A couple of recent posts have had me thinking the above thought recently. Someone (was it Chris or Eric, perhaps?) more or less described ‘emerging church’ as, among other things, the latest vanguard movement or ‘stream’ which would eventually give way to another stream etc., just as other streams or emphases have done throughout history (e.g., Roman Catholicism > Anglicanism > Methodism > Pentecostalism > ?? etc.). It is an obvious possibility and it behoves us to allow constantly for our own renewed emphases to be superseded by new ideas and ways of thinking and behaving in seeking to express the kingdom of god.
However, the hope that I refer to is that we may be also / instead be witnessing a broad theological, prophetic, social, practical and spiritual move towards a greater maturity in recognising and responding to the essential unity of the body of the messianic community of believers (1) throughout all nations and indeed, all history. The move towards recognising / incorporating “transformational Christianity” may be a harbinger of this and indeed, this to me, is one of the reasons that something like OST is a herald of things to come : because it is a forum in which we can (albeit somewhat anonymously) welcome one another to a virtual “table of fellowship” (2). It’s that which allows someone of Ivan’s RC theological persuasion, for example, to challenge an informally, broadly protestant grouping over theological issues (rather than say simply attacking our protestant stance as inherent faithlessness, while inviting us to convert back to the “true faith”) Ditto, Dana’s challenge regarding female church leadership was deemed not to be the “catch-22 argument” of a usurper, but that of a highly welcome voice at the table. Herein, we (are learning to) speak to one another as members of a community - that is to say, a group with a unity based upon common values.
The tension, of course, is that we still wonder what the common values are, should ‘push come to shove’: are they purely doctrinal or purely measured in terms of faith / love “in action”? Peter’s related question sharpens this issue, asking whether emerging church boundary lines require values defined by “creed or character”. I think that scripture actually presents us with the reality that our attitude to doctrinal truth is itself nothing less than a measure of our character (e.g.. 1 Timothy 6.3-5, 11 & 4.1-2; 2 Timothy 4.3-4). However, it also seems to me that, within the new testament perspective, adherence to doctrine is a choice of conscience that is (only supposed to be) determined in the face of whelming (3) evidence of the Spirit’s presence in the midst of distinctly and essentially Messianic / Christian community. In such a context, converts adopt corporately held values largely because of the desire to be accepted - in the fullest and best sense - into that Community: to be baptised into it, in essence, adopting a new world-view, being adopted into that community as a new child adopted into a new family. The idea that they can immediately incorporate all the doctrinal dimension of the new Truth / World-view is, I trust, obviously hypothetical, at best, and, at worst, ridiculous.
Consequently, if my hope represents an accurate discernment of the real nature of the emergence that the Spirit of Truth is drawing us towards: if the global community of Jesus-followers is actually progressing, really, measurably, transformatively(?) towards maturity, then a renewed way of assessing people’s standing in regard to Jesus is required to emerge with it. Maturity almost always tends to enlarge the capacity for acceptance, while simultaneously being able to maintain the tension that says, There are still boundary lines in respect of which we may find ourselves on different sides. This is perhaps the Generous Spirituality that Brian McLaren urges us towards. In practise it’s that which enables the consideration of new ways of thinking about god - emerging theology - while not only not falling out, but actually finding that we grow together as people - and I include the extended members of the OST ‘community’ who suffer (sic) the effects of our engagement with this forum - without necessarily having to define our togetherness doctrinally.
Does this mean that we abandon the idea of sharp doctrinal definition of faith altogether? I think not, instead it’s perhaps more that we jettison the attitudes towards doctrine that allows a un-Christian spirit to manifest in place of the Spirit of Christ. It’s about practically allowing ourselves to locate the Spirit where He wills, rather than where we insist He be. That may mean in practise, that, where appropriate, Pentecostals will recognise the Spirit at work within the Catholic fold and vice-versa. It may mean being able to pray for the first time with a Seventh-Day Adventist neighbour. It will surely mean learning to work in ways that are, at least, not comptetitive, certainly co-operative and perhaps, conjoined partnership-in-action, whilst still maintaining distinct emphases and identity. In essence it means that if the Spirit of Christ is not insisting upon strict doctrinal, creedal boundary lines as the measure and mode of fellowship, friendship, partnership, perhaps we shouldn’t either.
But isn’t that rather scary? Does that mean we may end up in league with cults, sects and other bodies of nefarious repute?
I think it’s quite possible. Love always trusts. A few years ago, I got to know an individual who appeared to be a zealous and sincere Christian brother. It time he turned out to be a member of one of the cults - the so-called “Family of God.” And along with the emergence of this doctrinal cusp to our fellowship, the reality of his previously hidden lifestyle also emerged when his young wife (as opposed to his old wife - yes, he was a bigamist, as well as everything else!) opened her breaking heart towards us. We gently and then, firmly encouraged the brother to “be transformed” - to repent - turning away from his previous heart-mind in relation to the doctrines and community that bound him in slavery to sexual and sinful - and yes, doctrinal - deviancy. It was all a very distressing - and risky - experience. But Love is always a risk and being part of the emerging church is going to require, above all else, hearts filled with love, if we wish to serve the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of the Suffering Servant.
So how do we reconcile our emerging generous spirituality with the need for doctrinal faithfulness and truthfulness as members of a Community called to be a the Pillar and Support of the Truth? I believe it is correct to state that the root Greek word for both faith and truth are related fairly closely. The idea of a “community of the faithful,” as we sometimes here the church described, captures this false dichotomy well. True faithfulness it turns out is neither to an intellectual doctrine alone, nor to a prescribed, visible church grouping. It is to a Person. It is to the Presence of the Spirit. A Presence which intends, in the fullness of time, to (once again) “fill all of creation.” Such faithfulness works its way out in adherence to orthodoxy and ortho-praxy, but these are and should and will remain secondary to faithfulness to the very Person of Jesus, the Messiah, the Lord, the Eternal King and the Spirit with which He endues His Community. I think this is one of the core values towards which the church is emerging, out of its modern incarnations, beyond its post-modern reactionism. This is the hope I have in my heart when I think of “emerging church.”
- What do others think? Is it a hope too far? Is it just a fancy idea? Can it really happen? Is it really happening already? Can we envisage a truly global emergence of a church that is radically faithful to Jesus is such a way that our love and common-values-unity and common-spirit-unity mark us out as His Covenant People?
endnotes
(1) yes, the thing commonly labelled “church”!
(2) the Hebrew tradition consider study and debate of God’s word to be a vital form of worship
(3) that is neither over- nor under-whelming evidence
Cautious Optimism
On the one hand, I am reminded that every “unifying” movement in the Christian church had wound up as yet another denomination, and the skeptic in me wonders if we can ever all get along.
On the other hand, the technologically-aided shift toward globalization should force us to confront the differences between us in a way that we have never had to do before. I suspect that this will cause a small percentage of the Christian community to become yet more defensive and isolationist, but on the whole I expect the Church will indeed learn to be more tolerant, more comfortable with multiple viewpoints under one roof.
Is a grand reunification of God’s family possible? I don’t know. But I think that John’s hope is a good hope, and for that reason alone it is worth pursuing.