The postmodernist shrugs her shoulders and says, “Whatever… let’s live the Gospel.” The modernist digs in and refuses to budge until there is either uniformity of interpretation or separation.
An unfair description? Let’s call it a caricature, but one that I have seen in people of both mindsets—modern & postmodern. And this is what happens when emerging church theologians, who accept the authority and inspiration of Scripture, challenge foundationalism, accusing the Western Inherited Church of theological provincialism.
(Note: This entry will pick up on the article from the June 24 “ Church Morphing: hermeneutical community”.)
“Foundationalism is a theory about knowledge… about how claims to know can be justified. When we seek to justify a belief, we do so by relating it to (basing it on, deriving it from) other beliefs…. Foundationalists insist that this chain of justifications must stop somewhere; it must not be circular, nor must it constitute an infinite regress. Thus, the regress must end in a ‘foundation’ of beliefs that cannot themselves be called into question.” Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997, 9). In Emerging Churches Gibbs, Bolger, 69.
But even postmodern philosopher like Michel Foucault whose “archeology of knowledge” admits no center or solid ground, did not slide into infinite regress; he depended upon philosophical principles to develop his reasoning.
So for Christian disciples what is unquestionably foundational?
Those who accept Scripture as the immutable foundation must also ask the questions: Am I willing to examine all else in light of Scripture? To what extent do we depend upon the convictions of those who preceded us as we “stand on the shoulders of giants”? Who are the giants? How do we know they were right?
DISAGREEMENTS & DISCERNMENT
Modernists espouse convictions such as “charismatic”, “pentecostal”, “covenantal” or “dispensational” as foundational, unassailable, to question them borders on heresy.
The emergence of terms like “post-charismatic”, “post-evangelical” and similar epithets indicates that some twenty-first century believers, employing a hermeneutic of skepticism, are not so sure that these schools of theology got it all right. They are more comfortable with embracing the Scriptures and ancient creeds—Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, that which the ancient Church accepted as semper ubique ab omnibus (“always, everywhere, by everyone”)—as foundational.
For those who hold to adages like, “The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible”, all else may be questioned in light of Scripture. Why?
Disagreements over that which is truly foundational—that which should be accepted without question—will occur. How therefore will one react? Or better, how should one proact?
I recently heard from a young disciple who wanted to create an adult Sunday School class by reaching people who were not yet Christians, or at least very new believers. “God blessed and a number of couples made commitments to Christ and were baptized and added to the church.”
He began to look for resources to help these people who needed Jesus, but who did not understand traditional "church speak." He shared what he was reading with his church’s pastors who, rather than discussing with him what he was reading or how he might better help these new believers, relieved him of his responsibilities because he was “into the emergent stuff.” He wrote candidly, “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.”
He left the church and the church lost lost a good man who continues to pursue Christ.
PROACTIVELY SPEAKING
First, for those of us who embrace the Bible as absolute Truth, we need not fear questions. The twelve disciples constantly asked questions, sometimes outrageous ones, and it did not seem to shake Jesus in the least. He didn’t exclude them, he walked and talked with them some more until they got the point.
Second, disagreements are fine as long as attitudes remain godly. Unholy reactions, even over the questions of Truth and what Scripture means, do not receive God’s blessing and hinder the evangelical church’s mission—winning people to Christ, making disciples and planting churches.
"Space Giants" Sigh! They sure don't make TV shows like they used to…
When the watching world sees people who claim to follow Christ “biting and devouring each other” over interpretations and convictions, attitudes that Paul attributes to the flesh not the Spirit, unbelievers shy away (Galatians 14-18, note especially the sins listed in vs. 20—hatred, discord, fits of rage, dissensions).
When “factions” form, whether one be an emerging or inherited church proponent, we are rightly perceived by unbelievers as intolerant. We therefore get no hearing because we have violated true spiritual unity and belie the fact that the Father sent the Son because of his love for all people (John 17:20-23, Romans 14, Eph.4:3).
Francis Schaeffer’s prophetic voice still strikes a chord today (The Mark of the Christian, 190-1),
“But after [emerging and inherited church proponents] have done our best to communicate to a lost world, still we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives in the observable love of true Christians for true Christians.… This is what is needed if men are to know that Jesus was sent by the Father and that Christianity is true.”
Third, we do not need to have uniformity on secondary and tertiary theological positions (see qualifiers on June 24). Differing convictions can actually preserve facets of God’s grace that would be lost in a uniform, vanilla evangelicalism.
I agree with Nicholas von Zinzendorf, that collective convictions can be of God and that a denomination can serve as “‘a school of wisdom’ with its own particular contribution to make to the whole Body of Christ.” (A.J. Lewis, Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer, 1962,14).
When “factions” form, whether one be an emerging or inherited church proponent, we are rightly perceived by unbelievers as intolerant. We therefore get no hearing because we have violated true spiritual unity and belie the fact that the Father sent the Son because of his love for all people (John 17:20-23, Romans 14, Eph.4:3).
Francis Schaeffer’s prophetic voice still strikes a chord today (The Mark of the Christian, 190-1),
“But after [emerging and inherited church proponents] have done our best to communicate to a lost world, still we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives in the observable love of true Christians for true Christians.… This is what is needed if men are to know that Jesus was sent by the Father and that Christianity is true.”
Third, we do not need to have uniformity on secondary and tertiary theological positions (see qualifiers on June 24). Differing convictions can actually preserve facets of God’s grace that would be lost in a uniform, vanilla evangelicalism.
I agree with Nicholas von Zinzendorf, that collective convictions can be of God and that a denomination can serve as “‘a school of wisdom’ with its own particular contribution to make to the whole Body of Christ.” (A.J. Lewis, Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer, 1962,14).
In Europe where plurality is presupposed and dogmatism eschewed, I find that by explaining my conviction, respecting those who differ, appealing to the Truth of Scripture with the assurance that God indeed knows the perfect meaning, this approach usually gets me a hearing and at times open the door for me to influence the person for Christ.
Fourth, in order to prepare godly people empowered by the Spirit, who will lead local churches from modernist into postmodernist ecclesiastic forms founded upon Scripture and relevant to the culture (because that is the focus of these Church Morphing entries), believers need to have ownership of their theology, i.e. they must have heartfelt and mind-embraced convictions or those beliefs will not last once those enforcing adherence to a belief are out of the picture.
Giving the impression, accurate or not, that I have a virtually perfect understanding of Scripture and a virtually perfect application of Scripture smacks of Pharisee-ism and Laodicean-ism. And I dupe myself if I think that by simply telling a hyper-skeptical postmodern person what to believe, that those beliefs will be adopted. Oh how many stories I have to tell about that.
Lastly therefore, by encouraging believers to ask questions and seizing opportunities to join the asker in a study of the Scriptures, the Spirit can give fresh, commonly shared insight, and more pertinent application and forms.
The Spirit of Truth reveals the Truth of Scripture; we need not fear this but can pursue such an approach in faith. It helps disciples (whether modernist or postmodernist) to develop needed godly discernment in the Western climate of pluralistic information overload and to cultivate the spiritual reflex of seeking Spirit guided answers in the Scriptures accompanied by a mature believer.
Whew! So glad to know there are some things that never change…
Immutable: “unchanging over time or unable to be changed” (NOAD)
Immutable: “unchanging over time or unable to be changed” (NOAD)
Admittedly foundationalism versus fresh insight is a false dichotomy. It nonetheless provided the platform to delineate often overlooked ways of moving forward into the future together—modernist and postmodernist to the glory of Christ and to the benefit of the world that needs him.
