“I am suspicious of any religion that is a people’s religion, or an age’s religion.” I know that this quote by Cardinal John Henry Newman will speak for many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant alike. But can one subscribe to this view and align themselves with the Emerging Church movement? I have seen websites devoted to much condemnation of the Emerging Church as deviating from ‘Gospel Truth’, and citing it as a ‘sign of the times’ etc. Discuss….
open source theology
collaborative theology for the emerging church
Just a Religion of the Age...?
Similar entries
Latest comments
- granttheking98 on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- granttheking98 on 10 principles for reading the Bible in a postmodern context
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- Jacob on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- shiert on I have come not to bring peace, but a sword
- peter wilkinson on The demise of Sir Toby's
Other recent posts
- Roderick: Preterism and Emergent Eschatology (2): Andrew Perriman was recently interviewed about his views on eschatology ("endtimes"). During the interview it
- jonpaulr: JonPaul : user's biography
- shiert: I have come not to bring peace, but a sword (24): Jesus did not mean this ‘sword’ to be understood metaphorically. Sorry, Andrew, but I can't let this really silly
- RUMINATE MAGAZINE: RUMINATE: A Christian Literary Magazine : RUMINATE is a quarterly magazine of short stories, poetry, creative nonfiction, and visual art that resonate with the
- shiert: A new conversation on relationship : Relational theology may fairly be called a "developing idea" as John Henry Newman might use that phrase.[1] A concerted and
- Duncan: New heaven and new earth on the ultimate day of the Lord (2): Here is something else from my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming). It continues the post that I put up earlier on the
|
Content licensed under a Creative Commons License |
The truth will soon be known
I think the Emerging Church (EC) conversation is worthwhile, but I also think that some of the criticism is justified. If we’re not careful, EC could easily become just another "fad" of faith - the liberal version of Prayer of Jabez.
Many look at the modern church organization and don’t like what they see. So they set out to create something different. They put all the attributes and shortcomings of the modern church on whiteboard #1 and then try to solve the issues on whiteboard #2 - which becomes their blueprint of faith.
I think this is a mistake. It’s not the organzation that is the Church - it’s people. It’s not the organization that spreads the love of God and grows His Kingdom - it’s us. We need to change far more than the organization.
It’s easy to change the structure of an organization. It’s tough to change the hearts of people. It’s easy to set up a "gathering" and get some hip Christian artists-in-residence to move in. It’s easy to slash and burn accepted theology in favor of something that won’t offend anyone in an attempt to draw them in. But only God can change people’s hearts.
To be a truly free-thinking believer is to not worry about whether what you’re doing is "modern" or "post-modern" or "pre-modern". We simply look into the scriptures prayerfully and allow God to fill out our whiteboard for us.
Grasping the Nettle
My perception is that Emerging Church comes more from recognising that what we find unacceptable about the church we know (in most cases evangelical church) is very strongly a cultural expression from a passing age. The sensible response has to be:
Analysis of the current form of Christianity with the focus on how that form is wedded to the passing culture. Re-examining the Christian heritage with a view to reincorporating material rejected by modern Christianity but answering the requirements of current Christians. Theological reflection about why we are uncomfortable with current church and what theological basis that discomfort might have.I think that it is right to be wary about ditching things which may be essential to the faith. My experience is that prayerful study of the Bible for most people simply reinforces the cultural matrix that they have learned that ‘explains’ the Bible. Also, it betrays an attitude to the Bible that is itself a culture-specific attitude. I would accept that misuse of logic can lead to a cynical product-placement type of Christianity that I would not want to be part of, but I think that the goal is to be authentic Christians that can be rejected for Christ’s sake and for no other reason. I can see no sense in living with cognitive dissonance, where a person pursues a ‘biblical’ agenda, whilst feeling that he is doing something wrong.
at the bottom of everything
I would concur with Simon that it is not enough to say "well let’s just be biblical Christians, let’s get back to just reading and believing the Bible," because many times when we think we’re getting back to "biblical faith" we’re really just getting back to a previous cultural expression of the church, a previous way of interpreting the Bible. So Emerging Church is asking questions about how much of our "biblical faith" is actually an expression of our culture. We’re trying to distill the essence, trying to find the foundation, trying to get to the bottom of everything.
I have discovered over the past ten years how much of my own culture and theology I have read into the Bible. But as I see it Emerging Church seems to be about "getting the bottom of everything," asking the questions that need to be asked about what "biblical faith" really is, about what "authority of Scripture" means, about what the task and responsibility of the church really is, etc. And following closely on the heels of the theological re-building and re-defining comes an open and honest experimentation with how those ideas play out in the world today.
Response to Newman's Idea of Religion
Allow me to preface my response by providing you with a summary of my personal anthropological core values. As created in the image of God, mankind has been given the mandate to take care of God’s creation. His creation vastly goes beyond the physical realm of what we can tangibly experience or feel. God’s creation includes different thinking patterns, methods of relating to Him and fellow image bearers, even history itself is a creation of God. Mankind’s role, then, is to be the caretaker of every aspect of God’s creation (Gen. 1:28, 2:15). Mankind is to strive for excellence in the interaction with and caretaking of creation (Col. 3:17, 23).
With this foundation laid, my initial response to Cardinal Newman is that religion is indisputably impacted by the way mankind takes care of it. Therefore, any religion is going to appear as a people’s religion or even an age’s religion.
Throughout history, there have been many developments in thinking patterns and methodologies. My conjecture is that such developments are a natural consequence of mankind caring for God’s creation of thinking and reasoning abilities. Though such developments can unfortunately lead to mankind’s usurping of religion (we do live in a fallen world), a proper working out of such developments would lead to realization of a higher calling to religion.
What, then, sets Newman’s idea of a “people or age’s religion” from the idea of religion being cared for by man in response to God’s mandate?
To answer this question, let us look to James’ epistle.
James 1:27 - "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (NIV)
"…any religion that is a people’s religion, or an age’s religion." In response to the latter part of Newman’s quote, I offer James’ challenging words in regards to the practice of religion. Is the religion that James calls us to a peoples’ religion, or an age’s religion? No. The religion that James is calling us to can essentially be summed up in one word - love.
If the Emerging Church (EC) movement becomes (or, depending on your own interpretation of the movement, has become) a self-centered religious movement that only caters to those who subscribe to the ideologies and thinking patterns of the EC, then I would agree with Newman’s assertion.
However, if the EC movement is a result of God’s people relentlessly striving to love everyone while maintaining a high standard of holiness, then I would disagree with Newman, supporting my conclusion with James’ call to pure and faultless religion.
I have great concern for the EC movement. Will unsatisfied and self-centered Christians usurp God’s creation of thinking patterns, methodologies, and pure religion? Or will unsatisfied Christians stand unswervingly for what is right, upholding the truths of Scripture, and in doing so inherently reach out those in crisis?
James has much to say about the methodologies of thinking patterns Christians are to hold to. To conclude my thoughts, I once again offer these words from James, emphasis added.
James 1:22-27
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it – he will be blessed in what he does.
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
benkrakeraka crockpotblog