Stuck in the middle... again.

It seems odd to me to be arguing with emerging church type folks on one hand, and more institutional church type folks on the other. There's that via media again...
But it shouldn't be surprising to me... both arguments are really about the Gospel.

Some of my first "emerging" type thoughts were stirred by hearing Todd Hunter and Dallas Willard talk about how we had basically reduced the Gospel down to an overly-individualized, Jesus 'n' me, accept-Jesus-so-that-when-you-die kind of message that was pretty good for after death, but not terribly useful in the here and now. By reducing the Gospel to just the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, we had cut out so much that was vital, including an understanding of Christ's invitation into the Kingdom here and now.

Along, into my thinking, came Stan Grenz. Grenz summed up the whole story of redemption by saying that we were "created for community" by the God who Himself was an eternal community of three Persons, and that God's purpose in history was the forming of a redeemed community, living in a renewed creation in relationship with the Triune God.
Beautiful!

So, in light of all that, it made sense to me that we would talk so much about and place so heavy an emphasis on "community." It made sense to me that we would work so hard at the reformation of our communities, to get them back to a place where the Missio Dei was again central, where we would understand our fundamental identity as sent and where we would work hard to contextualize the Good News, this message of repentance and redemption for this postmodern place and time in which we find ourselves.

It never entered my wildest dreams that I would find myself arguing with other people who also identify with "the emerging church" about the value of belonging to a community... about church.
What the...?

I mean, we're not just talking about models here, you know? Like I've said- I don't care if it's house church or mega church, organic or programmed to the hilt... big, small, simple, complex, monologue, dialogue, whatever... I just can't read the New Testament and come to any other conclusion that it's wrong for a follower of Jesus to disengage from other followers with an attitude of "I don't need them." I'm not going to rehash the whole argument here... check out the comments on the Next Wave article for the fun...

But I will give a shout out to Derek Webb who makes the argument much more persuasively and artistically than I:

"I have come with one purpose 
to capture for myself a bride 
by my life she is lovely  by my death she’s justified   

I have always been her husband 
though many lovers she has known 
so with water I will wash her 
and by my word alone   

so when you hear the sound of the water 
you will know you’re not alone   

‘cause I haven’t come for only you
but for my people to pursue you cannot care for me with no regard for her
if you love me you will love the church"

On the other side of things, it was Tim Keller that fleshed out my understanding of the Gospel, with an incredible message on preaching the Gospel. Keller's thesis was that reading the Bible topically led to an understanding of the Gospel as "God, sin, Christ, faith" and this leads to a very individualistic Christianity. But if we read the Bible linearly, cover to cover, we understand that the purpose of the Gospel is a new creation! That God Himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus on our behalf! That all of Scripture points us to the person of JESUS- it's about HIM, and not us... and His purpose is bigger than just ME... That Christ's substitutionary atonement accomplishes not simply MY salvation, but the redemption of a whole creation that even now groans, waiting "for the day it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay." (Romans 8:18-25)    

I'd like to say that it surprises me to get pushback from "the right" when I talk like that... but it doesn't. I've been around this emerging conversation enough to know that I could quote Spurgeon himself, and if I were to avoid attributing it, get pushback from the nitpickers who are looking to find anything and everything they can to pin a "different Gospel" charge on me and people like me, not even realizing how DEADLY serious it is to do something like that as cavalierly (or at least as promiscuously) as they seem to.

Ahh well... Here I stand. I can do no other. :)

Comments

[david]

well done, Bob.

here i stand next to you (several thousand miles away, of course)

[Makeesha]

maybe you're a bridge builder? or maybe you're really not getting flack from emerging people as much as you're not understanding each other :) I usually take experiences like this to dialog about what people are hearing me say and hopefully communicate better..or extend more grace, either way I can't lose.

[jason]

you know, Bob, I was thinking about this today. really, i just wish those who throw around the "false gospel" claim would realize how serious of an accusation that really is. honestly, what is more wounding to a teacher than to be told that which he is teaching is false?

there are those that need to be told they are preaching a false gospel. but the way i see it-- before you say it, you'd better go to the effort to make sure it's true. it's just a case of taking words at a very surface level, and applying conclusions that have already been reached, rather than thinking it through. and how do you combat that? just what you do... explain yourself when necessary, and keep on doing what you do.

thanks for reminding me of that Keller talk... it totally changed how I view Scripture. i think i'm going to go listen to it again right now...

[Makeesha]

I think people toss around "false gospel" or "false teacher" too lightly and without understanding of what those terms refer to...or they know what they're doing and intentionally slandering people - - I'd like to think it's the former more often than the latter...but maybe not.