Thoughts From The Cohort

Over the last 9 months Jeromy and I have been leading a emergent cohort.  It has been a fascinating exercise in listening and learning.  Both Jeromy and I simply wanted to create a safe space for people to discuss their questions, comments, stories and experiences within the church and in following Jesus.  We wanted to practice a generative dialog.

Creating this space was deeply valuable.  It gave both Jeromy and I the space to work through our own questions, mostly in the car rides to and from the cohort, but also within.  We talked about every possible conversation you could imagine from heaven to hell, salvation to conversion, following Jesus to walking away, and homosexuality to women in pastoral roles.  We explored McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, Scandrette, and many other authors.  It was awesome.

But over the last month or two we began noticing a trend.  People stayed for about 2-3 meetings and then disappeared.  And as much as we loved the conversations, many of the same questions were being asked by everyone.  “What is the point of the group?”  As Jeromy and I wrestled with that question over dinner this past week, we began to really ask if it was simply to ask and answer questions?  Is the point of the group simply dialog and generative conversation?

In the beginning it was.  But now we were no longer sure.

We recognized that the one thing that held us together was this fascinating person called Jesus.  Anything we changed would likely need to center on what it meant to follow in order for us to want to participate on a regular basis.

And as we explored the idea with those in the cohort we saw an idea began to emerge (no pun intended).  What if we as a group explored what it meant to practice following Jesus together.  Each month would essentially be about hearing the stories of the experiments from the previous meeting and exploring the next experiment.

Our first experiment is to practice being love to our neighbor every day until the next cohort, or about 30 days.  We defined “neighbor” as anyone we would come into contact with.  It was simple, brilliant and inspiring. We’re going for tremendous courage and tremendous grace.  If someone sees an opportunity, we’re going for it.  If we fail to remember we’re not beating ourselves over the head.  We’re just living into the life of Jesus for those around us.

I have to admit that the idea got my heart racing: practice love on a daily basis and to do it with people looking for something more?  Big ideas raced through my head at the simplicity of it all.  I was diggin’ the new direction.  This was something I could show up for.

We started a Facebook group if you would like to join us in the experiments.

Read Full Post »

Interesting Stuff

A machine that builds itself.  Why do I feel like Terminator is around the corner.

——————————————————-

Peter Rollins, excellent as usual, on why we don’t need early Christianity.

——————————————————-

There is something unique about this video.  It’s about fighting for the soul in a Fight Club kind of way.

——————————————————-

Bill Easum’s response to Tony Jone’s as part of the month long blogologue.

——————————————————-

Tony responds back to Bill for the conclusion.

Read Full Post »

Mark Scandrette in Sacramento

If you live in Sacramento and want to join our cohort for an early evening of drinks tomorrow night in Roseville (Monday: 4-6 PM) with Mark Scandrette, feel free to join us.  Go here for info.  You need to RSVP with Jeromy.

Read Full Post »

A Response To Bill Easum – Part 1

Bill Easum and Tony Jones are participating in a blogologue about the emerging church this month over at Emergent Village. I think this will likely be one of the more important dialogs for people to listen to regarding the Emerging Church movement.  Much love to Bill for engaging that dialog with Tony.

The purpose of the blogologue can be found, in the words of Steve Knight,

“So we contacted Bill and asked him if he’d be willing to participated in a little “blogologue” (short for “blog dialogue”) with Tony Jones, discussing the questions/issues Bill has raised with Emergent. He quickly responded, Yes, and so here we are.

Easum’s first post can be found here.  It is interesting to read a clear and concise perspective from someone who sees himself outside of an Emergent perspective and looking in.  He makes a a surprising observation that I found fascinating and a few assumptions about Emergent that I didn’t agree with.

Easum’s New Metaphor: Easum offered a new metaphor for understanding the transition that I thought was brilliant.  He essentially calls the modern world the National Park and the postmodern world a Jungle.  I think this metaphor is one of the best I’ve seen.  One suggests control while the other is wild and free.  The first thing that came to mind when I read this is that as much as we want a National Park to live in, in doing so we inevitably tame God and lock Him up in a cage for people to gawk at.  He becomes something we study, dissect, make assumptions about but inevitably think we control.  The jungle metaphor appealed to me because God was likely around the next tree waiting to pounce on me like Aslan.  He isn’t safe but He is good.

But this loss of control means letting go of some of our historical assumptions about the way we operate and engage mission.  We’ve been a National Park for way too looooooooooong.  But to simply live in a jungle after operating that way for centuries is very hard to do.  Easum’s metaphor hopefully will make that transition easier.

Easum’s View Of Emergent’s Message: Easum offers an interesting view of what he thinks Emergents think. He says,

“Emergents will speak with passion and urgency but never with certainty. To them there is no certainty, only what one believes today, at this moment, in this locale.”

I think a better way to describe this is that Emergents are aware of our own limitations as human beings.  Our own brokenness affects the very information we receive and perceive.  We recognize that we live in language, are cognitive beings and that what we think today is based on limited information.  This awareness leads to faith, which is holding onto the idea that God is really in control (a jungle) and to step away from trying to control the message (the National Park).  The problem isn’t that truth exists but that certainty closes us down to learning and humility.

Easum also asks an important question.

“Is the message of the Gospel actual reality and eternally true, or is it nothing more than a construct of our own language within the community of faith at this particular time in history in this particular place with this particular community?”

Answering this question, I would hold, is central to understanding a postmodern, even an Emergent faith.  That there is “no truth” is one of the great myths about the Emerging church movement.  The answer is, “Yes, there is a truth.”

But the problem is that own humanity significantly taints that truth because we are cognitive and perceptual human beings.  We were never meant to “judge” on our own.  We were always designed to be in relationship with our Creator, as in the Garden State.  The Tree of Knowledge was a judgment process.  Humans became, “like one of us.”  This wasn’t a good thing because humanity trusted in its own capacity to judge effectively.  And we sucked at it.

The problem isn’t when we get it right, as in the disciples following Jesus.  The problem is when we get it wrong, as in the Pharisees, the very one’s who were certain, who couldn’t see God standing in front of them.  The Emergent movement and the postmodern world is coming to terms with that reality.  We’re humans who filter truth.

History has been an unkind teacher in some ways.  She has unfortunately revealed us when, where, and how we got it wrong. The Internet has allowed us to speed up that conversation, connect with like minds and discuss these issues.  Blogs have allowed us to process new ideas, alternatives and possible new scenarios in lighting speed.  What took ages before now takes minutes.  And for some this shift seems disconcerting because they are not used to such a seismic shift.  The truth is that we don’t live in an Intel 386 world anymore.

What is ironic about this whole point is that Emergents are the ones who are leading the conversation about coming to terms with our own humanity.  This process of admitting our own limitations is essentially repentance and it is central to our own restoration as followers of Jesus.

Relativism: Bill comes very close, but to his credit doesn’t cross, the common excuse of pulling the relativism card.  The temptation within this dialog is to simply excuse those in the Emergents as relativists, a cheap move from my perspective.  It dismisses any further dialog because it excuses the other party from having to continue.  But I would offer Bill that what is relative is not the truth but our perception of the truth.  The evidence of this is obvious in science and in history, but apparently not in the church.

The evidence of this can be found in the points Bill is making.  His judgments of the Emerging movement don’t resonate with me.  Are they true?  Yes, in that they are his judgments.  Yet, they are not true for me because I don’t share his conclusions.  Does that make us relative?  No.  It makes us human.

Easum on Methods: Bill does share a concern for how we move forward.  He says,

“I agree with the authors that we can’t come on to postmoderns like gangbusters with an elitist attitude as if we have THE truth. I agree with them that the four spiritual laws no longer work. I agree with them that if we lead from the big story we are dead in the water. I agree with them (and with Frank Viola) that the distinction between clergy and laity is not biblical and shouldn’t exist. I agree with them that the new world sees everything in shades of gray.”

But he also says,

“But I do not agree that Christians must feel they have to be two steps removed from the reality of the Gospel in order to reach this new world. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. The clearer a leader is about the reality of Gospel and the direction of their calling, the more likely that person is to lead a growing and thriving community of faith.”

And this is where I see Easum perpetuating the myth that we are removed from the Gospel or that we don’t hold a Gospel.  In fact, my wife and I have come to the conclusion that much of the dialog within the Emerging church movement is simply asking for a more wholistic approach to following Jesus and being the church…because we’re tired of this thing we grew up with called, “doing church”.  We’re tried of simply being passive observers in the Christendom food chain.

To say that there hasn’t been problems in the past is to ignore the reality of the issues we face today.  We are in this space because the church has ignored the road it went down.  When more than 12 million people have left the church but not God the problem simply can’t be ignored.

Easum on New Organization: Bill states one thing that I found very sad because when I read it, it seems like a shout from the cheap seats.  If he wants to be honest in the dialog, I would suggest he lose this conception.  He says,

“They don’t even believe in planting churches in order to reach more people, nor do they believe in doing things to get people to come to their church. They plant churches only to save themselves, whatever that means.”

Again this is a myth.  I personally know people who are taking very serious looks at what it means to be the church and organize around following Jesus into mission.  The experimentation phase is just beginning.  And many of these ideas are still in the birth, or even the infant stage.  To say they don’t produce fruit yet is natural, but to say they don’t exist is to perpetuate a lie.  And these ideas likely won’t look what we have right now and thus the myth will continue to be perpetuated. This leaves us in the Emerging church movement the task of coming up with clear, creative alternatives and seeing them to maturity.  Nice.

Easum ends this section with a surprisingly honest assessment of where the church is at.  He says,

“The Emergent movement is providing a marvelous conversation for all of us. They have revealed the naked truth—the emperor has no clothes. The established Christian church is basically dead and in need of A Second Resurrection.”

This is from a man who has spent his life studying the church.  Right on Bill.

Bill does ask a series of question for the Emergents, which I will answer in the next post.

Much love to Bill for beginning a great dialog and I can’t wait to hear Tony’s response.

PS: Both Bill and Steve Knight responded in regard to my comments regarding what is essentially Tony’s quote from his book.  I have responded in the comments that I got the context for this quote wrong, but I don’t like to edit original posts even when I get it wrong.

Read Full Post »

The Church Basement Roadshow

If you live in Sacramento and want to meet the guys who helped really fuel the Emergent conversation, put June 18th on your calendar. You don’t want to miss this. Unfortunately I will. I was supposed to be there but the guys pick a day I am on vacation.

————————————————————

My cohort is hosting . Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette will be bringing an old time Gospel Revival Roadshow to our town. Consider yourself officially invited and yes, this is an open event so feel free to invite others to join you.

• Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008
• Time: 6:30pm – 9:00pm (with possible meet-n-greet at Streets of London Pub afterwards)
• Location: Lakehills Covenant Church
• Street: 7000 Rossmore Lane
• City/Town: El Dorado Hills, CA

• $10 door charge (volunteer helpers free).
• We are needing 5-10 volunteers to help with set-up/tear-down, book tables, and greeting. Email Jeromy at jeromyj@sbcglobal.net if interested (dinner will be included for volunteers).
• Please see the Facebook Sacramento Roadshow Event. You can also RSVP there as well.

Visit the Roadshow Site.

Read Full Post »

Top 50 Possible Reasons Why You’re Not Emergent

In the spirit of the new book, Why We’re Not Emergent, the accompanying website, and this post, I thought I’d present the Top 50 Possible Reasons Why You’re Not Emergent.

———————————————————-

50. They’re all a bunch of false prophets. Really, that’s what they told me

49. My mother will disown me.

48. I just don’t like Doug Pagitt. He scares me.

47. I heard from a famous pastor that Emergent is from the debil.

46. I don’t like Rob Bell’s hair.

45. The word Emergent is not in the Bible.

44. It’s just not allowed in the Vanderhoeven family.

43. I heard Calvin would simply not approve

42. Mark Driscoll told me I couldn’t.

41. I’m just not “certain” yet it’s the right way to go.

40. I heard from this guy who knew this lady who had a brother who was Emergent and he went blind doing it.

39. I enjoy being a skeptic.

38. I didn’t learn about Emergent in seminary so I’m not going to start now.

37. I like being on the bigger team.

36. I heard you had to take yoga.

35. I’ve heard from a famous prison ministry guy they don’t believe in the Bible.

34. Where would I be without absolute truth.

33. Tony Jones went to Princeton Theological Seminary…that liberal.

32. They didn’t teach this in Alpha.

31. I’m not white.

30. I’m over 40.

29. I don’t have any cool, black eyeglasses.

28. I don’t like coffee or Guinness.

27. It’s immoral to smoke pipes or cigars.

26. They haven’t yet come up with my denomination of Presbymergent

25. Emergents read unapproved books.

24. I’m allergic to candles.

23. I like Jesus but not Emergent.

22. Brian McLaren’s books are not theologically correct. I’m not sure why, I just know they are.

21. I like my Christianity strong and hot.

20. The orthodoxy police will bust me.

19. I’m not uber-cool. In fact, I don’t even know what “uber” means.

18. I don’t understand it and I don’t want to.

17. If it doesn’t have the letters SBC in it, I’m not interested.

16. All they want to do is love. Where’s the truth in that?

15. I’m a bullhorn type of guy.

14. I prefer Joel Osteen.

13. I just finally bought into fundamentalism and you want me to shift?

12. I don’t really want a generous orthodoxy.

11. I refuse to switch to Apple

10. I can’t. I go to John MacArthur’s church.

9. My friends will think I’m a heretic.

8. I already was a New (Kind of) Christian.

7. I refuse to grow a soul patch

6. Hell fire and brimstone works just fine, thank you.

5. I don’t like loud, rock music at church. It’s a sin.

4. Their hermeneutic of ecclesiology is unorthodox, fundamentally esoteric and meandering. It borders on epistemological ambiguity that is really troublesome. I’m afraid it will lead to heretical uncertainty of the most pernicious kind.

3. But then I might have to really have faith.

2. Brian McLaren is the debil.

And the number one possible reason Why You’re Not Emergent is:

1. The emerging church is so yesterday.

——————————————————

Just in case you were wondering. The answer is yes, this is humor.

Read Full Post »

The Brilliance Of Love

Emergent Village has a post that profiled a woman named Heather Kirk-Davidoff. The post profiled a dialog between her and a Dr. Forni.

“A story on the cover of today’s Wall Street Journal proclaims “Be Nice, Or What?” and it covers a disagreement in Maryland over Howard County’s “Choose Civility” campaign. The founder of the campaign is Johns Hopkins University professor of civility Dr. P.M. Forni, and the protagonist in this debate is Heather Kirk-Davidoff, pastor of Kittamaqundi Community and a member of the Emergent Village board of directors.

In the article, Heather questions Forni’s “25 Rules of Considerate Conduct” and says, “Community is never made by rules. … As soon as you set up boundaries, you invite people to regulate them. The first rule in my book is, ‘Be curious,’ and the second is, ‘Make room.’””

And when I read this something interesting stuck out to me. When Jesus reduced the law to love he was making a stunning observation about brilliance of love. In the law, we have the fine specifics that require massive amounts of memorization, understanding, contemplation, observations and astute reasoning in the application of any law. We have PhD’s and scientists, lawyers and doctors, politicians and police officers all making attempts at the application of the law.

In love we have an archetype of action. It can be performed by anyone, almost regardless of age, race, creed, nationality, color, sex, and even mental ability. My child can do it and so can my grandfather. It’s not limiting but empowering. It’s simple and at the same time rewarding.

What do I do here? Love.

And what do I do here? Love.

But what about here? Love.

In every case of human interaction we have a specific moral action that is defined by a smart group of people, who are usually trying to help but end up getting in the way, as with Dr. Forni above. Or we have love.

I choose love.

Read Full Post »

Help – Question on Jesus

I was reading the winner of the Good Atonement contest and some thoughts came up that I wanted your help on.

One of the things Steve Sherwood brings up is the nature of the Jewish community. The parables of the Prodigal Son shares the story of a culture that will not allow shame on the father. It’s essentially a very strict, legalistic community. And then I began to think about how Jesus shows up and essentially turns everything on its ear. The people just don’t get it. So much so that they crucify him.

The second thought was something a former professor of languages taught me. He said, “Human beings learn best in contrast.” In other words, the distinction of an object or word is always best known in light of its opposite or contrast.

And my question is this. Could God have established such a strict culture so that Jesus would stick out so much we wouldn’t miss it? In other words, love was so profound because of the culture Jesus arrived in.

Love your thoughts on this.

Read Full Post »

Book Review – The New Christians Part 3

This is the third part of the book review. You can find part 1 here and part 2 here.

———————————————————————————————-

Chapter 5 – The paradoxes of our faith.

The section continued a dialog of what it means to engage a humble hermeneutic. He cites the issues of women’s suffrage and slavery as example, ones in which we now have a different opinion than 100-200 years ago. What was really strange was reading the name Daniel Henderson, the very man who baptized me, and now a pastor in Minnesota. Weird.

Tony does a good job of bringing out the slippery slope issue. He says,

“Based on his comments, he fears that humility – at least in the interpretation of the Bible – will lead to meaninglessness, to an inability to stand for something.”

He calls out the problem of certainty, which can lead to imperialism and instead offers Newbigin’s “proper confidence”. He brilliantly offers,

“While an emphasis on interpretation does preclude the many propositions about eternally “right” and “wrong” answers, it doesn’t mean that there’s not truth. Instead, it means that there are inherently better interpretations – that one interpretation can trump another.”

History clearly reveals that we have had better interpretations based on new information and dialog. The tension lies in the fact that we don’t like it when there are different interpretations than ours. Tony offers that this intellectual bravery to engage conversation and not settle is founded throughout history in Luther, Assisi, Day and Bonhoeffer.

Tony offers the idea that we can learn from any text in the library, not just the ones deemed “approved” by the church or written by Christian authors. This practice is one of the critical tensions between the traditional church and the emerging streams. To me, one is based on fear. The other is based on trust.

His dispatch #13 I would offer sums up the heart of the problem surrounding the misconceptions that Emergents don’t believe in truth. It says,

“Emergents believe that truth, like God, cannot be definitively articulated by finite human beings.”

What most people will probably hear or read or say when talking about Emergents is what amounts to an edited version of this statement; “Emergents believe that truth cannot be known by human being.” I appreciate Tony putting it into such a succinct, articulate statement.

Tony also explores a really good discussion on the nature of paradox and our desire to constantly solve the paradox. He shared his encounter with a physicist who explains that paradox is inherent to nature. An example is that a electron is both a particle AND a wave. He quotes the physicist as saying,

“I just think, if there are paradoxes in physics, then why shouldn’t there be paradoxes in theology too?”

Good food for thought for those who want to box God in. I would offer that the willingness to live in the tension of the paradox is one of the strongest traits of the emerging church.

Chapter 6 – Emergent community in the new world or “Do you trust me?”

In this chapter, Tony explores different ways emerging communities are exploring a generous orthodoxy. He profiles Tim Keel’s Jacob’s Well and shares what it’s like. He then offers an intriguing insight into how Wikipedia, an open source community of share concern can offer much to the emerging church communities. I must say that I really, really liked this idea of open source church. The concern for church heresy is mitigated by the group’s desire for truth. Messiness will occur but so will a burgeoning community. I love this section. At the heart of emerging churches is the willingness to fail and learn. We’re not afraid to grow from failure. Isn’t this real life anyway.

Tony provides a very short section on Binitarianism (the belief in the two of the three parts of the trinity). The point was that we have lost the Holy Spirit. This to me could have been a much larger section, especially in regards to interpretation. It is my sense that much of the emerging church stems from a desire to discover what the Holy Spirit is doing organically and participating where God is already working. His critique is that we do what we think works and then wonder why we’re burned out.

One of the pervasive notions of this section is the question, “Are we going to trust people?” This extends the generous orthodoxy to a generous orthopraxy, which is essentially what Jesus did when he left humanity and gave us the Holy Spirit to follow.

Read Full Post »

Book Review – The New Christians Part 1

Summary: Tony provides a deep historical account of how and why the emerging church and emergent movement arrived and is what it is today. This is a must read book for those interested in the emerging church, or anyone who wants a clear picture of the emerging/emergent movement. If you are unwilling to read this book, you have no real leg to stand on in your critique.

———————————————————————————————-

Note: Tony blends the use of Emergent and emerging church, where I would not. Emergent is an organization that coordinates activities and conversation, where the emerging church is the natural organic movement of God within the world today. It’s not a big deal but it helps to know the difference if you are reading this as a new comer.

Chapter 1 – Summary: What it means to deconstruct.

Tony created a valuable distinction for me in three words: reactionary, resolutionary, and revolutionary. Instead of jumping to the left/right, us/them mentality of the first two, Jesus chose the third way, staying in the tension of not demonizing the other.

I especially appreciated his quote from Anthony Smith in describing his view of the emerging church. Anthony said,

“First…there is an epistemological humility with this particular movement.”

That’s it. He gets it. So much of the emerging movement is a move a way from the arrogance that has pervaded Christianity, the run to know it all. I don’t know it all. And it’s nice to have great conversations with those who don’t know it all. And as we share together we can discover how God is moving.

Chapter 2 – Summary: The history of the emergent movement.

First I want to say that this chapter was worth the price of the book alone.

I really appreciated the metaphor of the lava flow. No matter how hard we try to contain it, creating hard, crusty shells on the surface, God finds a way to break through. This metaphor adequately describes the tension of any movement to break free from the chains that history always creates. That we don’t see the chains, when history is filled with examples, is a testament to the human condition.

Tony creates another distinction of Gospelism, which is mans desire to control or put rigid forms around what God is doing in our midst. To me, that’s religion.

He also continues the dialog on the natural human instinct to polarize, right/left, us/them, etc. He brings out the cultural swings from secularization to fundamentalism, and again draws us to the third way of Jesus. He finds describes it as,

“It’s what might be called the postmodern posture: an attempt to both maintain one’s distinctive identity while also being truly open to the identity of the other.”

The problem as Tony describes is that this living in the tension doesn’t fit into neat little packages.

I also appreciated reading the deep history of the initial Young Leaders Network and how it got started, the UK history with Jonny Baker and NOS, and the background to the interactive process of the web. It puts it in a framework that is larger, more global than just evangelicals.

Tony succinctly draws the distinction between bounded sets (unity based on membership), centered sets (unity based on beliefs), and emerging (unity based on relationship). I appreciate this distinction because it draws us into relationship not based on commonality but in our humanity.

Continue on to Part 2 here…

Read Full Post »

The Great Emergence

Every once in a while someone says something in a way that really makes me think, “Gee I wish I had said that.” This is a fascinating article by Terry Mattingly, who interviewed Phyllis Tickle, author of God Talk in America. Phyllis was the founding editor of the religion department at Publishers Weekly, and has a new book in the works at Emersion. It has a working title of The Great Emergence.

Phyllis has some really great points about the nature of the church, the first being that the church encounters a reforming every 500 or so years. She says,

“So Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and then a flat, neatly stacked universe flipped upside down. Soon, people were talking about nation states, the decline of landed gentry, the rise of a middle class and the invention of a printing press with movable type. Toss in a monk named Martin Luther and you’re talking Reformation — with a big “R” — followed by a Counter-Reformation.”

She also says this about the emerging church,

“Emerging or emergent Christianity is the new form of Christianity that will serve the whole of the Great Emergence in the same way that Protestantism served the Great Reformation,”

and,

This kind of revolution, said Tickle, doesn’t mean “any one of those forms of earlier Christianity ever ceases to be. It simply means that every time we have one of these great upheavals … whatever was the dominant form of Christianity loses its pride of place and gives way to something new. What’s giving way, right now, is Protestantism as you and I have always known it.”

I loved this.

“The truly “emerging churches” are the ones that are opening their doors at the heart of this changing matrix, she said. Their leaders are determined not to be sucked into what they call “inherited church” life and the institutional ties that bind. They are willing to shed dogma and rethink doctrine, in an attempt to tell the Christian story in a new way.”

What is interesting is that this is from a woman who is not what we would think of as typically postmodern or emerging. But she has been studying faith for a long time and is considered a leading voice on the subject. Interesting perspective to consider for those looking in at the emerging church.

Can’t wait for the book.

Read Full Post »

The Problem of Heresy

Can you feel it in the wind? It feels like we’re in this strange season where voices within the church are pulling the trump card called heresy. I guess this is to be expected with any movement. The old gives way to the new only through troubled means. But as I survey this territory, I find that it is not a road I want to traverse. Love still remains the better path.

Wikipedia has a really great dialog about heresy.

“The word “heresy” comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αἱρέομαι, haireomai, “choose”), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- “right” + doxa “belief”) and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

Used in this way, the term “heresy” has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as “orthodox”. Any nonconformist view within any field may be perceived as “heretical” by others within that field who are convinced that their view is “orthodox”; in the sciences this extension is made tongue-in-cheek.” (From Wikipedia, Etymology)

The fundamental problem with heresy is that its a judgment people make about other people’s belief, spoken, written, or whatever. And the power behind the word is the assumption that the person is in grave error, such that they may not be under grace anymore. Historically, heresy is used to imply to someone is out of grace. This is the underlying insinuation.

“Heretics usually do not define their own beliefs as heretical. Heresy is a value judgement and the expression of a view from within an established belief system. For instance, Roman Catholics held Protestantism as a heresy while some non-Catholics considered Catholicism the “Great Apostasy.”

Heresy is an extremely powerful word. Many in history have died for it. When we use it we set ourselves up as the authority. We are the ones who “know”. And to speak against the one who has called out the heresy is to question the authority, which puts that person in the spotlight they likely never desired. Who are we to question authority? We dont’ have PhDs and MDivs. Luther, although well educated took great risk in taking a stand and holding to his beliefs. Yet, those in the reformed camp sit on the edges of his coat and embrace what was once heresy.

My concern is when authority bases their understanding on right belief as the nature of our grace. Imagine the fear that causes people. This fear has historically produces so much that we are now ashamed of. Is His kingdom built on fear? Man, I’m in trouble because then I have to wonder if I’ve got everything in line. And baby, I don’t. Thankfully we have Scripture and freedom of dialog. And we do have love and grace.

I find it really interesting that someone could actually make a judgment of heresy. Especially when every those who are typically attacked (McLaren, Bell, Pagitt), do actively speak that Jesus is the Son of God.

All of this brouhaha got me asking a very serious question. Do the people who give the claim of heresy believe faith is by grace alone? I ask this because the fundamental issue at heart here is the question, “Is a heretic (defined as someone who believes something wrong about Scripture) still in grace?” I would argue yes, with one exception. The fundamental ascent of the heart, as revealed by the Holy Spirit is the question, “Who we say Jesus is.” The Apostle John even provided a very simple test. The call to guard against apostasy in Scripture was to guard against those who wanted to add something to the work of Jesus, to go back to the law and move away from grace alone. This was the fight Paul wishes to fight. Our intellectual understanding of Scripture does not establish our grace. Jesus did.

My concern is that when we make the judgment that when someone is in error they are no longer in grace, we’ve crossed back over into apostasy ourselves. We’ve practiced the one exception because we’ve added to grace. This is Galatians revisited. If grace were the sum total of our belief systems then no one would make it. Why, because we’ve stepped back into performance (the law) as the defining factor of salvation. Children would be out simply for the fact that they don’t know everything.

Performance, or the establishment of a doctrinal set of beliefs as a criteria has always been about control, which is opposite love. Control is the domain of the enemy. And to be honest, why would anyone want to become the judge? Why would we want to be the one to establish the box people have to live in. Because once we establish the box, we have now established our own ruleset. This is what I love about grace. It destroys the box.

And sometimes I get why people make the judgment. I would suggest that Mark Driscoll and Johnny Mac, and those who make these claims have good intentions. They clearly love the Gospel. But I would suggest that before we make judgments we listen to the words of Jesus not to step into that arena. When we do we are the ones fighting each other and the enemy is in the stands laughing at us. I would suggest that Jesus understood that to make ourselves the judge is to create the standard in which we are judged. JR Woodward has a post that captures this well. This was the curse of the law. If we try to fulfill it, we are then defined by it.

I love Jesus’ own words on the subject.

“As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.” (John 12: 47)

Let’s hold on to love people, and discover why turning the other cheek is so much more powerful. Let’s allow the Holy Spirit to be the one to convict those who need it and in the process love our brother so that we can earn the right to be heard.

Read Full Post »

A Generous Orthodoxy All Over Again

Emergent Village is looking for feedback on developing a Greenbelt type festival. And as I was taking it they included the following demographic question: “Primary Theological Orientation”. And to a certain extent I looked at the list and identified with almost every one, which made me think about Brian McLaren’s, “A Generous Orthodoxy.”

I’m a former marketing guy so I get why they want to do this. But to be honest I surprised me that Emergent would seek out this information. Facetiously, are they going to stamp this on the name tag?

Spiritual but not religious: Yes, I am a spiritual person but I can’t stand oppressive religion.

Orthodox (Eastern Rite, OCA, Coptic, etc): Yes, I’m trying to be orthodox. Aren’t we all?

Roman Catholic: Yes, even though I have serious concerns.  I love the liturgy and art forms that are part of the history. The Apostle Peter was part of this church too.

Anglican (Episcopal, Anglican Church of Canada, etc) Yes, These are my brothers from up North. Need to know more though.

Methodist (UMC, AME, Nazarene, Wesleyan, etc) Yes, I love Wesley’s focus on discipleship.

Reformed (PCUSA, PCA, UCC, etc) Yes, I hope I’m reforming.

Lutheran: Yes, see “reformed”.

Anabaptist: Yes, I love the focus on Kingdom.

Pentecostal (Charismatic, etc) Yes, I truly believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well and leading for those who are listening.

Evangelical (Non-Denom, Vineyard, Southern Baptist, etc) Yes, I love the beauty of freedom and intimate worship and losing labels.

Contemplative Tradition (Quaker, etc) Yes, you bet. I need to remember to remember and reflect on the journey on a regular basis.

Metaphysical Christian (Unity, etc) Yes. It’s hard for me to knock anything that has the word unity in it. 😉

Other Religion (Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) Yes with an obvious asterisk. Jesus was Jewish and I have learned a tremendous amount from Hebrew culture, Buddhists and Muslims on commitment and conviction, but the real word here is human.

None: Yes, because it is hard for me to identify that I am simply one of these.

I’m being facetious with all of this to a certain extent.  But the list really got me thinking about the nature of the emerging church and our desire to move past traditional belief labels and find deeper distinctions that bring us together so we can learn from each other. I recognize that we don’t have these distinctions yet. But I’m not afraid to learn from my Buddhist friend or my Anabaptist brother. I can easily imagine God speaking through them just as much as he would through an ass. I made a decision a long time ago to be open to listening to the Spirit in what ever way He chooses. I have Scripture to help me sift.

I suddenly had a renewed appreciation for what Brian was trying to accomplish with his book. How do we begin to learn from each other rather than separate ourselves? How do we learn to connect as human beings rather than disconnect based on differences? Love calls us to move past these differences and see each other for who we really are, God’s beautiful creation. We may believe differently but it doesn’t mean they each of us doesn’t need love.

My end choice was “other” for this reason. It was a good exercise though.

Which one would you pick?

Read Full Post »

Emergent Village – Sac Cohort

If you’ve read my blog enough you’ll know I’m a big proponent of the emerging church. Something good is happening and I want to be part of it.  Part of my desire has been to meet with others who are interested in exploring what the emerging church looks like in context and what it really means to follow Jesus.  So it was time to do something about it.

John Smulo, Jeromy Johnson, and myself are setting up a Sacramento cohort.  You can see our blog here for information.  We looking to hold our first cohort gathering in mid to late November.  If you know someone who is lives in the Sacramento area and would like to meet with us, please let me know.

John, Jeromy and I are going to create something fun and inspiring.  Our hope is to meet and engage on a deeper level conversations that are constructive and meaningful.  We’re interested in exploring what it means to really follow Jesus in today’s world.  We are in the process of looking for a central location in Sacramento, so if you have a place to meet, please let us know.  We will likely meet at a coffee house or pub in the meantime.

Much love to you all and hope to meet you soon.

Read Full Post »