The Next-Wave Ezine: Issue #91

current issue index




next-wave |  about |  bookstore |  archived |  advertise |  charlie wear's notes |  links July 2006
Are There Emerging Church Shibboleths?
 
 
Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle has become something of a flashpoint in the emerging church conversation because he's been so adamant about not being an emerging church revisionist.  “Revisionist” is  Ed Stetzer's term for emergers who wish to modify - or at least discuss modifying - Christian theology, including – for some revisionists -  long-held theological beliefs such as the atonement and the nature of hell. Some claim that Driscoll can’t be "emerging” because of his traditionalist theological beliefs.  This claim has led to a discussion on the faithmaps discussion group as to whether or not there are emerging church shibboleths

 
In contrast to this sentiment,
Emergent Village's National Coordinator Tony Jones ,in a piece critical of Stetzer's taxonomy and Driscoll's differentiation of "evangelical emergers" from "liberal emergents", has written passionately that emergent welcomes their inerrantists, complimentarians as well as their "Bush-loving neocons." 
 
One thing that the various categorization schemes out there (and
I offered one myself a while back) do reveal is that folks have different resonances with the emerging church conversation. Some are trying to communicate better to postmoderns. Others want to do that and they also want to radically change how church is done. And others really do believe the time has come to tweak the church's theology.  And many are some combination of the above.   
 
I find Stetzer’s categories helpful and I share his concern that some non-negotiables are being questioned by some revisionists.  But I think that one of the things that hindered his nomenclature from being more favorably viewed was his lumping all of the revisionists together and basically dismissing all of their theological speculations with the comment that "their prescriptions fail to take into account the full teaching of the Word of God." Then he writes, "Revisionists are questioning (and in some cases denying) issues like the nature of the substitutionary atonement, the reality of hell, the complementarian nature of gender, and the nature of the Gospel itself" as if these matters were of equal importance. And he seems to deny that any revisionists are
evangelicals.  Stetzer seems to reject any degree of revisionism out of hand.   

We respectfully suggest that perhaps he paints with too broad a brush because theological formulation is not a completed enterprise.   
 
While surely agreeing that there are theological non-negotiables (see, for example,
2 Timothy 1:13,14 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15), even so Reformed and conservative a leading light as the great exegete John Murray once commented, 
 
"However epochal have been the advances made at certain periods and however great the contributions of particular men we may not suppose that theological construction ever reaches definitive finality. There is the danger of a stagnant traditionalism and we must be alert to this danger, on the one hand, as to that of discarding our historical moorings, on the other." 
 
Murray continues, "When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.... A theology that does not build on the past ignores our debt to history and naively overlooks the fact that the present is conditioned by history. A theology that relies on the past evades the demands of the present"
 

(emphasis mine, from his article "Systematic Theology" - see Looking Beyond the Facade of Modernity, Part 2).

 
Those critiques of Stetzer's comments aside , I'll nevertheless suggest that categorization can be helpful as a discussion tool as long as we don't collapse folks down to their category. They help us to see the different ways in which various people are interested in the emerging church conversation. 
 
And perhaps the one legitimate shibboleth for emergers is a dissatisfaction with the status quo.
 
 



Stephen Shields is the founder of faithmaps.org, the moderator of the faithmappers' online discussion group, a freelance writer and consultant.  Stephen is also a Manager with USA TODAY, formerly a bi-vocational pastor with Brian McLaren, and a frequent contributor to Next-Wave. Stephen currently serves on the Leadership Development Team of Grace Community Church in Columbia, MD. Stephen and his wife Beth also co-lead KatrinaGrace, an outreach to Katrina survivors in Louisiana. Stephen received a M.Div. from Grace Theological Seminary and lives with his wife and three daughters - Michaela Siobhan, Skye Teresa, and Alia Noelle - in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. He can be contacted at sshields@faithmaps.org and blogs at emergesque.

 


RECENT COMMENTS


Shibboleths there will always be, but true moving forward in God is always accomplished by probing, pushing, and challenging the status quo. Are there standards which carry the weight of the Christian faith's theology? Of course. Which ones? Those that pass the test. Acts 17:11 gives us the platform from which the Emerging Church must draw its credo: "receive ... with all readiness ... search[ed] the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things are [were] so." Can anything be plainer? Hear and verify. Unless we in this day are willing to at least question, with the purpose of establishing in our hearts the doctrines passed on by the elders, how shall we ever be sure they are right? If a truth is timeless in its application it will easily pass present day muster as we seek the affirmation of the Holy Spirit. Why should anyone be afraid of this? Is not God greater than our skepticism, our questions, our challenges? In the words of Isaiah, chapter 1, "Come now, and let us reason together....", though they are used here out of context, underscore a principle of God. Namely, He is always willing to receive our questions - you can almost hear Him say, “I will give you the answers to your honest queries.” How liberating. Those who would demand unquestioning allegiance to the doctrines they tell us to believe, press their doctrines beyond the Scriptural test by insisting on obedience for the sake of obedience. Such creates men who believe not out of conviction but out of fear of being wrong in the eyes of man. Brethren, these things ought not be.


An interesting story. I to, like most readers I suspect, wrestled with how to define tthe emerging church. This is especially true when it comes how to define myself. Perhaps a large part of the problem is our tendancy to want everything neatly labled and categorized. With that in mind, allow me to suggest that we need to get beyond that as much as possible. Does it really matter if you are a relevant, reconstructionist, or traditionalist? Might I suggest the answer is no.

If the church is to come into the destiny God has called it to, if we truely wish to see societal transformation, we must join together in unity. To do this, one thing is needed. I have heard it explained this way, we must major on the majors and minor on the minors. A simple concept, but perhaps difficult in execution as we all seem to have a different concept of what is major and what is minor.

Please allow me to suggest a few simple guidelines. These are baised upon biblical truths passed down through the ages.

#1 Matthew 22:37-41; ?You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.?’ ?This is the first and great commandment. ? And the second is like it: ??‘?You shall love your neighbor as yourself.?’ ?On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.?” Simple enough, And since Jesus Himself stated that all else hangs upon this, if we desire to have any true life, we must always come back to this.

#2 Jesus died upon the cross, shedding His Blood for the attonement of our sins. He paid the price to set us free, washing us clean so that we may come boldly before the Throne of Grace. Again a simple foundational truth, but an essential one if we are to be a Christian. (Follower of Christ.)

There are others, but for the sake of brevity, I will not go any further. Just read the Nicene Creed, and some of the other early church writings. (I especially suggest the Nicene creed because it has this very discussion at it's genesis. It was a listing of those things the writers believed were absolute, non negotable, essentials for Christian belief.) In other words, everything else was considered to be minor.

Let's focus on Christ and the redemptive story of the cross, making disciples (not converts) of all, loving one another as Crist loves the church. If we do those simple things, we can't go far wrong.

Now if you excuse me I need to go figure out a better way to explain a church with no set order of service, ordained leadership, or set meetings to family and friends who are not there yet ... hmm ... think follower of The Lamb would work?


Copyright © 2010 Next-Wave Ezine.
All rights reserved.


Next-Wave Ezine - Issue #91
Editorial
 
Issue Credits
 
 
Cover Story

Profoundly Disturbed on The Fourth of July (redux): God, The Flag, and the End of America
 
 
Featured Article: At the Top
Are There Emerging Church Shibboleths?
 
 
Featured Article: Spotlight
The Next Questians
 
 
Emerging Church
BBQ Waffles Anyone?
 
Origin of the terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent' church
 
On Becoming Post-Gnostic
 
Quarantining a Generation
 
 
Kingdom Living
Elijah, to pray for us
 
 
Real Life
Wrestling with Dr. Strangelove
 
 
Essay
Take Nothing for the Journey: A Fresh Look at Church Health
 
 
Novella
Allegory