Dan Kimball, the evangelical ‘expert’ on the emerging church in America, wrote that the emergent church is concerned with ‘radical holiness’.
Is it?
I often find in much emergent literature a sort of contempt for the holiness traditions of historic evangelicalism (especially of the Anglo-Saxon variety). No doubt many within the emergent church movement view such traditional conceptions of holiness as on par with that of the Pharisees’, illustrated in their taking offense at Jesus’ table-fellowship with sinners and publicans. But is this fair or accurate?
And no doubt there is a great concern, at least on paper, for issues of social justice and cultural engagement (reflecting a continued response to the issues Carl F.H. Henry raised in his classic, "The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism"). Yet what do emergent folks, by and large, make of the biblical notions of moral purity and separation from the world’s defilement (an equally significant component of ‘acceptable religion’ in the eyes of God, Jas.1:27)? Where on the scale of importance ranks the Pauline concern for spiritual rootedness, groundedness, and maturity - the goal to present each person ‘complete in Christ’ (e.g., Col.1:28; Eph.4:13; Gal.4:19)? Has the emergent movement in America followed suit with the church growth movement of the 80’s, concerned primarily with ‘conversion’ growth (a biblical concern to be sure) while less concerned with the spiritual maturity, personal holiness, and the cultivation of righteous relationships (e.g., sexual purity, marital fidelity, honesty, integrity, etc.) in the lives of those to whom we minister?
In a word, is there a geniune concern for discipleship (what is now fashionably called ‘spiritual formation’, and rather generically applied)? Is there a high priority that those in our churches are ‘pursuing holiness’, that they are hungering and thirsting for righteousness, bearing the fruits of repentance in their lives, and living with a singular vision to honor God and obey His will in all that they do? And if so, how is such accomplished in the emergent church?
Re: Radical holiness?
As a newcomer to any and all terms related to the ‘emerging church,’ I will be watching very closely for any clarifying response from those who consider themselves to be part of the movement—not as a dubious critic—but as one who is genuinely interested in maintaining the relevance of the ‘church’ in ever-changing times. As with any new ‘movement’, there will be questions, concerns and sadly, accusations. But a question and concern that I share is embodied completely by the post of kingjames1. If the emerging church is concerned (and in my opinion, rightly so) with eradicating the kind of censoriousness associated with Christian Fundamentalism, how will the tendency to ride the pendulum over to permissiveness be addressed? And doesn’t the need for structure and boundaries ensure that fundamentalism will remain alive and well?
Re: Radical holiness?
I thought both of you might be interested in the following link:
http://www.crcc.org/content.php?ContentID=420
It is an ‘emerging’ church’s take on the wholeness of its members. Since this is the congregation that McLaren pastors, I thought it would be relevant to this thread. The one observation I take away from reading it is that there is no ‘live and let live’ attitude in the church. Nor should there be. And this is good.
Perhaps part of the hesitancy some of us have in answering this (very important) question lies is the lack of definition. What exactly do you mean by holiness? I think one of the benefits of this emerging conversation is that many of us are rediscovering the importance of intentionality and commitment. We are not called to be believers, but disciples. For me personally, the calling to be ‘holy’ is at the center of my life. But then I understand holy to mean self-sacrificial, loving, honest, truthful and positive (Christ-like!). I don’t understand it to mean ‘no coffee, no alcohol, no tobacco, no jeans in church, and no fun’. (although I’m sure neither of you are advocating this kind of holiness…) If emergents want holiness, they want it not as evangelicals have defined it, but rather as Jesus lived it.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Radical holiness?
Christians are supposed to be salt and light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16). I think that speaks to some sort of holiness. It also speaks of being in the world and making a difference.
The modern church seems to have given up on "flavoring" the culture and instead has created its own counter-culture. Over the last 20 years, Christians have detached from the society at large. We’ve had our own music, our own buildings, our own little world. Many evangelicals have no unsaved friends. I know that’s where our family was after 10 years in a very solid church.
I think holiness is important, but it must be lived out in the world and to the world. And holiness must not turn into legalism. If we use our perceived holiness to others and use it to feel better about ourselves, I think we’re doing it wrong. If we use it as an excuse to withdraw from those who are in need, I think we’re doing it wrong.
I am going outside of the traditional church, not to join some new fad or movement, but to try and connect again with a lost world. I think both elements are necessary - holiness and taking His light into the darkness around us.
Re: Radical holiness?
grifgraf—
Thank you immensely for this response. As I try to round out my understanding of the emerging church, I am finding a geniune community of Christians who share my concerns. In fact, the whole of your response could be superimposed on my view concerning this. Even more encouraging to me is that this is done in an environment of discussion—where differing views find a productive space—and that is not relegated to a place for like-minded individuals to share just how much they agree with the previous post. Thank you again.