Feb 16, 2012
An Adolescent Faith or A Mature Faith
Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (0)
In a previous post on February 3rd I commented on growing trend to pit propositional doctrine against the Gospel story or Paul’s letters against the Gospels themselves. I would like to return to that subject matter here and consider a little more deeply the legitimate concerns that are leading to it. I will call this a “stifling orthodoxy.” I see it coming out in many ways today. I thing the various emergent brands of Christianity are one such response. I think the popularity of Rob Bell and Brian MacClaren who display strong aversion to clear doctrinal lines are also prime examples of this.
A Stifling Orthodoxy
Some may be asking where this is coming from? That is understandable, and we should realize that much of what is leading to this reaction is legitimate. Protestantism coming out of the Reformation conflicts was deeply tethered to the theology of Paul. In the late Medieval church context, mans relationship was primarily defined by works, what man did to earn God’s good favor. This began to unravel with an obscure Augustinian monk named Martin Luther from a German backwater called Wittenburg which started the Reformation. Every since, Protestantism and subsequent evangelical movements have leaned on Paul.
As with any revival and reform group, time gets the best of it. The movement grows up and grows old. And not unlike regular human beings, as it ages, it tends to become rigid and set in its ways. These old ways become a protective barrier against the intimidating tides of new generations that come crashing on the shores of our successes, often washing them away like sandcastles. And so with the Church. One generation gives way to another, but sometimes the previous generation’s fear of change leads them to a cold and doctrinaire orthodoxy. So what happens is those who grow up in this icy, and at times prickly environment of “rights” and “wrongs,” often become disillusioned by its lack of nurture and understanding.
I think this is precisely what has happened to some of the recent generations emerging from old school Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Safety from the onslaught of the social Gospel and liberal protestantism was secured by fortifying our doctrinal standards and the so called “fundamentals” of the faith. That generation lauded such leaders as J. G. Machen, Carl F. Henry, and Harold Ockenge. Perhaps whenever we hold onto something out of fear though, we tend to squeeze it with undue pressure, often also choking the life out of it. I think that is how some of the most recent generations have viewed their fundamentalist upbringing. For these previous generations, Christianity became primarily a religion of doctrines, what I have called elsewhere COGNITIVE CHRISTIANITY. The nurturing and emotional side was lost to a white-knuckled pugnaciousness to defend the fortress of orthodoxy. And for that reason, many are ready to come up for air, or escape altogether.
Reaction and Regression
Lets not just pick on the last generations though. They are not the only ones to become enslaved to their fear and anxiety. The new generation is doing it too. We might say that if the last couple of generations were afraid of not being right, our generation is afraid of not being free. But either way it is fear based. Looking at the past with its rigid program of Christian expression, it is not hard at all to see how Paul got blamed. After all his epistles make up some of the most developed theological content in the New Testament. Couple the threat of the social Gospel with the historic Pauline orientation of Protestantism and you will likely find a Church that clings to Paul like a life raft. This has not only lead to a reaction to Fundamentalism and peering down the nose theological posture, but most of all a reaction to Paul.
Two major groups come to mind at this time. The one that is getting the most press and most controversial is of course the emergent Church movement. I have always cracked up a bit at this movement because of its name. “Emergent” is a term used by historians to refer to a historical event wherein the Church “emerged” from its social context of Second Temple Judaism. In other words, the Church can, and only “emerged” once. A second outfit I recently heard about, but is not all that much different from the Emergent movement has termed itself “Beyond Evangelicals.” This one makes me giggle a bit too. See as Evangelicalism is responsible for more factions, denominations, and ecclesiastical splits in the history of the church, hands down, it is a bit hard to think of anything outdoing what we have already done. Maybe this is to say, “hey we are not just a reaction, but we are a reaction to a reaction, to a reaction, to a reaction.” Now that does not sound healthy. And one thing I have noticed: Every time we break ranks, we tend to get farther away from historic orthodoxy, not closer! So the title “beyond evangelical” just makes me convulse with a big, “spare me.”
The history of Evangelicalism is the history of breaking ranks. I am going to suggest two things. First every group likes to portray itself as the hero, be that Meno Simmons, or Mao Tsadong, that Baptists of the Bolsheviks. Every church group that says “they are wrong,” paint themselves as the good guy who stands for truth and is forced to go out on its own for the sake of truth. Second, the baseline mode of operation in Evangelicalism is self-righteousness. This is demonstrated in the first. Every time we break ranks, it is because we think of ourselves as better than the last. Thus in our minds we are right and are thus justified in cutting off from our previous affiliations. And here is the proof of what I am saying. Look at how fragmented the Church is in the west. Do we really think schism and division is the result of humility? I don’t think so. We are a people who are characterized more by reaction and division than by sobriety and patience in our relationships. All that to say, I think it is safe to suggest that all the new upstart movements (emergent, beyond evangelical, etc.) though they have legitimate concerns, are still headed in the wrong direction. They are like all their predecessors going to move farther a field, not closer to the source.
Things In Tension
Here are some questions to ponder. I understand the problem with a cold orthodoxy. My fear today is that we are just perpetuating the problem. These new “movements” be they called “emergent” or “beyond evangelical” or whatever, are equally reactive and self justifying. I totally understand the generation who are saying I don’t want to be a part of old school fundamentalism. My heart resonates with that. But is making new factions really the answer? I think all the would be reformers of our day, though they disagree on many ministry details, they all have the same default modus operandi. That is innovation. They have bought the humanist lie that the way forward for the Church is innovation. But I am going to suggest the opposite, that the way forward is backward---backward into tradition, as surprising as that might sound.
I spent last Friday and Saturday in Princeton at a conference on the theology of the Church among the early Church fathers. I had time to mingle with various Eastern Orthodox Christians and get insights from them. One of the things that stood out to me was the seeming maturity of its faith expression. Unlike the trendy patterns of Evangelicalism that are in a constant search of a new doctrine, teaching, or strategy for the Church, these men and women were grounded in their faith. They could speak it in articulate ways, and they were not looking to be wowed. My Evangelical background (pre-Reformed Church) just struck me as feeling very adolescent, as a church tradition that does not have real self-mastery yet. It thinks it does, but does not.
When we look to the Church of the past, we encounter a faith of tension. It does not force one to choose between orthodoxy and mysticism, between doctrine and emotion. Rather what strikes me about the Church fathers and what I still see in some of Orthodoxy, is a paradoxical tension the creates balance. It has maturity, but with a child-likeness. It has confidence, but not arrogance. I see this also in the writings of the first generation Reformers. They are imperfect men, but teachable and living in that tension. The question for us is then not frantically running to this or that method or movement. I think there are some running to Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodoxy for just those reasons. It is a quest to grab a hold of anything that we can finally put our faith in, but it is still not putting our faith in Jesus and the Gospel. It is a frantic search for a false sense of security. “Oh if I do this, then I will be ok with God.” This is not to say that certain forms of modern Christianity are not worthy of being abandoned all together. There are. There are many forms of western Christianity that resemble historic Christianity very little. The question for us is how to search for truth without being driven by reactivity? How do we become men and women who are not finding spiritual security in pat answers or solutions, but through an enduring faith?
Posted by Pastor Todd Murphy in | Comments (0)
Before you post that comment, give it a ponder.
