door to door evangelism, so they scheduled classes on the techniques to do that.

The commission, of course, isn’t to make converts. It’s to make disciples. That means going beyond the four spiritual laws, and insisting that everyone’s response to Jesus match up with those laws. The fact is not everyone will come to Jesus because they feel guilt or worry about their sins. Do we then insist they have to feel this first or are there other ways Jesus is important? That everyone needs their sins cleansed is certain, but that’s not always the primary issue for someone, and they might feel their sins only after they respond.

What I’m talking overall is what I see in the Epistles. Paul does talk about the work of Jesus on the cross, but the letters are a lot more than that. He presents the work of Christ and then follows it up with a “therefore”, a call to thus go and live in the way that Jesus now offers us in freedom.

This aspect, this meat of the Gospel, is what churches in my experience are missing as they have tried to make the Gospel into an easily memorized script for street evangelism. The four spiritual laws, the “Roman Road”, etc. have been the initial and primary content of the Gospel message, something that is so much more limited than what the New Testament teaches.

For me I grew up in the church. What is the good news for me? I’ve been saved by Jesus my whole life. Yet, I experience the Gospel every day. Not primarily the forgiveness of sins, or even the work on the cross. Of course I cherish that, but Jesus didn’t just die, he rose again, and it is the resurrection that is my daily good news, for I have been called to participate in a living relationship, called as an heir, able to taste the present and the future glory of the risen Jesus. The resurrection is just as much a part of the Gospel as the cross, the victory and adoption is just as important as forgiveness of sins. God didn’t just forgive me, he called me, lifted me up, and fills my soul with the Holy Spirit, so that I can dance with God throughout time and eternity.

“For though by this time you ought to be teachers,” the writer to the Hebrews says, “you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk , not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk , being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. ut solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Churches in realizing the need for evangelism and that some people need milk have oftentimes forgot there is something more. The Gospel is the continuing good news of Jesus that brings us into the full relationship with God, and that begins, not ends, with the idea of forgiveness of sins.

So when I write stuff like this realize my experiences have been in evangelism oriented congregations that tend to have breadth, but no depth, and suffer from as many people leaving out the back door as coming in the front. But, I think that’s the great thing about being missional. The call is to react to the context with the fullness of the Good News, that might mean a differing emphasis depending on the particular situation.

Not all illnesses require the same medicine.
Matt Stone on July 12th, 2007 12:24 am

Attempting to go too far again I’ve done a follow up post here http://mattstone.blogs.com/journeysinbetween/2007/07/can-your-spirit.html