"Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles…" Acts 2:36,37
"Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’" Acts 16:29,30
"And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of rightousness, temperance, and the judgement to come, Felix trembled, and answered, ‘Go thy way for this time; when I have a convienent season, I will call for thee’." Acts 24:24,25
Does the church, emerging or otherwise, find in these texts a sense of purpose or mission?
In any popular "study" bible one will find many topics and references with some links, chains or cross references. In one bible I have, these fall in the category, "Conviction of Sin".
I would not understand St. Paul’s reasoning with Felix about righteousness, temperance and the judgement to come to encompass rampant consumerism, eco-friendly stock investment or engagement in direct, militant political and social action.
I believe they were struggling with more elemental issues of eternal life and death. I believe the texts referenced (as well as many others) support this contention.
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which, I tell you, before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21
Add the sixth chapter of First Corinthians to that and you have a buffet with plenty to go around for all.
Whatever I may think of sins of consumerism and environmental rapacity, they are, I believe, simply fever showing a much deeper illness.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall and all the -ologies, and all the -isms can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
A commitment to saving the planet, reading Frantz Fanon or Regis Debray and deconstructing the world around you and the people in it from a lesbian/socialist/feminist perspective will not address the illness; they are only dabbling with bringing down the fever.
First rule: do no harm to your patient. Can we not call sin sin any longer? Can we not say adultery and fornication are sins to be repented of and not passed off as superficial foibles. I suggest that without a willingness to stand toe to toe and plead and reason with people where they live and breathe to repent and be baptized, we are sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. And we do great harm to the patient.
They have cancer and do we tell them its the weather - don’t worry, be happy?
They need to hear that a man dies once and will be judged according to what he has done here on earth in his body and do we tell them they’re spending way too much money on shoes and expensive cars?
They need to hear that Jesus is the only way to God and do we tell them that the church is such a big tent that one may believe anything or nothing at all and be a member of Christ’s body?
"For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savor of death unto death; to the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ." 2 Corinthians 2:15-17
Saving Humpty Dumpty.
Alario, I am interested in your post from an Emerging Theology perspective.
You ask: Does the church, emerging or otherwise, find in these texts a sense of purpose or mission?
I hope someone who considers themselves a spokesperson for that church will read your post and reply. Are you suggesting that an emergent church should formulate a theology principally for the purpose of missionary work.
That would suggest to me that an emerging church would have its feet planted firmly in the insecure ground much of the existing church already finds itself sinking in. This could be a very good topic for debate.
A couple weeks ago I witnessed a public attempt to save souls being ridiculed, humiliated and ignored in the centre of London. I wondered what was missing from the message.
I thought at the time that maybe the way to be heard is to listen first. There is a great deal of discussion on this forum about the nature of belief, God, church etc and I wonder if there is room for the voice of the unsaved, who feels no need to be saved and is comfortable with his/her God.
I would not be surprised if one day Humpty Dumpty rises up hale and hearty because somebody asked him, “which pieces go where Humpty?”, instead of trampling all over the broken pieces.
Perhaps a church, secure within itself, can be a beacon drawing in stricken souls. It could also send out lifeboats in response to the maydays but does trawling the seabed for the rest not just damage the seabed and cause the trawlers to be feared?
Who is to be the judge of spending limits? My car is nearly ten years old and is expensive to maintain and run yet I could walk or use public transport. Is my car too expensive? Are the expensive shoes that cost twice as much as mine but last ten times longer too expensive? I could harden my soles by going barefoot and endear myself to God. Perhaps while I am at it I should thrash my back with thorn spiked lash just to be sure.
Is the church to look back or forward or should it glance over its shoulder once in a while, or does it need glasses?
Insecure ground or firm foundation?
Albannach,
Thank you for reading the post and your thoughtful comments.
Minor things first. The question of spending limits was suggested to me by the current survey posted on this website respecting the best way to address consumerism. In that context I was suggesting that, if consumerism is a problem, a “sin”, it was perhaps an outgrowth of a far deeper illness, “Sin”. If one deals with the deeper problem, perhaps the lesser withers on the vine. I too have a car over ten years old and probably spend way too much going out to the movies and dinner so I had no intention of suggesting spending limits on anyone.
Respecting mission, I am ill at ease with thinking about the purpose of the church without some attention to a theology of missionary work, though in my post, I had hoped to suggest a broader sense of the word mission. As I read your post and think about it further, the narrower sense fits well.
“And said unto them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:46,47
This scripture, taken in conjunction with the scriptures referenced in my previous post seem to be a fair starting point for a discussion of a theology of mission.
Without overcooking the stew, let me offer another scriptural reference. Looking at the whole of St. Pauls message to the Athenians on Mars Hill let me focus on a part.
“…And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him though he be not far from every one of us: For in hime we live and move and have our being; as certain of our own poets have said, Forwe are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in rightousness by that man who he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he he hath raised him from the dead. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him and believed:…” Acts 17:26-34
Such as this might have happend in London, Stockholm, New Orleans or San Diego this past weekend: a message of repentance, hope in the resurrection of Christ and salvation from a day of judgement met with mocking, ridicule and humiliation and which resulted in few new believers.
It is a treatment familiar to God’s prophets, his son and the apostles. Your friends in London are seemingly in good company. Obviously not having been present,I cannot comment on their methodology (perhaps dredging the seabed), but the circumstances seem very familiar. Is this evangelization of those who don’t know God the “insecure ground” to which you refer and into which the existing church is sinking?
I am less than sanguine about the prospects of an individual who has created for him/herself a god(s) and who has no sense of need respecting eternal matters having the kinds of answers required to make themselves whole, hale and hearty. It reminds me a little of letting the fox guard the chicken coop. I do agree with you that in listening we are better able to hear their questions and present truth to him/her in a loving way. I just don’t believe that nodding assent to nonsense which a person might profess is loving in the sense of love being an active verb. We can disagree in love and with respect and remain faithful to God and to our unsaved friends.
Please do not assume I am referring to love as simply talk, argument and reason. There are many avenues of ministry: There are people to feed, physical illnesses that can be addressed, persons for whom we may pray and there many instances where we have opportunity to be a friend with an open ear and a ready shoulder on which to cry. All of these can be done without opening our polemical/theological mouth.
Doing these things and being a friend do not relieve us of our responsibility, when questions come and opportunities arise to tell the truth concerning judgment, repentance, Jesus and salvation in his name.
I have posted several scriptural references in the previous post and this follow up post which seem to suggest a call to a particular mission, examples of that call in action and what was often the result, a result similar to what happened in London recently.
Do these scriptures have any bearing on, or application to the developing theology of the emerging church? Is the message stale? Are people immune to the gospel? Are the messengers without credibility?
Alario