Keepin' It Going

Hey again Neal,

I've not yet been ordained. I am an elder "in-training." I'm to be examined ( I thought that was such a weird way to put it) in a couple of weeks. I actually refused on several occasions when nominated in the past, mainly because I'm not big on committees or parliamentary procedure. I do a lot of internal wailing and gnashing of teeth in those situations. But I sensed the need and didn't want to let God down if this was a call. So yes, please pray for me ;-)

I hope you don't mind if we keep this conversation going a little while longer. It has been in fact a blessing for me.

Neal, you have been very open and have shared many things with me. If you don't mind I would like to share some things with you too. I really feel that, through your communication you've helped me to understand some things better. Not that I agree with everything, but I do a great many things. I think with understanding, fear dissipates.

One point of concern that remains for me is the idea of this big cultural paradigm shift, or the pendulum swinging the other way. I understand that post-modernism is a reaction to, or an outgrowth of modernism, and that much of it stems from dissillusionment and pessimism because of bad things that happened in the past. My fear is that "reaction" usually translates to over-reaction. Think of the axe/pendulum in "The pit and the pendulum." The sword cuts both ways. What so often happens is that, in order to right the wrongs of the past the innocent now are made to suffer. Think "Hotel Rwanda," think Shiite vs. Sunni, think "affirmative action." You said: I LOVE the severity of God -- especially when God is being severe with people who are Wealthy and Powerful! But how 'bout when he's being severe with you, or me. Please believe me when I say I don't mean to judge, but I hear in this comment a sweeping generalization that feels as though it could be a mood or undercurrent of the EC. Believe me also when I say that social justice is a big deal to me too, and I think it should be for everyone. But I'm reminded of a line in a song by an old-geezer rock and roller, Todd Rundgren that used to be one of my favorite artists. The line asks: "How can I change the world, when I can't change myself?" I think if we work on the inner man/woman then our light will indeed shine.

I have to say that I don't think the wealthy and powerful are universally meriting God's severe judgement. Wealth and power in and of themselves are neutral. It's what that person does with them that is the issue. Look at the richest man in the world, Bill Gates. He basically has to quit his day job in order to find the time to best help others with all of his tremendous wealth. I recently heard what I thought was a terribly insightful analysis of the protestant church over the past hundred years or so by Rick Warren when he was on "Meet the Press" (I played hooky from church that Sunday ;-). This is one of the things that I'd like to share with you and I'd like your opinion. Here is an excerpt.

MR. RUSSERT: There’s an interesting evolution in the evangelical movement here in the United States.

DR. WARREN: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: And Jon’s magazine, Newsweek, wrote about it in November. Now, I want to get your reaction to it. It’s headlined “An Evangelical Identity Crisis.” And it says: “More than three decades after Roe v. Wade propelled religious conservatives fully into the arena, a new generation of evangelical believers is pressing beyond the religious right of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, trying to broaden the movement’s focus from the familiar wars about sex to include issues of social and economic justice. ... Can they move beyond the apparent confines of the religious right as popularly understood, or are they destined to seem harsh and intolerant—the opposite of what their own faith would have them be? ... Some Christians, exhausted by divisive wedge politics, are going back to the Bible and embracing a wider-ranging agenda, one that emphasizes reaching out to the poor and disenfranchised. Almost unanimously, these evangelicals cite as a model Rick Warren.”

DR. WARREN: Well, at first I, I, I say Jon’s right, and I would say that, first of all, I’d like to thank him for putting faith on the front cover, because he—I think Newsweek has done a really good job of this. Most of the major questions of the 21st century have a faith component, have a religious component to it. Will Islam modernize peacefully? What’s going to replace the, the, the vacuum in China now that Marxism is dead? Will America return to some of its roots historically? So you’ve done a good job on that by putting a lot of faith issues in the magazine.

But I do think that evangelicals as a whole, we’re trying to broaden the agenda. There’s no doubt about that. The way I tell it to my people is the church is the body of Christ, and for the last 50 years, the hands and the feet have been amputated. And all we’ve been is a big mouth. And most of the time, we’re known for what we’re against. And frankly, I’m tired of that. I think the church should be known for what it’s for, not what it’s against. And...

MR. RUSSERT: So has there been too much emphasis on the Ten Commandments, and not enough on the Sermon on the Mount?

DR. WARREN: Well, that’s part of it. It really is. You know, about 100 years ago, the first part of the 20th century, Protestantism, Catholicism never had this split, but Protestantism split into two wings. There was the, the liberal and conservative wing or, probably the main line, and the, the evangelical or the fundamentalists in the early days. And what that was all about is there was a group of Protestant theologians who came out and said, you know, “We really don’t need to worry about personal salvation anymore, this thing about Jesus on the cross and atonement and stuff like that. What we need to do is just redeem the social structures of society. And if we do that, then the world will be a better place and everything will be great.” And frankly, in many ways, it was just Marxism in Christian format, which basically said, “We’ll be—people will be better if you just give them a good world.” And there were actually—the magazine The Christian Century started off with this view. And now you look back 100 years later, and I think they might be embarrassed at that name, because I sure wouldn’t want to claim the 20th century as the Christian century after two world wars and genocide and, you know, the, the, you know, the Holocaust and things like that.

But that was the attitude at the beginning of the 20th century is that, “We’re going to bring in the kingdom, and, and Christians will just make society better and better and it’ll become a Christian society by, primarily, politics.” And so what happened is the Protestants split and the liberals took the body and the evangelicals took the soul. And they said, “We’re going to focus”—the liberals said, “We’ll focus on rights, racial equality and injustice and, and, you know, equality in society and economic issues and things like that,” and the fundamentalists, and then the evangelicals said, “We’re going to focus on personal salvation, personal morality, and, and family.”

Well, who was right? Well, in my opinion, they’re both right. I think they’re both right. And I think there are some of us who are evangelical leaders today who are saying, “We need the whole gospel for the whole man, and it all matters.”

If you want to read the whole thing it's at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16202841/

When I heard this I said a big fat "Amen." I once heard of a Pastor that said: "I think we should take all the liberals and conservatives and throw them into a pot and set it to simmer."

I'm down with that sentiment.

I think Warren's comments show how evangelicals too have been dissillusioned, and are moving much closer to what used to be the domain of the mainline churches. But I think his reaction is a more thoughtful and careful one than the EC's may be.

Maybe I'm all wet. I'm talking when what I really want is your opinion.

Peace and God bless,

Chris ;-)

Hi Chris,

Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten you! Things just got a little crazy around here and I got swamped with work, but I'm still looking forward to answering your last email. It will most likely be Monday before I have a chance to, though. You probably know how it is: in the church industry, weekends are "prime-time." :-)

Neal

Ok. I'm back in the conversation! (Sorry it took so long). As usual, my thoughts are interspersed below.

I've not yet been ordained. I am an elder "in-training." I'm to be examined ( I thought that was such a weird way to put it) in a couple of weeks. I actually refused on several occasions when nominated in the past, mainly because I'm not big on committees or parliamentary procedure. I do a lot of internal wailing and gnashing of teeth in those situations. But I sensed the need and didn't want to let God down if this was a call. So yes, please pray for me ;-)

I feel you on this one. Since I'm pursuing ordination as a minister of word and sacrament, I'll be taking those same vows in about four years, and then subjecting myself to a career of Presbyterian committees, etc. Answering a call from God is never easy. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but that's just a speculation, not a well-formed thought.

I hope you don't mind if we keep this conversation going a little while longer. It has been in fact a blessing for me.

You bet. It has been a blessing for me, too. An admitted problem with the whole emerging thing is that it is by nature ill-defined, and resists definition. Nevertheless, it's important to have "some" idea of what you believe and stand for, so this discussion is helping me in that direction too.

My fear is that "reaction" usually translates to over-reaction. . .Please believe me when I say I don't mean to judge, but I hear in this comment a sweeping generalization that feels as though it could be a mood or undercurrent of the EC. Believe me also when I say that social justice is a big deal to me too, and I think it should be for everyone. But I'm reminded of a line in a song by an old-geezer rock and roller, Todd Rundgren that used to be one of my favorite artists. The line asks: "How can I change the world, when I can't change myself?" I think if we work on the inner man/woman then our light will indeed shine.

Touche. And good point, humbly received. Looking back on my comment, it was a bit sweeping and unfair. I know mostly where that comes from (for me at least, not the EC) and I'll relate it to you, but I also realize that doesn't justify my own prejudices and judgmentalism. You see, before I worked for my church in my current capacity, I spent five years as a high school English teacher in an inner city school, working with mostly Hispanic students at or below poverty level. Many were illegal immigrants or legally born citizens who are children of illegal immigrants. Anyhow, it was an eye opening experience, and one that I cherished and loved, and left behind reluctantly (to answer a different call for a time). Basically spending time among those at the opposite end of the wealth/power spectrum caused me to look at things from a different perspective. I saw much more readily all the places in our country, and even in our churches, where wealth and power are used to oppress. It is the abuse of these things, and the oppression that I truly hope to stand against, not the things themselves, although I think that wealth and power in tandem very very often lead to and encourage oppression.

But you're right. Criticizing others does nothing for the log in my own eye but make it bigger. And you are probably right about that being an undercurrent in the EC. Once again, all movements, all people have their biases and flaws--I think those of us in the EC are just gravitating toward a different set of biases and flaws, not in order to embrace them or excuse them, but because the view is different from here. And sometimes, the different perspective helps us to see things we couldn't see from where we used to be. But I hope and pray that for the sake of the Kingdom of God (not just the EC, or the PCUSA, or this group or that) that we can be willing to listen to constructive criticism and take it to heart so that the pendulum doesn't just keep on going to another extreme. As you are helping me with this, I pray that others in the EC can form similar relationships and conversations with those with different perspectives, and when we're guilty of un-Christlike behavior or words, may we quickly repent and try harder next time. Thanks for helping me, brother. We are truly all working toward a common Kingdom. I recently heard what I thought was a terribly insightful analysis of the protestant church over the past hundred years or so by Rick Warren when he was on "Meet the Press" (I played hooky from church that Sunday ;-). This is one of the things that I'd like to share with you and I'd like your opinion. Here is an excerpt.

When I heard this I said a big fat "Amen." I once heard of a Pastor that said: "I think we should take all the liberals and conservatives and throw them into a pot and set it to simmer."

I do know that one of the aims of Emergent (the organization) is to steer clear of political attachments that are either liberal or conservative. It's the idea that it's hard to be the conscience of a nation when you're in bed with one side or the other. I think there's also a desire in the EC to find a third way above and beyond the liberal/conservative stalemate in theology and worship, too.

I think Warren's comments show how evangelicals too have been disillusioned, and are moving much closer to what used to be the domain of the mainline churches. But I think his reaction is a more thoughtful and careful one than the EC's may be.

I think that there has to be room in the Kingdom for both Rick Warrens and Brian McLarens. Warren's reaction may be more thoughtful and careful than that of the EC, but I think it's also intended to reach a different audience. The strength of the EC is its ability to reach people who have already rejected Christianity partially or completely, as well as those who feel excluded from Christianity (I would consider that to be "evangelical" in the classical sense, reaching out to the unchurched). Rick Warren, on the other hand, seems to me to appeal to people who are already squarely in the Christian conversation ("evangelical" as a cultural/media label that often implies a leaning toward conservatism/fundamentalism). Anyhow, I still agree with what he said, and I hope his audience listens to him. He's a good man, and once again, we're all working toward the same Kingdom.

Maybe I'm all wet. I'm talking when what I really want is your opinion.

It's good to be all wet. Sign of baptism and all that :-)

PBJ,

Neal