I remember as a kid growing up I sometimes marvelled at how lucky I was to be born into the very denomination that was right. I mean, everyone in church believed what they were saying, and so it isn't a big leap in logic for me to then assume everyone else was wrong. How lucky I was to be right!
I have since come to realize that people all over the world in all sorts of denominations and streams of Christianity have probably grown up thinking the same thing. And recently I've begun to wonder, not about my denomination so much as my tradition as a whole:
How Christian is Evangelisalism anyway? Consider the following:
-We tend to reject or ignore church tradition between the Apostles and Martin Luther. This sounds like Mormonism which says that the period between Peter and Joseph Smith was the dark ages of depravity and silence from God.
-We have turned the church into a corporation complete with a mission and value statements meant to accomplish that mission, which for all its biblical language, is basically to grow the corporation in numbers, the meeting of felt needs, and impressiveness. This sounds like consumerism and customer service; Westjet and Walmart (except you always get friendlier greeters when you pay them)
-Our spiritual gifts classes are all about being who God made you to be. Serving the church becomes the means to the end of self-fulfillment instead of the other way around. Sounds a lot like Oprah.
-Conversion is all about an individual praying a certain prayer, giving assent to a certain doctrine, which can only be revealed to us. Sounds like gnostic secret knowledge and enlightenment.
-Thus preaching becomes motivational speaking and worship motivational singing. Sounds like Tony Robbins and (insert favourite music here).
-The sacraments of baptism and communion are about us and our obedience to God, our proclamation of faith, our rememberence and recommitment. Where is God? Does Christ need to be in the room?
-The Bible is the authority. But whose Bible? Whose interpretation? For us this basically means each of us are the authority, and we choose whose commentary to use and go from there. Hence we have guys like George Barna telling us that the church is anywhere one person is following Christ the way they want to. This is evangelicalism taken to its logical conclusion.
-Western evangelicals are among the wealthiest and most consumptive societies in the world and many of us are just going with the flow in that regard. Sounds disturbingly like Isaiah 58.
-The Reformers did not intend to split with Catholicism, but it was inevitable, and necessary. Now evangelicalism has even split with the Reformed church. How far can this go? What is Christian about all of this?
At some point we have to ask: How Christian is Evangelicalism?
19 comments:
Good topic and discussion JC. This will surely get alot of us fired up and ready to debate.
Some initial thoughts in the order of the questions you asked.
1) I agree that we tend to ignore our spiritual heritage, especially between the apostles and Luther. People who think a little about this sort of thing have learned and studied and heard about some of the more despicable aspects of earlier catholicism, like indulgences and the crusades, and decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think we are definitely missing out on a lot of good heritage and thought and tradition and even ritual becuase of it. Very mormonesque indeed.
2)This second comment concerning the corporate church got me going a bit. In my experience, people our age like to throw around the word "corporation" like its the consumate evil, especially when we see the sizes of congregations and church buildings ballooning. But there are a lot of really great corporations out there doing a lot of good, just as there are many irresponsible and cruel ones. The same goes for the church I think. I personally don't like big churches, but they can work, and work well. With increasing size comes a need for efficiency and with that comes a tendency to lose the humanity and personability in a church. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Just because its hard to right doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Nor do I really have a problem with mission statements or growing the "corporation" in numbers. As long as discipleship goes hand in hand with that growth. The great commission does basically call us to grow the church in numbers along with discipleship does it not? That's where I think the problem usually comes in. We tend to be content getting people in the door and let the discipleship fall by the wayside.
3)Can't argue with your assessment of the purpose of spiritual gifts. We do some to have the order mixed up a bit i think. There's a lot self-help messages like this making their rounds in the church that are pretty destructive
4) The individualisation of our salvation and faith is a big bone of contention for me too. Although I'm not sure what you meant about giving assent to a certain doctrine that can only be revealed to us. What we need to believe is spelled out in scripture pretty clearly so does not seem to qualify as secret teaching to me. I'm missing how the gnostic parallels are coming in here. I request enlightenment.
5)Preaching and Worship being motivational tools: Well, i've seen a lot of that, but I've seen a lot of really great preaching and worship too within our same tradition of evangelicalism. There's always going to bright and dark spots, although that doesn't excuse apathy.
6)I'm not sure what you were getting at with the baptism and communion question. I agree that the rituals can become stale and meaningless if we let them, but what do you mean by wondering where is God and does Christ need to be in the room?
7) I think that no matter which version of the bible we are reading, be it KJV or The Message, we are going to get the dogma, the stuff that ultimately matters, spelled out to us pretty clear.
When it comes to the greyer area of doctrine I'm sure that different translations will help us justify different things but I don't have too much of an issue with that. I think the bible has deliberately left us with the responsibility to make choices, and on these issues I think each of us are the authority and that's ok. I still disagree with that Barna quote though.
8) Consumerism. Well i can't argue with this either. I believe we are going to pay a very dear price as western christians for the amount of evil we tolerated in this world when we had the means to stop it. I know there are lots of good christians and christian organisations, and non-christian organisations for that matter, doing a lot of really great work in the world to alleviate suffering but it is definitely the exception and not the norm.
9)I'm out of my league on the issue of the split with the reformed church. I don't know enough about it. Perhaps someone can elaborate.
Looking forward to where this discussion is going.
thanks for that csu, i won't argue (or state agreements) yet, but should clarify:
-i'm not trying to hammer our denomination per se, but we have to face it that "pop evangelicalism" forms our churches almost as much as the pastors do and it is this that i'm throwing the red flags about. i love our denomination and have a lot of faith in our people to get through this.
-you are right there is nothing secret or mysterious about the gospel, it is available and plain, at least if heard right, and in the right place in the world. What I find gnostic is the idea of "my personal salvation". Yes it is personal, but we talk so much about "I Found JEsus" and structure everything for people to have personal experiences to such an extent that i wouldn't blame someone in the mystery religions of the first century feeling right at home.
-the baptism thing, and the above thing, and the REformed tradition thing basically come down to the same issue. Probably MOST Christians today and in history have practiced infant baptism and confirmation rather than baby dedication and believer's baptism. Also a majority would see the Lord's Supper as Jesus' "Real Presence" (or more) and not just an ordinance of remembrance. Personally, I prefer believer's baptism and am opposed to transubstantiation, but I have to ask myself where I get off anathemetizing all these people and going so far in the other direction, which is this:
-believer's baptism and communion as ordinance put everything on our shoulders. it is all about our faith and our remembrance. I think the Catholics and Reformed folk are confused by us on this. WE are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus to us and so these sacraments should first of all be seen as God's acts, and as things belonging to the church (and not the individual). I think they go too far in speaking of these things as salvific (invested with saving power), but I think we have gone too far too in speaking of them as mere symbolic rituals and divesting them of power. (Yet we are happy to say that our songs and words carry a certain power)
-I guess I started arguing a point there already. I'm really just trying to clarify. My thing isn't to become an infant baptizer or a transubstantiationist, but we have drifted from the truths behind those things to a great extent and I am basically asking how far we've drifted?
-there are a lot of different topics here, I realize. I suppose we'll bandy them about and narrow in on a few contentious ones. I am certainly willing to be argued with, I am putting this in extreme language, because I think we have a potentially very "real situation" here. i do offer this in a humble spirit of pleading dialogue however. let us seek God together as a people, and not bash our tradition, but not put our heads in the sand either.
peace. out.
Your comments Fear have taken me on an emotinal roller coaster from anger, rage, sadness, back to rage, back to extreme anger, finally stopping at my base emotion of quite resentment. I thought we were going to keep the discussion light and fun this summer. This topic came at me like a sucker punch but you and every body else know that your one punch wont bring down the Tuna.
Now to the topic on hand. It is hard to speak broadly about a movement of people. Evangelical churches have been changing for years and I bet if you have asked an early Evangelical what they thought of the church today, they would think it was a different denomination.
YOu have raised a lot of questions and I won't try to answer them all now. Since reading the first post this morning I have been trying to process what I think about Evangelical churches. There is much that angers me about Evangelical churches today (surprise, suprise) but there is alot to be proud off. As much as the missionary movement has resulted in some negative things, this movement has done a lot of good and has its roots in evangelicalism. The main-line churches didn't seem interested in reaching out to the rest of the world.
The saving souls agenda of the evangelical church is a postive and negative occurence but at its heart it was based on good motivations.
These points might sound flimsy but it seems that this is another grass is greener on the other side arguments. Nowadays Evangelicals look at main-line and Catholic churches and think, these churches have the answer. I think it is easier to look at somebody or something else and see how much better they have it. I say this not to say that Evangelicals are perfect but it has done much good in the world. I think God is using many different denominations to build his church at different times and different locations. God knows that humans are extreme creatures who take good ideas and take them too far.
So far now I will conclude with saying that the grass isn't always greener on the other side, and if it is they are probably using pesticide that is destroying the earth.
Thanks for the clarifications there Dr. Fear. That's some great food for thought.
I confess I've never thought of communion and baptism under that lens. When I think about I am pretty sure that I've always looked at those rituals as something I DO for God. I wonder if I have ever given God the chance to do something for me. And even writing that I realize there are lots of "I's" and "Me's" in that sentence too.
So if I understand your contention then you are saying that our believer's baptism and communion is often reduced to mere symbolism. That they are human actions, well intentioned albeit, but just human actions. So in some way we are losing God in the process. Maybe we are missing that sense of expectation that God will "show up" and do something incredible.
I guess that's what the mainline churches were trying to do, give God room to play a role in our rituals.
I understand what you mean now by the gnostic undertones to the individualism of our salvation. I wouldn't go so far as to say that its just semantics but I wonder how much of the problem is just caused by our language. Like you said, words like "found" imply that the knowledge was hidden. And we do put alot of emphasis on the personal side of things.
Tuna, I wonder if you might compare your emotional rollercoaster to a real rollercoaster which one it would be? Perhaps Space Mountain, or maybe just "It's a Small World"?
to be clear, i'm not trashing us or saying there is nothing good about evangelicalism. the point is that in the grand scheme of things we are the result of several schisms, or departures from the catholic church (small "c"). Many evangelicals think we are the true church and the church that got left behind is the detour. but i would say that there are many streams and one church. within each stream is error, unsaved people, heretics, problems, etc.....
Point is, we are a stream of Christianity, and in perspective of the whole of it, I wonder how far we are off course, particularly in teh key areas I've described. Yes these are generalizations, but I think that these are fairly true (to varying degrees) of most non-mainline evangelicals in the West.
So, have at er.
And Tuna, you don't know how pleased I am that I have set you off like that. Your anger and rage are my joy and contentment!!!
Pretty quiet on here. Must have scared everyone off. C'mon, we don't really think we have the "market cornered" on Christianity do we? Where are we evangelicals off and needing the balance of Catholics and Reformed and the Orthodox? I think we need them in many ways. Maybe this trans-denominational seminary thing is "corrupting" me though.
Since CSU has had the guts to engage, I'll point something out. You said:
I confess I've never thought of communion and baptism under that lens. When I think about I am pretty sure that I've always looked at those rituals as something I DO for God. I wonder if I have ever given God the chance to do something for me. And even writing that I realize there are lots of "I's" and "Me's" in that sentence too.
So if I understand your contention then you are saying that our believer's baptism and communion is often reduced to mere symbolism. That they are human actions, well intentioned albeit, but just human actions. So in some way we are losing God in the process. Maybe we are missing that sense of expectation that God will "show up" and do something incredible.
I guess that's what the mainline churches were trying to do, give God room to play a role in our rituals."
You are on to what I'm saying. Yes I think they think something special happens in Communion and Baptism that I'm not sure we see as any different from a moving song or sermon. But you are correct to notice your own frequent use of "I" and "me" in there. I think that Catholics and the Reformed, at their best, see baptism as FIRST OF ALL belonging to God, as God's act of imparting faith (or even salvation) to a person. ANd SECOND OF ALL they see it belonging to the Church, as the CHurch initiating and calling and enfolding someone in its arms. THen, THIRD OF ALL, it belongs to a person, to be accepted, recieved, and lived into and lived out in time.
Of course there are problems when they baptize every child from here to the potomac and can't ensure that child or his or her family ever comes to church again (let alone sticks it out til confirmation), except at Christmas and Good Friday, but we have that problem in evangelicalism too.
My point is that I think I'm beginning to see how that looks to Catholics and the Reformed. It seems like it is all about us (in more than just baptism), and I'm not sure how healthy (let alone Christian) that imbalance is. Even the fact that we still think of church as a thing that "does something for us" is very telling. (And I'm not picking on you CSU because I find myself thinking that way all the time, and you seem to have noticed it yourself).
I have begun seeing church as an ongoing conversation (that would go on with or without me, but which "wants" me) that I get to participate in, and this is beginning to make all the difference in the world for me and my attitude and even, interestingly enough, for what I "get out of it".
Ah Dr. Fear, don't worry, you didn't scare me off. I've been checking in several times a day waiting for some of our other illustrious contributors to get back on the horse here and get some more dialogue going.
Particularly I was waiting for the TUNA to get back on here and expand a little more about his emotional rollercoaster.
I've been thinking of the ideas Fear talked about on how the mainline churches look at baptism and I like them. Not the infant part of the baptism mind you, but the idea that its firts and foremost about belonging to God and belonging to the Church. I know when I was baptised and went through the classes I came away with the impression that my baptism was nothing more than my personal, and public, declaration of faith. There was no idea of God imparting faith or the Church "initiating and calling and enfolding" me in its arms.
I would also like to extend kudos to Fear for referencing the Potomac in his post. Kind of reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Lisa writes the essay called "Cesspool on the Potomac".
Anyways, looking forward to some of the rest of you to get in on this discussion and turn our dialogue into a conversation here.
Hello?
Anyone?
Holy Crappers?
[dusty tumbleweed rolls by]
Hi CSU,
Things have been quiet lately from some of us because...
-Tuna has been visiting me and we basically languished in front of my television.
-Fear dropped by on his way to the GK Chesterton conference. (Yes, that's not a joke).
-I have been busier than (insert appropriate metaphor here) with a bunch of work and school deadlines.
I realize that we're well into our discussion so my comments seem out of place, but here they are anyway.
I think it's popular for scholars to be skeptical about the established system. In our case, we can lovingly bash evangelicalism. It's a check against tyranny, perhaps. We can complain about not doing this or doing too much of that but it's not a new argument. Since the earliest churches, people have entered into "the system" with high hopes and big expectations and those ideas become routinized and then entrenched and then rote... and then someone needs to come along and shake things up. Sort of a circle of life, but without Mufasa. The conversation still has to be had, so I hope you don't think I'm copping out of it. But it does seem to me like we're tending towards a far more cynical view of evangelicalism than necessary. It seems like we're longing for a church of yesterdecade, which only really exists in our minds. In reality, we have to work on what we've got and move forward. Church (big C and little c, both in history and modernity) is just about doing the best we can with what we have. Yes, there's the Spirit to empower us, but we know (even from this blog) that there's some wiggle room on a lot of issues. So, even though I think it is the role of the scholar to question the system and shake things up, I still think we could go a bit easier on evangelicalism.
And now I have to go hang myself for saying "wiggle room"... which I swore I'd never say.
well evaded trembling. you can use all the wiggle room you want but i think this is more than a "scholar's mid-life crisis". it isn't just the scholars bashing evangelicalism these days. (and even if it was, shouldn't it trouble us when the people who look deeply into the background and theology of our "system" almost with one voice send up warning sirens?)
a whole "emergent" thing is happening these days (outside of academia), but unfortunately i think much of it is an adverse reaction and unfortunate repetition of the sins of evangelicalism (in newer hipper clothes of course). so it is very important that we say something of substance about evangelicalism and where we want to take it, no?
i realize i come off as bashing evangelicalism, but i do think there are real problems rearing themselves as we carry on the train of thought of our evangelical forebears and i think it is precisely my commitment to evangelicalism (and my own denomination) that forces me to strive to make sense of it, and if needed promote "reform". A huge part of that reform means regrasping our huge Tradition and appreciating that which is good from those outside our stream of Christianity (while hopefully dialoguing with them about what they should have learned from the Reformation)
I am at a transdenomintational school. I am currently sitting in a Catholic University library. I had supper yesterday with three Catholic people who I could tell found it odd I went to seminary but was married with kids. Some of the things people around me think makes me nervous. Nervous about what they think, but sometimes also nervous about what I think.
So the question remains for all of us thoroughly indoctrinated evangelicals: How "Christian" are we?
Now excuse me, I must go eat lunch with some nerds.
It is good to be back and posting once again. My time spent with trembling was probably more rewarding for him then it was for me but I had good time of relaxing and getting some reading done for a class I am taking soon.
Fear, I think this is a good discussion to have when it is in the context of people committed to building up their own tradition and not destroying it. I know you are comitted so I accept your criticisms.
I'm not sure if the evangelical church I go to or all of us go to is really that Evangelical. As a result of post-modernity and the unique makeup of each congregation I think all denominations are losing their distinctiveness. If you attend a church in Regina and go to the same denominational church in Saskatoon you are likely to have a very different experience. Since this reality exists, it is hard to talk about holding to one denominational view.
I think this current reality is good thing because it is opening up the church to different views and expressions of Christianity. I think the question for us is what do we want to hold to? What do we think church life should be?
There does still exiat some strong believes in denominations about baptism and communion but I think we will see an openess in these practices as well.
I am glad to have the Evangelical upbrining I recieved but I am also glad that the church is more open today to other streams of Christianity. I also grew up believing evangelicals were the most Christian of all Christians and I am realizing the error of that belief. Other traditions have a lot of good things to say and those people with evangelical upbringings need to be open to hearing their point of view.
I am excieted to be back at Seminary and have a chance to rethink some of my beliefs. I know I am going to hold on to some evangelical views and add to it a mixture from other traditions.
Tuna wrote,"My time spent with trembling was probably more rewarding for him then it was for me"
Hey Tuna: SCREW YOU
i saw trembling yesterday and now i walk around with a spring in my step and a smile of delight. no one who enters his presence is ever the same. except tuna, who is repelled and frightened by all giants of men (which is why he will only ever hire midget butlers).
by the way i think we're not hearing from underachiever because he had a baby! congrats under!
and i think tanti is on his way to ireland any day now. please post from ireland tanti! keep the wanderlust alive! (my June 15 post was from St. Paul Minnesota)
I have spent maybe a total of 30 minutes in my life in the presence of Trembling, yet it was 30 minutes well spent. In fact I'm not sure we've ever officially met. And so I look forward to the next Holy Crappers get together extravaganza and BBQ. And by "next" I of course mean "first.
Congrats to mister underachiever, although perhaps succesfully creating a child makes his handle inaccurate.
I'm at a loss as to why Tanti is going to Ireland. Is there some Irish heritage in him or his old lady? Perhaps he is going to visit the grave of Michael Collins.
Perhaps we'll really get this discussion rolling in a couple days when everybody's more settle. I myself get on a series of planes on Sunday on the journey home.
I have been rethinking my stance here. I have to say that as enamored as I am with Catholic and Reformed church concepts and practices, having spent a weekend with some very devout Catholics I have also had pause to remember what is great, and resolutely Christian, about evangelicalism:
-open to Christ being Head of a larger church than can be contained by our human constructs
-recognize the importance of putting the incarnated words of the Word into every language, and not just insisting everyone come to us, and our latin, or whatever (not all evangelicals do this, nor do all catholics insist everyone learn latin, but you know what I"m saying)
-as much as we've lost that sense of the church's primacy over individual rights, I am glad to be out of the hierarchy where belonging to God is equated to belonging to the system. The church is not the incarnate presence of Christ on earth. It is something close to that, but it isn't that. If it way, there would be no reason for him to return.
-i appreciate and would like to restore the significance of the saints, but praying TO them? And TO Mary? I regret we've over-reacted against this, but there is something there worth reacting to!
-having said that, I think sola scriptura is a mirage. we can't interpret it without Community and without Tradition. Much as the Catholics overemphasize the latter, we underemphasize it.
-I am bothered by Catholics not allowing others into their communion. But many evangelicals refuse to recognize infant baptism (many insisting on rebaptism), and I am beginning to see this as a slap in the face born out of misunderstanding.
-I'd like us to come together, I'd like evangelicalism to avoid the impending doom of individualist consumerism and total disconnect from the Catholic Chruch Tradition ... but we can't accept everything. The Reformation happened for a purpose.
-We must always be Reforming. But not just to everyone's tastes. This is the balance evangelicals need to get back.
Sounds like it might be just me on here for awhile!? Sweet! Finally everything said on here can be error free!!!!
Don't worry, I'm still here to bring the argument down and to corrupt the good discussion that could take place.
Good thoughts Fear. I agree with you on all fronts and you know how that angers my soul.
Evangelicals like Catholics have a distinct voice on theological issues and it is important that all voices are heard. NOt that we will be able to settle all disputes but that it is good to talk and to debate. It's sad to look back over the recent past and see how many walls were built between these two camps and for no reason. Yes Catholics aren't perfect but Evangelicals aren't either. We have things to learn from eachother as well as from other groups.
I have danced around the orginal question of this blog and all of you know I am not a good dancer so I will stop and try to answer the question.
-Evangelicals are to closed off from mysticism. This prevents us from allowing the Holy Spirit to work. As well it prevents us from understaning baptism and communion.
-Evangelicals, maybe all traditions, have created a split between sacred and everyday life. There is a sense that all God requires is for us to go to Church on Sunday, belong to a small goup, and to do some kind of charity work. If we do this, then we can live our lives as we want.
-Evangelicalism has fostered a sense of superiority of the West. As much as I applaud early missionary work, one of the by-products of this was an understaning that we in the west are so much better in all areas of life and must help out the savages.
This is a little bit of hyperbole but at least in small ways this attidue was fostered by evangelicals.
-Evangelicals have gone to the other exterme of placing all the onus on our abilities. We save we are saved by faith but after salvation it is about how good we are: how dedicated, how smart, how faithful. The other extreme isn't right either but we need to strive for a more balanced approach.
That's all I got for now. Take care and keep rocking in the free world!
Good points Tuna. Finally having you agree with me has been like balm for my wounds, salve for my bee stings, and polysporin for my mosquito bites. Keep it up!
I've heard it said that "Jesus Loves Me" is like the theme song of evangelicalism. Sometimes you'll hear a pastor or someone end a service with it because it "says it all".
Its a great little song, and it is true and beautiful and I sing it with my kids. But if it says it all then it also epitomizes what is wrong with evangelicalism as well. For instance:
Jesus loves me this I know.
For the Bible tells me so.
(Yes, this is huge, personal assurance of salvation is amazing. But is this how we know? A personal feeling based on reading Scripture? Lots of people have read Scripture and said they know a lot of things. What about Church Tradition, the COmmunity of Faith, the people we know and who know us, the Spirit?: Don't they also help us to know? Just us and the Bible? Really? To some extent this is a powerful truth, but if it is the theme song for our faith it is really lacking.)
Little ones to him belong. They are weak but he is strong.
(I have no problem with this line. I would however like to point out how silly it sounds for a mega-church purpose-driven success-manager, I mean pastor, to be saying this.)
Yes, Jesus loves me.
Yes, Jesus loves me.
Yes, Jesus loves me.
The Bible tells me so.
(Sweet sweet evangelical repetition there. We have to sing it until we feel it right? 3 times is surprisingly few actually. And how incredibly individualistic is this song? Wow.)
Thing is, the song is very good and quite redeemable. As is evangelicalism. We've just gone off the deep end in our self-focus. But it wouldn't take much to redeem this. Some dialogue with other traditions and a "church campaign" to correct thinking would really help.
We sing this song every night with our boys, and by changing three words I think we save the song: "Yes Jesus loves us. Yes Jesus loves you, Yes Jesus loves me, the Bible tells us so."
Maybe I'm being nit-picky, but I think I'm speaking to a broader reality, a big problem, and this song came to mind as a good case study.
ANd Tuna, as far as rocking in the free world goes, you'll be happy to know that our boys have lately started singing this in double-time, and I've been throwing down some bassy beat-boxing for background. Ohhh yeeah.
Wow. I step away from the blog for just a few days and the entire world crumbles: underachievers are having babies, Tuna writes a sentence that includes the word "mysticism", and Fear recants.
This truly is a "Holy Crap" moment.
Fear, I was really glad to read yours and Tuna's last couple of posts. Good stuff. There is value in Catholicism and there is value in the emergent church movement but I really do feel that we have some good stuff in evangelicalism that we can't reject! It felt to me like you were headed in that direction from the initial blogpost that kicked off this discussion. I'm glad to see that you've dialed back a bit.
Sure, evangelicals have crappy stuff, who doesn't? And we need to reform it. And I don't think that the emergent church's answer is the right one. They're doing some good work but they're also frustratingly turning their back on a good thing. If you know me, you know that I hate tradition for tradition's sake, but I do like tradition when it has value and meaning and be revisited in a fresh way. And I see this potential in evangelicalism. What I rail against is the evangelicalism we saw in the 70's and 80's: middle class, mustachio'd evangelicals wearing suits and rejecting anything aesthetic: talk about cloistering! I think there's a resurgence in evangelicalism toward an appreciation for liturgy and aesthetic worship and I think that's where we can find hope in renewing this group of believers.
i don't think i recanted so much as "dialed back" as you said. i recoil and react against evangelical assumptions that we've got it all right. i wanted to challenge that.
i'm not sure what you dislike about the emergent church. i think there are a couple strains of it. there is the one that is basically willow creek remodelled for gen xers and younger. nothing new here except we might enjoy it more.
then there are those who you've mentioned, who are remining tradition and renewing aesthetics and even trying to be wholistic, social christians centered on Christ. there are fewer of these probably, but this is good.
i posted a new topic above before realizing someone finally chimed in. so i'm not trying to shut this dialogue down. keep talking on both if you want.
Post a Comment