Church Morphing: hermeneutical community

Newbigin called it a “circle” (1). D.A. Carson calls it a “spiral” (2). Others call it a “community.” Whatever one calls it, all are referring to hermeneutics and the need for multiple perspectives in order to move toward God’s understanding of the whole of Scripture.
We are coming to the end of this overview of basic issues that I see as critical to the evangelical church in a postmodern world where people believe that “all is flux, nothing stays still,” and “nothing endures but change” (Heraclitus).

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man." Heraclitus

This entry about the hermeneutical community will introduce nuance into discussions concerning absolute Truth and our understanding of that Truth. My position is that Scripture is perfect and my/our understanding of Scripture is imperfect.

I once shared this (critical realist) finite-understanding-of-the-Bible position with a friend of mine who heads the theological committee of his district. He retorted, “If that is so, how can we understand anything in Scripture with certainty?”

His legitimate concern is that we have an understanding of Scripture that is solid enough to build one’s life upon Christ and sure enough that one is willing to stake one’s afterlife upon Him.
The multiple perspectives provided by differing people-who-are-gifts (Eph. 4:11 apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, teacher), from various cultures and time periods give us an ever greater certainty about our understanding of the Truth that is God’s Word.

I would like to set out some possible markers to distinguish levels of hermeneutical certainty: personal conviction, collective conviction, virtual universal truth, and absolute Truth.
Personal conviction
For “George” it was a sin to play European football (soccer). Now, I don’t know any reputable theologians willing to support that position, but before replying, “That’s ludicrous!” it is helpful to understand George. Before coming to Christ, soccer was his life, an idol that led him into all sorts of vice.

In case you have not yet seen the "Miss France vs. Miss Italy" parody…
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=v7R5Uwjj10E

So, in accord with Romans 14, George developed the personal conviction that for him soccer was sinful. The problem was, contra Romans 14, George imposed his conviction on everyone else.

In talking about differing convictions on controversial issues, I think Paul would say, “The man who [plays football] must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not [play football at all] must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him” (Ro. 14:3).

Concerning personal convictions the essential factor is to be right before God by living according to them by faith, while not imposing them on others.

Collective conviction
Martin, a friend of mine, is the pastor of a Full Gospel church. He does not hesitate to publicize evangelistic events that involve miraculous happenings. Now I do not share his conviction concerning sign gifts, so do not plan on participating in one of his campaigns anytime soon though I can pray that God will work through Martin, possibly in spite of some of the things he does.

But Martin is a man of God and we both preach salvation by grace through faith. So he and I joke together. He says that one day the Charismatics will get me back into the fold (I used to be charismatic). But I rejoin, “When we are both standing before God, we’ll see who is right!” (Of course, it is I ;-)

Photo by Joan Fontcuberta

You see, I have exegeted key passages, consulted commentators on both sides of the issue, and have investigated the theological and experiential history of the miraculous in Christian circles. But even though I can stack up exegetical support, heavyweight theologians and church history to support this “non-charismatic” (a singularly unhappy epithet) collective conviction, I could be wrong about how God works today. After all, there are more evangelical Charismatic and Pentecostal believers across the planet than of my persuasion. And they too, just like me, all know that they are right!

The point is that God has the definitive understanding on the question. And when we are face to face with him we will know who was right, who was wrong, and where each side had understanding and lack thereof. The same goes for controversial questions within a given denomination.

Virtual universal truths
Most all Christians since the second century accept the incomprehensible reality of the Trinity. This doctrine is virtually canonical even though the word is nowhere found in the Bible. It is as close as one can come to absolute certainty without being a direct quotation from the Bible. It is part of that which the ancient Church accepted as semper ubique ab omnibus (“always, everywhere, by everyone.”) Though no one is able to explain “how” God can be Three Persons yet One Essence, it is universally accepted as true and we build our lives by faith in the Trinity based upon this trustworthy understanding.
Absolute Truth
The Bible, in its original form, is perfect. It is an absolutely reliable, “authoritative disclosure of [God’s] character and will, his redemptive acts and their meaning, and his mandate for mission” (Lausanne’s Manila Manifesto, “Twenty-One Affirmations” N°3).
On a planetary scale, the Lausanne Conference practices the hermeneutical community by bringing together believers from cultures around the globe. By prayerfully studying the Scriptures together they help to protect the Church against theological provincialism and pursue that which is virtually evangelically certain, moving toward understanding Scripture the way God does. And they attempt to discern together how our Missionary God’s Spirit is moving today around the world.
So what happens when people disagree on what is Truth and what is understanding? This is what some emergent/emerging church theologians are doing when they challenge foundationalism, accusing the Western Inherited Church of theological provincialism.

To be continued…
(1) Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture, 51.
(2) Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 118.

Church Morphing: inoculation or innovation?

What would Henry Holsinger, father of the Progressive Brethren movement, have to say to the Grace Brethren Fellowship today?

“In its history the Brethren Church has retained the vision of being true to the Scriptures as understood by the founders of the Brethren movement. Henry R. Holsinger and other leaders of the Progressive Brethren movement thought of themselves as the conservators of the original Brethren ideals and interpretations, being progressive only in the application of these ideals to present-day life.” (Donald Durnbaugh, Meet the Brethren, 43)

Mr. Holsinger retained the absolute authority of Scripture and led people in culturally relevant embodiment of that Truth. Yet he was vehemently attacked for his progressive views (considered to be “worldly”) on higher education, Sunday schools, “an educated and salaried ministry, open denominational publication, and a deliberate policy of evangelism and mission outreach” (Durnbaugh, 43,69).
Of course the Old Order Brethren did the attacking. God ordained innovators today would never be the object of such ill-founded accusations from fellow Grace Brethren, would they?!

A friend tipped me off to CE National’s fireside dialogue on "Emergent Church Issues" by Dr. Mark Soto. I was surprised by a number of things.

FDR fireside chat

First surprise, it not easy to find. Go to > www.cenational.org > resources > fireside dialogues > emergent church issues.

Second surprise, when I revisited the site I found that CE National had “come under criticism” evidently for admitting that emergent or emerging church proponents* have recognized symptoms of real sickness in the evangelical church. It would appear that this admission brought on an accusation of being soft on Truth. I find allegations that attribute guilt by association to be singularly grievous.
Love should typify believers and love "believes all things" (panta pisteuei 1 Corinthian 13:7). Carson explicates Paul's meaning : "not gullible but generously open and accepting rather than suspicious or cynical." And Bruce adds, "put the most favorable construction on ambiguous actions."

PREVENTATIVE SUSPICION
In the 1990s, the French government used a tactic called “preventative suspicion” to inoculate people against religion by introducing fearful mistrust of unknown religious groups (Hervieu-Léger, Religion en miettes, 45). This was especially detrimental to evangelicals who represented less than 1% of the French population.

Preventative suspicion involved, for example, the 1995 publishing of a list of groups showing sectarian tendencies (parliamentary report by Alain Vivien, Les Sectes en France. Expressions de la liberté morale ou facteurs de manipulation ? La Documentation française, 1985).

In reality, this list held no legal weight as there was no legal definition of a cult. But the unofficial list of “cults” functioned to create doubt, suspicion and apprehension so that people avoided any unknown religious group fearing that it might be diabolical. The broad-scale effect of preventative suspicion was inoculation against the contagion of religion.

So what?

FEAR OR FAITH?
How CE came under fire befuddles this blogger who actually listened to Dr. Soto's (may I call him Mark?) message on "emergent church issues." Listen to Soto's mp3 and set fear aside. He and by association CE National clearly support the absolute Truth of Scripture. After all the great legitimate concern about the contagion of the emergent church movement is the loss of Truth, n’est-ce pas?
I suspect that critics have good intentions, being truly concerned about Truth. But in this case Truth is not in question. Do not these vague allegations unwittingly create a climate of preventative suspicion that inoculates people against aspirations of applying the Bible in relevant ways by faith?

Fortunately we have the example of Henry Holsinger who was guided by the Word and empowered by the Spirit as he moved forward in faith.
While I agreed with many of Mark Soto’s observations and was quite happy that he cited missiological works by David Bosch, Transforming Mission and Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, I was left frustrated.

Why?
Dr. Soto catalogues a few of the emerging churches* grievances against the modernist church, and I applaud his acknowledgment that these are true weaknesses:

1. disunity between born again people (John 17:17-23)
2. lack of application of the Truth (James 1:22-27)
3. inability to reach the postmodern lost with the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

My frustration came not with Mark as his presentation was rather even handed while he treated a volatile topic with kid gloves. I am frustrated that there is:

• recognition that the contemporary church is spiritually sick,
• an admission that “most of Christianity fails to understand the nature of the Church,"
• criticism of those who are honestly trying to understand the nature of the Church and cure her ills,
• no prescription for change.

If the church is spiritually sick then inaction that maintains the status quo, and in some cases forcefully defends it, does not strike me as a path that Jesus would advocate (Revelation 2 & 3).

After all, what if accusations against the modernist church are true in God's eyes?

Q1: If there is disunity between, for example, regenerate Full Gospel and Grace Brethren people, then what should be done about it? Or between regenerate inherited church people and emerging Christ followers?

Q2: If we do not control our tongues (or writings) or do not help widows and orphans, as James says, then what should be done to make our “religion” worth something in God’s eyes?

Q3: If we do not engage postmodern people with the gospel in a way greater than getting a message into their auditory canal, how are we obeying Jesus’ command to make disciples?

APPLAUD INNOVATION
I personally believe that deeper understanding of the nature of the Church will be found through missiology, innovative attempts to embody the Scriptural data (that we already know) about the church. (I could wax eloquent about the metaphors for church but will save that for another time and place.)
Rather than sowing suspicion, leaders should applaud postmodern innovators who embrace the Truth of the Word and seek to apply it in relevant ways by faith. I believe that a way forward helping to heal the local church's ills and begin new churches is to serve side by side with young mavericks.

Accusers beware! While some mavericks are unteachable renegades others are apostles & prophets.

Those innovators who follow in Holsinger’s footsteps, concomitantly embracing inerrancy and relevance, need to be protected, supported and resourced because even well-intentioned scare tactics can intimidate, causing these people to flee, or worse. The current wave of preventative suspicion could lead them to adopt a course of fearful inaction rather than one of action born from faith.

Some of us need to protect, accompany and resource young prophets as they attempt to heal the ills of the local church.

Some of us need to mentor, sponsor and coach young apostles as they begin new churches, churches that do not have the genetic predisposition to the illnesses listed above.

These innovators need freedom, not to tamper with Scripture, but to experiment with ecclesiology.

Hmm, was that Henry Holsinger who just shouted “Amen!”?


* I insist on accurate use of Dr. Tim Boal’s distinction between “emergent” and “emerging.” "Emergent" questions the Truth of Scripture while “emerging” embraces the Truth of Scripture while seeking freshly relevant ways of embodying that Truth. See "Getting Real About the Emerging Church" June 2007.

** “Xers are fully open to caring, one-on-one, personal mentoring by stable, secure people. In fact, even though it may seem that ‘we don’t need anybody’, we literally hang out for coaching, and, even more than that, fathering. We want someone to come alongside us and have input, give directions and keep us accountable.… We don’t want people telling us what to do, but advising us on choices and consequences.… but we really react against enticement or force by leaders intent on shoving us through the sausage machine.” Bevan Herangi in, postmission: world mission by a postmodern generation, ed. Richard Tiplady, p.2-13).