New Wineskins? It's Still a Container

I'm doing something in this blog I've never done before. I am placing the body of a letter that I just returned to a friend, answering his inquiry into what I felt about "seeker-sensitive" and "Purpose-driven" churches. I find that these church styles seem a bit passe' now that the Emergent Church movement has begun in earnest. Still, there are many churches out there committed to these "styles" of doing church. There are also a growing number of churches being founded on the new "emergent church" style or philosophy, if you will. As a teacher I am often reluctant to tell my students "what I think". That is a deliberate (or should I say "intentional" :) for the sake of my students) on my part.
What follows though is more or less a personal response to an inquiry into "What do you think?" that this friend as me about in relation to these evangelical movements of doing church. His question had to do with his local church that has embraced a style of doing ministry that is embracing one, or maybe even both, of these styles of ministry. My sense in his letter (which I've not included even as I've not included his name) is that he isn't so much as disturbed by this all, but wondering what the long term goals are in doing ministry with these ministry styles as the primary focus. He asked what I thought (along with a few other pastors he knows) ...and so this is what I think. It should not be construed as a final thought, but one that is current for me on my own radar as I think about the Historic Faith we are stewards of, The Church as the mediator of that stewardship, Jesus Christ as the Personal allegiance to that Faith, and the 21st century that we living all of this out in.
***********************************************************************************

Hi _______,

Well, first of all thank you for the inclusion in the "six pastors whom I respect unreservedly" category...I'm flattered and honored.
It's an interesting subject that you bring up, because it's much more than simply the issue of "style" which is what so many seem to think of this as. I think the issue is more framed by the "theology" behind these ways of doing church. Forgive me for dragging the issue more deeply than perhaps it should be, but I do think we're dealing with the 21st century, Western, Material/Consumer, Rugged Individualism that is a product of 60+ years of Evangelicalism, and to be even more broad stroked in historical theology, the product of the 3 centuries of tweaking the reform movement away from it's Reformed base to one that is decidedly Arminian -- for good or for worse is up to you to decide.
My overall sense -- and I teach a section on "the future of the church" in both the last Church History lecture, as well as in a Ministry Internship class -- (much to long of a paranthesis, so I'll start over). My overall sense is that we are seeing a continual evolution of theology away from the "Monergism" of the Reform period. The first shift came after the Reform period's generation died out and cold sterile orthodoxy (that's an oxymoronic idea) led hungry believers to Pietism (which was a practice more than a theology) and a shift away from the strict Monergism of the Reformers to a softer Arminianism that embraced the changing world of scientific discovery.

Forgive me ______ for this lengthy diatribe...I hope it will lead to something clear.

The attack (??? Not sure if that is the right word to use) on Christianity began in earnest as the initial scientific enlightened world began to question the traditions and religion of the church -- something I believe was of God. As the age of discovery, both in the extension of Europe to new worlds, and the emergence of a scientific shift in worldview, began to emerge the church adapted it's theology. No longer was God in charge of everything...that was obvious. Instead, human kind had a much bigger part to play in the overall work of God in the world.
Theologically the shift is most pronounced in Arminian theologies that emerged in old rejected Calvinism -- Methodism, Frontier Baptist (remember Baptists at first were Calvinists), and the many revivals of the 18th & 19th century. Finney was a great proponent of revival as the natural outcome of Human derived efforts working in concert with God. From Finney we go to the Keswick movement...the beginnings of Pentecostalism. Before that though, evangelical revivalists like Moody. The supposed clash between Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism is not nearly as significant as the 20th century revivalists that continued to proclaim a message of individuality in relation to salvation and faith.
Eventually, Evangelicalism bridges the gap between Pentecostal and Fundamentalist zealous fringes...a softer Evangelicalism emerges...Billy Graham (not soft at first, but eventually)...Bill Bright...and as well, the shift of missions to a world focus that is quite Arminian - DAWN and Center for World Missions as examples.

OK...thanks for hanging in this little History summary. My point is that in our believing lifestyle we've seen all sorts of attempts to grasp the "Holy Grail" of what is going to next change the world and bring the Kingdom of God to the earth. It seems, to me, that it's focus is more or less strongly the product of this theological evolution and worldview that seek to be brought together in harmony.

Seeker-Sensitive, Purpose-Driven, as well as a whole host of other movements from the last 40 years continue to be reflective of a western world always looking to bring about the newest and the better to solve our problems (don't we remember the Jesus People Movement, The Charismatic Movement, John Wimber and the Vineyard Movement, etc...even to today in the newest -- the Emergent Church movement?).

It's not so much that I'm against them, or even wary of them as theologically incorrect, but I think more than anything I am weary of lurching towards the next and the best way to now reach the world.

Church History has ruined me! I see God at work in people and in relationships, in prayer, in the clear and simple proclamations of Jesus, and in the presence of the Kingdom of God. There has been an attempt to dress that up in many different clothes over our lifetime, and the years before us...and I think, somewhat sadly and perhaps cynically...there will always be attempts by people of faith to take the simplicity of Christ and his church and change it into something of their own creation.
Is it of God? I don't know...I doubt it, but then again...Jesus is coming back for a bride not a harem! So, in the end, we're part of it whether we want to be or not.

Forgive my long answer, but thanks for the question, and if you did read this in entirety, thanks for honoring me!

Much Love, with Faith and Hope,
Elliott

DaVinci, DaVinci, DaVinci - What have you Done?

OK...another Hollywood blockbuster has hit the scene -- The DaVinci Code -- from the Dan Brown novel has made a big splash with mainly "not so great reviews". Translated that means that even Tom Hanks can't save a plot built off of lies.
It's interesting to watch the public reaction to the DaVinci movie. It seems that most newspapers and movie reviewers go to great lengths to avoid getting involved in the overall controversy associated with the novel and movie theme. One local writer editorialized that "it's just fiction". That's interesting given that the author, Dan Brown, states even before the prologue, “All descriptions of artworks, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” Book reviews followed suit. The author himself has claimed on television and his web site that his depiction is based on credible facts that he believes.
The Da Vinci Code is a murder mystery coupled with a conspiracy claim. That claim is that the story of Jesus in our gospels is actually a lie that has been covered up by the Church for centuries and there are other gospels revealing that Jesus was just a man who married Mary Magdalene, had children with her, and left her in charge of his church when he died. The overall premise is that the church, around 300 a.d., under the control of Constantine sought to make Jesus divine -- more than human -- and therefore squelched all other gospels that might reflect on Jesus as mere mortal. A 2004 article in Christianity Today makes that point: "The Da Vinci Code, villain Leigh Teabing explains to cryptologist Sophie Neveu that at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) "many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon," including the divinity of Jesus. "Until that moment," he says, "Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet. … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."
Neveu is shocked: "Not the Son of God?"
Teabing explains: "Jesus' establishment as 'the Son of God' was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea."
"Hold on. You're saying that Jesus' divinity was the result of a vote?"
"A relatively close one at that," Teabing says.
A little later, Teabing adds this speech: "Because Constantine upgraded Jesus' status almost four centuries after Jesus' death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke…Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ's human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned." The link to the full article is... http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html
Almost 20 years ago a religious scholar, Elaine Pagels, published The Gnostic Gospels in which she lays claim to many other sources of information about Jesus from gospel accounts written in the early church period. Thus has begun a resurgence in a populist, and relatively humanistic attemtp at de-divinizing Jesus.
The problem is that Pagels simply chooses to ignore the theological history of the early church. By the end of the 1st century Gnosticism had reared up as a competitive voice to the Apostolic fathers. Gnosticism isn't easy to define, but it looks a lot like modern day Pseudo-Intellectual Humanism with a bit of Eastern Religion mixed in. Basically, the early Gnostics claimed that Jesus was only a human whom God came upon and endowed with supernatural abilities until his mission was completed. His mission? -- to bring knowledge or enlightenment to people in darkness (hence Gnostic from the Greek word gnosis). So, the modern Gnostics, like the ancient ones made claim to a human Jesus, who God used as a noble prophet teacher, but who was not God. Pagels, Brown, and other modern Gnostics simply pick up where the early church Gnostics left off.
Why?
I have pondered that question for a while as I've seen the popularity of Dan Brown's novel take off and the movie come to pass. I am of the opinion that there are a number of things at work in this.
1. There is the underlying tension that has often existed between people who believe in Christ and non-believers. This just serves to give ammunition to those who aren't inclined to "trust" anyone other themselves.
2. There is the tension of authority around what we believe. If we say that we are believers in the authority of the bible -- that it is timeless truth -- of necessity anything that can undermine that truth becomes important. While many see the DaVinci Code as an assault upon the divinity of Jesus Christ, I think the greater issue is the assault upon the notion of the Bible -- as we know it -- to be the truth of God. There's a good article on the authority of the Bible written by the New Testament scholar N.T. Wright on the Mars Hill web site and can be found at http://www.mhbcmi.org/learn/HOW_CAN_THE_BIBLE_BE_AUTHORITATIVE.pdf
3. Finally -- and as a church historian I can tell you this is clear -- this is just one of many attempts that the enemy has made down thru the centuries to discredit the person and the work of Jesus Christ. It should not surprise us -- ever -- to see someone argue that Jesus is not who the church has confessed him to be for 2000 years, and that Jesus has not done what he did in terms of God and mankind.

If there is one great benefit of all of this it is that people who have read the book, and/or seen the movie are more open to dialogue about Jesus as a result of it. This is a great opportunity to ask someone what they think about Jesus and share with them the truth.
Thanks DaVinci!

Celebration Time! Yea Chris

Of the many things my children have done to make me proud, and happy -- and there have been lots of them -- one of the things that ranks right up there occurred this weekend as Chris graduated from the UW School of Education with his teaching degree!

I found myself going through all sorts of emotions as I watched Chris get his degree. Linda, Andy, Kelly, Greg, along with Sarah (Chris' wife pictured here) and Sarah's family went to the Kohl Center to watch Chris get his diploma. I wanted to cry a couple of times...just incredibly proud of him and happy for Sarah and he as they venture into life with this big accomplishment behind them. Anyone who knows me will remember how I've often stated publicly -- in many different preaching/teaching venues -- that if God were to ask me what I wanted 100 young adults who are believers to be, it would that they would become public school teachers. Why? Because no one has the ability to so affect the world around us than public school teachers.
As I watched Chris get his degree I thought about that, and it hit me how I lucky some kids are going to be to get a man of such character and integrity, with principles and values that will change their lives. Wow...I almost wished I were an elementary school kid again!

Chris, you've accomplished much in life and there's a lot more to go yet, but I just wanted to publicly, loudly, emotionally, and proudly say "CONGRATULATIONS, YOU MADE ME PROUD TO BE YOUR DAD!"

OH yeah, Celebration continued this weekend. We also had the opportunity to have everyone but our British family contingent home for Mother's Day. It was a grand celebration for Linda also as the kids came back on Sunday afternoon to eat more...Kelly's cheesecake destroyed all of our attempts to eat healthily! But, we die with a smile on our face!
The picture here is Andy's attempt to capture the essence of the day...it was about Mom and it included lots of food!
What more can I say?
Well, I can say that I'm incredibly lucky to have a woman I love so much after 36 years. I can say that my children are fortunate to have a Mom who still revels in playing games with them. I can say that she is the best of the best Moms I've ever known.

Wow...Celebrations! Aren't they awesome...thank you God!