I
remember checking my myspace a couple months ago and the small blurb that
attempted to advertise a new website ceased my attention for a quick second. This
is the advertisements in the homepage which are usually directed towards topics
match interests expressed in your profile, my page tends to get controversial
religious based websites, Christian singles, or something relating to my
military service. The one which caught my eye and focus for a couple seconds
had a phrase on it claimed, if one wants to be a born again Christian one does
not need to know doctrine. I wish I could quote it now because it was so
absurd, but it was more than claiming personal relationship with Christ was the
focus, it denied any rational consideration of orthodox Christian theology.
Fast
forward to two weeks ago, I can’t remember what the occasion was, if I am not
gaming or watching a movie I have music going. Most of you know my music
collection consists mostly of the family radio Christian favorites. I was
jamming to MercyMe’s Everything
Impossible. I paid slightly more attention to the lyrics for some
reason and was rather unsettled by them. Namely a selection of the chorus’ lyrics,
“I know it all seems so illogical, but that’s okay”. Whether I can continue to
listen to the song in good conscience, I don’t think I can. As with most
situations I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, the theme of the
song is how we ought to rely on faith and surrendering ourselves to God;
however, with such a phrase to which praises one’s ignorance of theology as an
act of faith, I cannot accept such a thing.
I
question the kind of faith are we living when praise songs and catchy advertisements
see irrationality as virtuous? The truly dangerous factor about those two,
unless they are secretly heretics, they don’t realize the implications of their
claims. If Christianity is illogical I would hope it would be investigated or
abandoned.
Now faith is the
assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the
people of the old received their condemnation. By faith we understand that the
universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out
of things that are visible.-Hebrews
11:1-3
A frequently
referenced verse as it biblically defines faith and its virtue. Faith believes
when God created all that exists it was created out of nothing. This particular
topic of origins remains unknowable with any form of science. Any claim to such
a thing is faith, while many scientific theories will claim a scientific answer
it cannot be observed, tested or repeated; therefore, the empirical science’s
limit is exposed. When God created the world, the natural law, the laws of
science, and our souls, logic and reason were included. The foundational
doctrine of God’s immutable character led Christians to discover scientific
doctrine ranging from the laws of gravity, periodic table, genetic traits and
more. The reasoning behind the claim; if we live in a world in which God does
not arbitrarily intervene, in which nature will behave in a predictable manner
then it can be tested to discover natural science. Remember it was not atheist
scientists who laid the foundation of modern science.
I
needed these two examples to lay foundation for where I really wanted to go. I
believe we are on the edge of a Christian cultural renaissance, whether it be
positive or negative we have yet to see as time and the products of the
rebirth. Hopefully, you have guessed that I am speaking about the Emergent
Church movement, if it can be called a movement. To pinpoint the definition is
like trying to define it is like defining an absolute relativist; perhaps it is
just as oxymoronic. I cannot do better than annotate similar behaviors/beliefs
expressed from those who claim to be emergent, they have: lost faith/hope/respect
in organized religion, emphasized individual faith, referred to undeclared form
of organization or non-existent organization, nor set forth doctrine. To me it
seems to be a cross between Christian anarchy and relativism.
It
occurred to me I did not explain why I think those traits are harmful to the
Church. Denying the importance of organized religion is in the words of one
unabashed friend, “Calling the bride of Christ a whore”. I point to the model
of the Trinity to follow we ought to be in community with other believers. I
especially like the Acts
4-5 model in which it almost sounds like the early Christians made a
communistic community until it was abruptly ended with a corpses of Ananias and
Sapphira. At the same time I think the organization of church, many churches
have lost the focus of what pure
religion is. I do not believe the best solution is to turn our back
on the organized church as a whole, simply reform and refocus where necessary. The
increased focus on individual faith I do support. While at times it seems to
practice our faith means we must congregate together frequently as an
expression of our faith, I see that as our collaboration time, we ought to
spend the rest of our time growing with our personal relationship with Christ.
I
am hard pressed to find a non-churchese way of describing the “personal
relationship with Christ”. An analogy I favor is being a good friend to Christ.
Think of it in terms of how we become good friends with other people, I think
those bonding characteristics translate well with Christ. A group of people
that refuses to be called a group of people is more like being a nonconforming
nonconformist. In an effort to not follow status quo, the rebel becomes the
status quo and thus a living cliché, church culture is no different. The lack
of organization within the emergent movement is beneficial because it requires
more active thinking before everyone looks at each other and figures out the
irrationality of it all. Namely because the foundation of theology which is
common to all protestant Christians, even some emergents have abandoned. Try to
sit down and have a conversation about faith in which everyone starts from
square one and the shared doctrines have been discarded. The blind man is given
the driver seat and thinks he’s ready for NASCAR. The only problem is he’s driving
a minivan. I started to point out the dangers of leaving orthodox Christian
doctrine in Necessary
Beliefs.
Based
on the aforementioned aspects of the emergent movement how do I find any positive
value? For one, it is a faith much easier to spread; it has growing popularity
with my generation especially. It prompts many people to reexamine their own
faith and where they ought to go with it. It stirs the waters to say the least.
While I find it to be a hazardous direction of theological faith I also believe
it is potentially the next Great Awakening. I suggested in Losing
Our Minds, that we have ourselves to blame and our culturally relevant
forms of evangelism to credit for spreading a theologically weak faith. Perhaps
this is the next level, both the Second Great Awakening and the Emergent church
have; brought people back to faith, reached out to those who would not consider
Christianity, and applied to the masses. I probably should not reference the
emergent church as a past tense occurrence; I think we are still in the middle
of it. Therefore, we can take the renewed interest in faith; the emphasis on an
authentic relationship with Christ, reform the aspects of the Christian church
which are un-Christian, then perhaps we revolt against the established church
could be a growing experience instead of a dark moment of church history.
