A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way.
|
|
| Preachin's Blog A little blog from an upstart theologian that will do its best to exemplify Christ while sharing a thing or two along the way. |
|
|
Friday, March 31, 2006 Inchurnational: Embracing sound theological beliefsIn examining the EC in North American ecclesial culture today there is one authentic conclusion that we must arrive at: the Established Church in North America (even the world) absolutely needs the Emerging/ent Church. A proposition such as this is risky and will certainly raise the eyebrows of the ensconced leadership of the IC, but this statement is simply too obvious as one looks at the state of the IC in North America and the world. Why does the IC need the EC? Quite frankly Proverbs 27:17 “As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” gives us that answer in part. Another reason is that we in the IC need a check and balance…if you will permit me a pagan illustration, a yin to our yang. One of the things that I deeply respect and love about my Christian brethren in the EC is their passion for a pure and authentic church. Many reform and recalibration movements in life and in the Church have founded themselves upon such a passion and vision. There is something refreshing and renewing about hearing the thoughts and God-given visions for a reclamation of authentic spirituality from my dear friends in the EC. As I examine the EC and have conversations with many of my friends in the IC it is apparent that many of the thoughts and goals of the EC leaders are having a positive effect on leaders in the IC, forcing them to rethink Church as usual. This is good. This is healthy. If we are to embrace the spirit of the Reformation found in the phrase Always Reforming (sempre Reforma…forgive me if my Latin is a bit off) than we need the check and balance of the EC. We need these younger evangelical leaders to smack us across the face and say “Dude, that is so 1950s” or “Why do we do that again?” and “How is that bringing people into the Kingdom?” We need the petulance of the youthful passion to counter our traditional ways of doing business/church as usual. That said, if the EC is to continue to be a good check and balance to the IC it is imperative that the EC begin to critically assess the theological positions its leaders are taking. Doctrinal purity is the root of effective evangelistic efforts within any body. While the EC calls on us to be incarnational in our living (that is pursuing Christ’s mind and image as we live and breath) it also seems to be doubting the very doctrine that it names as a foundational tenet for its/our existence. Far too many leaders in the EC are not thinking outside the box theologically/doctrinally when it comes to major areas of doctrine outside of their ecclesiology. Rather it is far too obvious that the EC leaders are simply embracing remnants of theological liberalism and past heresies of the faith in order to attempt to gain a foothold with the disenfranchised (dechurched) former parishioners  out there. They are laying hold of particularly Modern, mainline theological tenets to attempt to refute the overwhelming coherent evangelical theological corpus. In their incredulity the leaders of the EC have abandoned a more progressive (as they would call it…postmodern) approach in holding doctrine only to slink back to sublime false teachings that are rooted in Cartesian Modernism.In their attempt to question the foundations of rout religiosity apparent in too many of our churches today they have claimed the ecclesial high ground in their local gatherings and now have begun to reexamine, to deconstruct, the very tenets of doctrine and theology which we live by in our gatherings. There is no reason to question the Virgin Birth of Christ, the Incarnation, the Trinity, and other such foundational doctrines for the sake of “reexamining” things. In doing so these leaders dump hot coals of conflict into the already tumultuous relationship between the hardliners in the IC and the innovators in the EC. While we can have some variances in theological and doctrinal positions there must come a point where we agree on some essentials as foundational for belief and being worthy of the moniker “Christian.” Yet some within the leadership of the EC seem content only to deconstruct every possible tenet of evangelical belief to replace it with some age old liberal/mainline position that is contrary to the teachings of God’s Word. In particular the doctrine of the exclusivity of Christ has been placed under direct assault by the EC leadership as they are positioning themselves not in a new or uncharted theological camp, but rather in age old false teachings over the nature and conditions of salvation. With some leaders referring to salvation as “opt-out only” they are negating clear Scriptural teaching concerning the condemned nature of mankind from birth (John 3:16-21; Roms 3:21-26; 5:8-12; 6:20-23; Gal 3:22.) While some still suggest it is through Christ that the world has its sins atoned for, it is not through belief in Christ that one is able to enjoy in that divine gift of salvation. This is just an example of problematic doctrinal teaching within the EC leadership. If the nature and means of the central tenet of Christianity, that is salvation, is under attack and “revision” by the leadership how can the EC expect a reasonable hearing from the IC that it so desperately wants to rescue from the supposed fires of destruction. A primary issue is that in order to get the thoughts of the collective EC out on the table, many of the leadership feel an obligation to present papers and texts which deal with central matters of faith controversially so they might engender a wider reading because of the publicity (this will be addressed later on at length.) Others are suggesting that they have to ask penetrating questions of the faith of our fathers in order to get the loyal evangelicals in our pews and chairs to examine their own belief systems. Some other leaders attempt to discount their role as theological/ecclesial leaders by remarking they are not educated enough or the positions they are pushing should not engender controversy…even though they write with a high degree of authority knowing their texts are widely read and circulated. This is akin to Charles Barkley saying “I’m not a role model” knowing well and good that kids are always looking up to their hero athletes. These are hero-pastor/teachers of the EC giving instruction in doctrine and theology, sometimes in a position of arrogance and condescension for the faithful teachings of the IC, and with that role of leadership comes the role of responsibility. If the EC wishes to continue on its quest of bringing authenticity and purity of spirit to the Church at large it must first get its theological baggage in order and check it over hard. While they are clearly not content to just change the ecclesiological tenets of our faith, the leadership in the EC must endeavor to pursue sound doctrine and teaching (2 Tim 2:14-16; 4:1-5.) If any in the leadership are lacking in the academic realm for formal theological training (while that is certainly not a condition of leadership…just a rationalized ideal) let them get that training one way or another. There is a line of leaders in the IC which stretches from the altar of confrontation back through doors of discontent in this mighty chapel of ecclesial communion. All who are willing, ready, and able to soundly defeat the passion and vision of the EC as a whole if her leaders are not willing to get their theological baggage in check. Christianity at its base is theological. The life of a Christian is a delicate balance of faith and reason. With a shuddering base of belief how will the house of cards that is the EC continue to exist? If the leadership of the EC seeks only to line their pockets with the monies of controversy where will the faithful followers end up? If the motives of the leadership of the EC are just to rediscover theological error and not truly bring about a purer and more authentic church, why bother? Christ calls us to something greater, a greater belief, a greater faithfulness than to simply point out everything problem and past discarded false teachings. The Gnostic Gospels were left behind because they misrepresent Christ not because the author was blackballed. We must trust the intentions of our fathers and the faithfulness of God to maintain sound doctrine in His Church through the ages. The Established Church needs the Emerging/ent Church. We need them to be incarnational in their living and sound churchmen in their polity. We need them to go beyond the discarded tenets of old and look forward to future with hope and pure vision. If they fail…they will simply pass into the category of fad or movement and be a footnote in God’s Story of His faithfulness to the nations. posted by Preachin Jesus | 2:32 PM | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
Read my Profile
