Sometimes there were calls for change that were carried out. These occurred when the Church appeared to have headed, as a body, in the wrong direction. These were, for lack of a better term, course corrections. Faulty influences had sent them places they shouldn't have gone. They returned to the original course. That was the intent of most of the New Testament. The Church was already drifting off course. Let's get back to the original. That was the idea, for instance, of the Reformation. It wasn't a call to a new course. It was a call to return to the original course. This, in fact, has been the intent of multiple denominations and splinter groups. They see the course as misguided and attempt to retain what they believe to be the true course.
Today the call is a little different. Oh, there is much of the same going on all the time that has always gone on. But one of the loudest calls for change in the Church today isn't a call to return to the original course. Instead, it is a call to change courses to more closely match the society in which we find ourselves. In the 90's we were told that if the Church didn't reinvent herself, she would be gone in the 21st century. The belief was, is, and continues to be that the Church has become largely irrelevant. Amidst all the clamor for biblical inerrancy, a Truth that will set you free, doctrinal purity, Church history, creeds and confessions, and the like, it seems that there is a growing position that we've missed the boat entirely. We're not off course; we're going nowhere fast and will soon be sunk in a sea of irrelevance. If the Church is going to continue, we need to change all that.
To a large extent, I've already listed the changes that are being called for. Jettison this obviously ridiculous belief that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and, as such, without error. You can't hold it. It is demonstrably false. Throw it out. Oh, don't toss out your Bible. Just don't clutch it so tightly that you let it do your thinking for you. Exactly how loosely you should hold it varies from call to call, but there is a vast trend that says that inerrancy is untenable and anyone who holds to it is ... well, foolish. The same is true for anyone who claims exclusive truth. Our world is shrinking. There is an ocean of truth claims out there. Show a little Christian humility and don't hang on that "we know the truth and if you don't agree you're damned" position. It just won't win friends and influence people, it's too arrogant, and it's not very nice. In fact, having jettisoned a "God-breathed" source of truth and admitting to human propensity to error, is there any reason to think that your doctrine is pure while others are not? Are you not aware that doctrine divides? Can't we all just get along? Why don't you keep that "pure doctrine" in your less than absolutely inerrant Bible -- not too close, okay? And don't get me started on Church history. I mean, there are the Crusades and the Dark Ages and wars and rumors of wars that are "Church history". There is the 100-years war that was just between the Church and the Church. What's up with that? Why would you even bring up "Church history" when it is demonstrably idiotic? As for creeds and confessions, we've already eliminated inerrancy, truth, doctrinal purity, and tradition -- so which "creed" or "confession" are you going to foolishly stand on? I mean, you already admit they aren't "the Word of God", so why even bother? Go with us on this one. "No creed but Christ!"
And carefully, slowly, inch by inch, sprinkled carefully with all the best of intentions (I mean, seriously, what Christian wouldn't embrace "humility" as a good thing?), we eliminate Christianity as a viable truth. Because of its own truth claims, it is either true or it is false. It cannot be "one of many truths." There are too many absolute claims that simply, logically eliminate that possibility.
There are things in the Church that can change. There are things in the Church that must not change. The things that must not change are the undergirdings, the foundations. How those foundations are built upon may vary. How a culture chooses to embellish certain areas of that building within the confines of the firm, unchangeable, foundational undergirdings of truth are open to discussion. What songs to sing, what form church buildings take, where churches meet, there are lots of areas of variation available. But when we begin to shift the Church to be more friendly with the world -- a nice-sounding, "missional" goal -- we begin to shift the Church to be an enemy of God.
You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).We can and should discuss the fundamentals, the basics, the hard-and-fast, rock-bottom positions to hold. There are foundational positions that must not be abandoned, and we should figure out what those are before it's too late. But let's not make it the goal of the Church to be what God has said we must not be.
7 comments:
How can it possibly be "missional" to delete the very essence of Truth that provides freedom and hope to those mired in the world's darkness and sin? Exactly how is it helping those drowning in the ocean to drill some holes in the boat to make it more "accessible"? It doesn't, and even when people cry, "Hey, that's not very friendly of you, using trees like that to make a boat!", we should stick to our truthful basis that without the boat, we'd sink!
On the question of inerrancy, one might consider Hebrews 6:16-18. Enough said.
Yes, in trying to become "user friendly", we kill the user. "Hmmmm ... that didn't work."
Exactly how is it helping those drowning in the ocean to drill some holes in the boat to make it more "accessible"?
That's brilliant! Well said, science mom.
The whole Emergent Church shpiel of Brian McLaren and co. is a thinly veiled attempt to accomodate the wisdom of the world.
I have watched with interest the Emergent Church stuff in Australia with interest and, initially, with support. But the more I watch and the more I think, I think it is just shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. I agreed with holding to the foundations. One of the problems is we have not been teaching our traditions and foundations very well or very meaningfully. Meanwhile, theological colleges are increasing the numbers of people with qualifications. I have to wonder if they are merely making scribes, religious lawyers, Pharisees, and Sadducees. You see, there are two hallmarks of our faith: relationship - with God and People; and Justice. It's one thing to bury your nose in the Bible (whatever your view on inerrancy) but would you actually have been there helping Jesus to turn the tables in the Temple or mixing with those disreputable people and would you, too, have disappeared on Crucifixion Day? You see our faith is about relationship and doing. It is in the doing that it all becomes plain - much plainer than arguments about dogma and inerrancy. In short, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You see, Jesus could have written a book. He didn't. He could have established a sect. He didn't. He could have established a rabbinical school. He didn't. He could have followed contemporary administrative techniques. He didn't. We don't even know what sort of music he liked. He went off by himself to pray. He built relationships with men and women who spread His teaching and His ways. He did stuff - healing, explaining, trying to do justice in spite of the powers that be both civil and religious getting in the road. The essentials of our faith are so simple that it can be comprehended in its entirety by a six year old child. It is the faith of that child that Jesus commended. So back to the deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't see the Emergent Church as inclusive (it tends to break up into age or interest groups - quite different from the all inclusive model of the early church) and white male voices tend to dominate the debate. Not only does this limit to inclusion turn me - as an aged and opinionated female - right off, I think it is only continuing, with new dressing at the windows, one of the great weaknesses of the universal church.
Ah, but don't those deck chairs look much nicer arranged this way?
I'm so tired of hearing that Jesus and the church are irrelevant. First, the definition of 'irrelevance' stinks. It's to be read, "attractive, non-obtrusive, tolerant, unoffensive, etc." Last I checked, the gospel wasn't attractive to the unbeliever (1 Corinthians 2:14). Tell Zaccheus that Christ didn't just invite himself in (Luke 19:5). When was sin ever to be tolerated? And last I checked, the gospel doesn't do its job if it doesn't convict.
Second, Christ didn't say, "Help make me relevant, because I struggle with that" or, "I'm relevant in my day, but in the future I won't be, so church, you need to help me out when the time comes." What He did say is, "I am the bread of life," (John 6:35) and "whoever drinks of the water I give him will never thirst." (John 4:14) If that isn't relevant, I don't know what is.
Ryan,
When I take a moment to look at the biblical explanation of "worship" (For instance, "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel" (Heb. 12:22-24) as an example), I cannot even begin to fathom the accusation that the Church is "irrelevant". If that is "irrelevant", you're not paying attention.
You're so right.
Post a Comment