“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:
- disunity between born again people (John 17:17-23)
- lack of application of the Truth (James 1:22-27)
- inability to reach the postmodern lost with the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
- 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.
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).
9 comments:
Thoughtful post, Paul. Thanks. BMH Books has come under some of that same attack (from the same sources) as CE National because we dared publish authors who mentioned in their bibliographies some emergent authors. I appreciate your efforts to think your way through the thickets!
--Terry White, publisher
BMH Books, Wionona Lake, IN
Thanks for the note of encouragement Terry! I do not know the people involved so will speak generally and candidly. I believe the guilt-by-association jabs are unhealthy for a number of reasons:
These accusations could be manifestations of sin creating “discord,” “dissensions, factions” (Galatians 5:20).
Unsubstantiated claims violate biblical love not to mention grace that is to characterize believers.
This sort of infighting could easily motivate gifted young people to leave the FGBC for healthier spiritual homes. Why should anyone creative stay to serve with the FGBC if they know they could be the next casualty of “friendly fire”?
I do not adhere to secondary separation; it does not promote the cultivation of discernment and wisdom (both are thoroughly biblical). Discernment is vital to discipleship in the today’s media dominated world. We must teach people to compare all with Scripture—sermons, books (evangelical ones included), music, films, TV shows—or head off to a monastery which cuts us off from the mission in the world to which Jesus called us.
Wow, didn’t mean to be that direct but that is the way I see it. Thanks for daring to publish helpful books brother!
If I may leave this challenge for all of us including myself:
There are many who do criticize. Yet, they are then criticized for criticizing... You can see the endless spiral.
The challenge is this, that we do the hard work of shepherding beyond occasional meetings and phone calls, but to the degree of doing the real relationship building that we claim we want. I believe a difference of unity will follow...
Good counsel Zach. I have a perspicacious Portuguese friend who believes that the crying need in our day is for shepherding. I am seeing too that some young people are quite open to journeying together (at least here in Dijon) and that they have so, so much to teach this staunch individualist about relationship.
thank you for being gracious enough to let me post on your blog!
Thanks Paul for this “apostolic” entry in your blog. I use the word apostolic in the sense that you communicate a clear discernment of many blind spots in a lot of today’s evangelical churches and, at the same time, a strong desire to see these churches constructively change so that the increasing numbers of lost people in Europe might have an opportunity to “hear” the truth of the gospel. One can see that you want the church to move forward without fear and you are frustrated when you sense fearful reactions.
I share your frustration. We want to see the church dynamically engage the challenges of ministry in a postmodern world. For the many their “tradition” is a source of stability in a time of turmoil.
A few questions I am asking myself at the moment, and for which I have no answers, are the following:
Could it be that God in his sovereignty is permitting this time of cultural turmoil? If so, is the Holy Spirit wanting to provoke something (as in the Acts of the Apostles)? Could this something be the emerging church?
Are we going to be faced by a situation such as that faced by John Wesley where he found himself obliged to leave the camp (Heb. 13)? (I didn’t want to talk of Luther because, like you, I don’t see the emerging church trying to provoke a new reformation. Wesley didn’t want to leave the Anglican Church but it became inevitable in the end.)
Or, are we faced by a situation such as that faced by Ezra who plugged away at rebuilding Jerusalem in spite of opposition from those who seemed to be in the same camp? (Ezra 4: 1-5)
Your insight would be appreciated.
Peadar Somers
So good to hear from you Peadar! I have asked myself some of those same questions. We are clearly in a time of transition and times of transition mean uncertainty; I’ll therefore not make dogmatic statements. But here are some rather obvious thoughts that will not satisfactorily answer your questions :-)
I see a spectrum composed of people with varying convictions and styles. Some emergent people (here I use emergent and emerging as technical terms) are intentionally provoking revolution calling for a break from the inherited church which they view as a hindrance to true spirituality. But where Luther brought people back to the Scriptures, emergents question the Truth of Scripture. For me, this is unacceptable. And as Kary Oberbrunner has pointed out, even though we may be ashamed of certain aspects of the church, she is nonetheless Jesus’ bride and therefore precious. Even when we dislike her look, personality, or choices, we must respect her for Jesus’ sake and participate in the collective process of her sanctification.
Emerging people generally accept the Bible as God’s Word and recognize that understanding of Truth is not the same as Truth itself. They question their own understanding and practices, seeking more Scripturally faithful and culturally pertinent embodiments of Jesus’ desire for local expressions of Church. While some evangelicals throw stones at these people and may want to exclude them, I do not see how the emerging approach substantially differs from the spirit and even teaching of the Reformation—a morphing of the church shaped by fresh, Spirit guided understandings of the Scriptures.
Some emerging people will leave inherited churches of their own volition. Others will be excluded by those who do not differentiate between form and essence, between understanding and Truth (your Wesley category). Then there will be Ezras who will guide contemporary inherited churches into the future. Sarah Cunningham describes well these possibilities in her book, Dear Church.
One note about the emergent/emerging movements which contrast strongly from 19th century monolithic liberalism to which they are often compared, they are atomized. There will therefore be almost as many variations on a theme as there are leaders. For this reason I find it unhelpful to talk about emergent and emerging as though there are only two uniform mindsets; it is more helpful to discuss issues individually. Rather than a spectrum we may be looking at nebulae.
So sorry this is so general!
This discussion strand is a bit old, but quite relevant to me, so thought I'd try and leave a note.
I'm not a theologian. I am well-read, but not generally in the nuances of the arguments that float around all of this "emerging stuff." I have, unfortunately, become all to familiar with the realities of these arguments, however.
Three years ago, my wife and I gave our hearts to build an adult class/community in our GBC. We chose to seek out people who were not yet Christian or very new at it to reach and build up. God blessed and a number of couples made commitments to Christ and were baptized and added to the church.
As the pressure of ministry increased (as well as the numbers of people attached to the class), I began to seriously look for support and resources to undergird the needs of these people. I attended a conference where I found books to read on evangelism and missional approaches to building the church. I found ideas that made sense to me as I engaged with people who needed Jesus but who had no orientation to traditional "church speak."
I made the mistake of sharing what I was reading with the pastors of my GBC. I soon found one of them in my kitchen. It was nothing short of an inquisition on the finer points of "atonement theory" and the inerrancy of scripture. In my mind, topics I had never stopped to consider, to think about, to study. Within a few months, I was clearly on the "hit list" of at least some of the pastoral staff. By early summer, now a bit more than a year ago, I was removed.
I still get questions about "am I still into the emergent stuff." Frankly, I didn't know I ever was. All I thought I was doing was trying my best to respond to the call of God in my life as a lay-leader in the church, to learn what I could, to love people that God put in my path, and to try to help.
Today I don't go to church. I love God. I love the scriptures, and I continue to read. I'm over church. If for no other reason, I'm over church because no one from this GBC has ever come after me. In truth, I'm sure they are just glad that this guy who truly stumbled into the "emergent conversation" is gone and not their problem anymore.
I wish you luck with your attempt to speak back to the ugly core of the FGBC. Maybe you'll have better luck since you are an insider.
Hi Howard,
So sorry it has taken me some time to respond; am at a pretty time intensive conference.
Wow, how does one respond to a story so tragic. If only it were fiction, but this is unfortunately a variation on a theme. Is it appropriate for me to apologize and ask forgiveness for such insensitivity? I am sincerely sorry that members of my extended family would act this way.
We have got to reach out and you are right, I know a number of people who are interested in God but not church. So what do we do to help them grow in Christ? This is where many emerging people have focused their attention and that, without exchanging truth for relevance. My read on Grace Brethren history is that we have attempted to keep truth and relevance together since the days of Henry Holsigner in the 19th century.
And as you read in the entry, I believe that we church leaders should be coming along side of people like you to do both exegesis of the Scriptures and the culture to work out new ways of embodying the essence of the church in a way that helps people know and grow in Christ. Well, you know all of that.
I once again am sorry for the accusation of guilt by association and for the inquisition you experienced as you simply sought how to help people become better disciples of Christ. That sounds trite even as I write but please know I mean it sincerely.
My hope is that you will continue to cultivate your life with Christ as you are and also with other believers, living out the essence of Jesus' church together (loving & serving one another...) without feeling obligated to put a label on what you are doing.
Sincerely, paul
Post a Comment