Critiquing Emergent/ing. Again.

There's a new article "On the Square" at the First Things Web site - the article is also in my "Sharing" widget if you're looking there. Kristen Scharold tackles the Emergent/ing Conversation and a book, Why We're Not Emergent, that critiques it. I agree with much that she says about the movement: There are fundamental problems here. But I'd also like to add several thoughts. It is easy in such short spaces to brush too broadly - as I am sure I am also about to do.

First, the movement is large and varied. There are many who are bent liberally and many who are bent conservatively. There are those who question all the dogmas of the Church and those who embrace as fundamental the great creeds of the Church. This movement consists mostly of young men and women who love Jesus and want to love people better. It also consists of some who have left the Church and, therefore, Christ though they are still largely unaware of it. Therefore, given its variety, it is difficult to cast a blanket over the entire movement.

Second, I was reading this morning of how the Holy Father has called bishops to see and reflect upon "the ecclesial movements and new communities [within the Church] as a gift of the Holy Spirit." The pope also exhorted the bishops, "I ask you to go out and meet the movements with much love." Now, these quotes are in reference to movements that rise up within Catholicism, that rise up to meet the Day. But there are similarities and differences with Emergent/ing. The similarities are that the Holy Spirit moves in his people and takes on different expressions, but it is the same Spirit. And in Emergent/ing there is much that the Spirit of God has done and is doing. I don't want anyone to miss this truth. The differences, however, are more and can be more serious: (1) There is a dearth of teaching embraced in Emergent/ing, no tradition that many in Emergent/ing are loyal to. Much of it is towering arrogance dressed up in humility. Sometimes there seems to be no loyalty at all but to the current wind. This "scarcity" of belief is why so many Evangelicals reject the movement - it is not, however, that those involved don't have beliefs or ascribe to doctrines, it's that they believe being a Christian is bigger than what one believes - the focus is elsewhere. And I would agree that following Jesus is more than a checklist of beliefs. But it certainly entails one's beliefs, and doctrine is certainly necessary - if you lose the doctrine, you've lost Christ. (As an analogy, there can be no friendship with me if you believe that I am a homosexual woman who is a Buddhist. Your beliefs do not keep me from still loving you, but it makes you unable to truly love me because you do not know me.) (2) They have rarely been embraced by the traditional communities they spring out of. I believe that if there were a greater reception of these men and women by their communities, a more open ear, rather than grim dismissals, the Emergent/ing movement could move as it was meant to. And while I suspect this acceptance has happened in places, some find Emergent/ing impossible to accept because some of those involved in the movement have also rejected the doctrine of their various traditions in favor of differing doctrine and, in some cases, none. I do not believe that the Emergent/ing movement is the direction the Holy Spirit wants Protestant Christians to move in, but I believe he is very active within it as he has done good work through many involved - just as he is present and working in traditional Evangelical communities. There are things in the Emergent/ing movement that the traditional Evangelical community can and should learn from. And there are things within traditional Evangelicalism that Emergent/ing must learn from.

Anyway, to recap, I wish the movement had a better anchor and I wish they were better loved. I pray that it will and that it will be. There are precious people who love our Lord deeply who consider themselves Emergent/ing. But I also hope and pray that they will be led back to the Church, the ecclesiology, (and, that is to say, Christ) that they so desperately need.

One needs a boat anchored to push out from or he loses the boat.

Who We Are Instead

Are you ever struck by the lyrics of a song in ways not intended by the artist or even supported by the lyrics themselves - by a phrase or a combination of different phrases pulled from the song? Of course you have.

There's a terrific song by Jars of Clay titled "Trouble Is." Here are the lyrics:

My wings don't sail me to the sky
On my own these wings won't fly
Jesus told me so
Still I'm not so sure that I know

Can't find no rest for my soul
Can't find no rest on my own
Jesus told me so
Still I'm not so sure that I know

Chorus: Man, the trouble is
We don't know who we are instead

I keep runnin' the other way
My heart ain't built to stay
My heart ain't built to stay
And the world just ain't that way

My heart ain't built to stay
My heart ain't built to stay
Jesus told me so

(By the way, even if you aren't a Jars fan, you'll love their album Redemption Songs. And if you like the feel of it, you will probably also enjoy Who We Are Instead.)

What strikes me recently about this song, which I never seem to tire of, are the phrases, "Can't find no rest for my soul" combined with the chorus, "Man, the trouble is we don't know who we are instead." Restless souls without an identity, without a home. That's what is striking to me. Some of this resonance is due to my own history, recent and less so - my own path. Some due to choices and paths friends have recently made.

Let me briefly recapitulate my ecclesial journey before I discussing anyone else's: Fundamentalist-Evangelical, Evangelical, post-Evangelical, Emerging-Post-Modern, Catholic. I was lost in recent years. In danger of being truly lost, I've come to realize. Perhaps not irrevocably, but truly. Lust, cynicism, arrogance, and much more were surely destroying me. It is in looking back at my being post-Evangelical and Emerging that the Jars song hits me so profoundly. I knew what I no longer wanted and why, but, trouble was, I didn't know who I was instead. I was restless. I still, according to St Bono, hadn't found what I was looking for.

As I was emerging, I sloughed off authority after authority - institution after institution - in favor of what fell in line with my own thinking (even though my own thinking remained as it always had been, mostly orthodox). And the result was further restlessness. I have seen friends wrestling with the same restlessness right into disbelief. I have seen other friends wrestle their way into something with form, but no substance, no power. Others into heresy. Most into further division and schism. I began to despair. I had created a world in which I was king, and I came to realize that I did not know how to reign rightly. Nor could I ever learn.

But there is a remedy to restlessness and despair. It is humility and obedience. In Catholicism I found authentic authority born out of and given by the only authentic authority, Christ. And I found home in submission to this authority. And in doing so I have rediscovered freshly the One who speaks with authority.

St Cyprian says, rather loudly, No man can have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother. In extremity, this quote can be misapplied in our age as it was spoken in another. But the truth of the matter remains: God has placed the fullness of Christ in his Church (Ephesians), and it is the Church that is the foundation and pillar of the truth (1 Timothy).

This post, I suppose, is a kind of plea to some specific people. I'm not naming names. Most of those whom I have in mind do not even read this journal. Though I have some specific people in mind, you are probably not him or her. Regardless, here is my plea: There is solace in Christ's Church, protection from sin and redemption in sorrow. There is pardon and peace. There is a King. There is a Father because there is a Mother (because of the Father). And there is Christ-with-Us - parousia, now and not yet.

I understand that my Catholic zeal can come across as triumphalism. I don't intend for it to, though I have been surely guilty here. There is one Church, and I love her.

One final thought, for a friend whose particular journey grieves me: God is love. God is life. There is neither without him. Just as one cannot love God without loving his brother, so one cannot love his neighbor without loving God. You think it is otherwise, but you are mistaken. I am praying for you, brother.

The Question of Unity and the Emerging Conversation

I was attracted to the "emerging conversation" before becoming Catholic because it was, as far as I could see, a way toward unity - among other things - especially those on the conservative side of the broad spectrum known as "emerging." But I have begun to wonder whether unity is a goal of those who consider themselves emerging Christians - and how large of a goal it is.

I would like my own conversation: A push toward the ordination of women and toward a flattening (or elimination altogether) of authority structures within churches is antithetical to unity. Now perhaps you may unite some Protestant denominations. But in the meantime, the majority of the church will be shoved aside by you - the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions.

At the end of the day, regardless of how much the emerging conversation gets "right," it will get unity wrong. It will continue to foster denominational splintering.

Perhaps it sounds as if I am saying your only viable road is Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Trust me, it is not what I am intending to say - though that will and ought to be the road for some. What I am intending to say is that to advocate for these kinds of issues - issues that will not change in the Catholic Church - then you advocate against future unity. Advocating for women priests is a forked road, not a merging one.

(I would like to pause for a moment and remind everyone that I can be a priest in the Catholic Church no more than a woman can be. Though it seems like it to some, these issues are not about power or control, but about truth.)

I know many who consider themselves "emerging." It is not my desire to say, "It's my way or the highway." It is not about my way at all. But I want to remind my brothers and sisters that the law of believers is love. And unity is a fruit of love. However, once a group attempts to restructure, rethink in such a way as to deconstruct what the Church has always taught, then it ceases to strive for unity and begins walking down the path of heterodoxy. (And this same spirit is found within those who call themselves Orthodox and Catholic.)

So I would implore you not to do so. Just as I would implore you not to procure abortions for your pregnant teenagers or bless domineering men or celebrate lust.

Perhaps this post will seem overly abrasive. If it is, it is only because this group of men and women remain my family, in many respects, and seem to me to be a beacon of hope in Protestant Christianity. I think of you the same way still. Your concern for the poor, the oppressed, and the lost is praiseworthy. But if you wish to change things, consider fully what it is you are attempting to change - and please do not burn any bridges. And forgive me my bluntness.

On Catholicism

As I've mentioned before, I would describe my current faith as being most closely reflected in the activity and beliefs of the group that calls itself emerging - on the conservative end of things, to be sure, but emergent. I've never had anyone approach me about this statement negatively. Maybe it's because of your fear of offending. Maybe it's because you couldn't care less. Maybe it's because you don't really understand what being emerging means. (Maybe it's because you don't read my blog - he he he.) Maybe it's because you know me and you understand my passion for the Lord and are, therefore, content with my movements/adjustments within my faith. I hope your reason is the last in my overwrought list.

But I want to be engaged. I want to be asked questions. So please don't ever feel badly about bringing up a faith issue with me.

With this in mind, I'd like to directly ask you a question about faith, practice, and unity. It follows.

How would you respond if I told you I was deliberating over whether I should join the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)? Would you respond positively? Negatively? What are your arguments in favor of my consideration or against it? How would you respond to me personally, religion aside - in other words, would our relationship change if I became Catholic? Does it even matter to you?

Now, what I'm looking for is detailed (though not necessarily lengthy), rational arguments rather than stereotypical statements like "Pope worship," "Maryolatry," or some such nonsense. I give these examples because I know the majority of my handful of readers are Protestants as I am. I want specifics. If you are Protestant, why are you not Catholic? If you are Catholic, why are you Catholic? (Remember, I'm asking this question based on my deliberation - a Protestant's deliberation - over Catholicism.)

Some of you, I know, feel like you have vested interest in this decision because you are family. I don't mind the expression of those feelings. I welcome them. But I would also like to hear your arguments against or for such a decision rather than some heated, regrettable lashing-out.

I have been up-front about how I feel about unity within the body of Christ on this blog. It is extremely important to me because I believe that it is the heart of God as well as the heart of our being a missional people. In that light, what prevents our unity with the RCC? Is the RCC apostate? Is it a cult? Or is it walking in truth?

I desire for each of you to examine what you believe and why you believe it. So I ask that you take the post seriously. And a thank-you to those of you willing to engage me here.

Now excuse me, but I've got to get to church.

On Becoming Different

2005 was a year of spiritual change for me. Changes, for the most part, precipitated by 2004's changes: Losing a semi-lucrative job, gaining a sans-filthy-lucre job (stay-at-home dad), and the ensuing struggle with my identity.

But instead of boring you with all of those sordid details, let me bore you with my ecclesial history instead. I was born and briefly raised Catholic. I left the church due to the many transgressions that I saw within it at the age of 10 (or thereabouts). I joined a non-denominational church, a house church of sorts, that over the course of several years evolved into an Eastern Orthodox church. I left again, and at the age of 13 or 14 began attending another non-/inter-denominational church. The pastor of that church was Dr. Emerson Eggerich - of rising marriage-counseling fame. Rob Bell attended the same church, but as I didn't attend Sunday School, alas, the two of us never met. Our common genius is more plainly seen and understood, I assume, however, at this point. (I so often brush against impending fame and miss it completely - what's up with that? Good news for those of you who almost know me. Bad news for those of you who know me well.)

When I left for college, I attended Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana. It was the home of Larry Crabb (well, not by the time I got there). I did, however, have the privilege of sitting under Ted Hildebrandt who has done some excellent work in the book of Proverbs and Hebrew poetry (Ted is no longer at Grace, but now teaches at Gordon College). I met and married my wife who is the daughter of a Grace Brethren pastor and so my stint with the Grace Brethren Fellowship began. The Grace Brethren distinctives include trine immersion (triple dunking) and three-fold communion (foot washing, eucharist, and love feast).

My wife and I moved to a city without a Grace Brethren church and so we attended Southern Baptist churches for the next 9 years. We then joined and are now a part of an Evangelical Free Church (not, by the way, free of evangelicals) - grace rather than dogmatism - a good place, but not without its faults.

I grew up with a very ecumenical perspective. I understood, and understand, the value of different theological perspectives. I understand some of their strengths and many of their weaknesses. I remain frustrated with their inability to see one another as brothers and sisters in Christ with whom they can have communion.

2005, however, was my discovery of this renegade group of truthless megalomaniacs who called themselves emergent. People who asked questions of my certainties. Hell, people who asked questions just to ask questions - incessant questioning. People who talked of walking as an explication of their doctrine. People who I felt inexorably drawn toward. I sensed a grace about them. I sensed a love for Jesus in their hearts. And so, I stepped tip-toe onto the shore of this Island of Misfits with all of the natives' uncertainties, all of their quirks, and all of their graces. I stepped so lightly that the natives are mostly unaware of my presence.

Just before I was fired, I joined up with four other families to start a church plant. The pastor, a good friend, has shared my journey into emergent-hoodlum-dom, I believe. He was actually three or four steps ahead of me the entire time, but was patient and a good sounding board for some of my uncertainties and questions. He introduced me to Blue Like Jazz.

And finally, I discovered, by others' recommendations, N.T. Wright, who has explained a thing or two to me. I'm exceedingly grateful for the Lord Bishop's work and witness. I have yet to read anything by Brian McLaren, though I have listened to some mp3's. I only know a little about this emerging conversation, quite honestly, but I'm learning.

So I don't fit in with the family as well as I used to. So I'm a little more different in how I think about things. It's not as if I'm a non-conformist or something. I'm just trying to do my best to follow Christ. And while the emerging conversation is probably not my final destination, it's where I find myself today.

That's the generalized and boring version of my journey and it leaves out some of the more intimate details. But if you have any questions about it, let me know. I'll probably not have any answers, probably just an incessant string of annoying questions, but I'll do my best.