December 28, 2005

The Best Comments of 2005

With the new year upon us this seems like the right time to highlight the best comments from the most popular posts of 2005. True, Out of Ur has only been in existence since October, but if mediocre sitcoms have taught us anything it's that everyone loves a "best of" show. The comments below are ones we found insightful, witty, or just plain funny. Thanks to everyone who has helped get this conversation started. We look forward to more conversation, controversy, and congeniality in 2006.

From:
Why James McDonald is Not Emerging

What are Emergent Christians? I thought Rev. McDonald made his point quite clear. Emergent Christians are fault-finding, biblically illiterate, disobedient, style worshiping, culturally obsessed, people seduced by a desire for respectability.

Posted by Michael Kruse

From:
How Emergent Are You? McLaren's Seven Layers of the Emergent Conversation

Is it just me or does it seem to anyone else that this whole website appears to be far more focused on the world than on our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Posted by William Gormley

It's you.

Posted by Dirk

From:
Expletive Undeleted 2: The F-bomb Fallout

I've responded to only three or four blogs in my life; scholars/teachers have a few other commitments in life too :) , but I'm now pondering the whole "medium is the message" question. Does the very FORMAT of inviting people of inevitably tons of conflicting perspectives to respond to an issue this potentially divisive, and then to respond to each other, inherently work against the love and unity of the church that is already found too little in most places?

Posted by Dr. Craig Blomberg

From:
Who Really Needs Church? Coping with the Death of Ecclesiology

What passes for ecclesiology has become fixed on preserving the church (small c) as an institution rather than building a Church (capital C) of authentic Christ-following believers. Barna's research reveals the little c's utter evangelical ineffectiveness, and, tragically, it's general refusal to capitulate to the idea of ministry that isn't somehow tied to a local church, despite demonstrable success."Thinking outside the box" works sometimes, but many of us wonder why the box is there to begin with.

Posted by dorsey

From:
The Jaded Driven Church: Re-Introducing People to God & His Church

Maybe we can stop feeling guilty when some of our growth isn't the purely "unchurched" but restoration of the wounded and disillusioned. I wonder if most of what we call seekers are actually divorc?s who are cautiously trying to get back into the pool, one toe at a time.

Posted by dabeirne

From:
Marketing Narnia 2: Is That a Mouse in Your Pulpit?

I believe that over the past 250 years, we have allowed "American" values to become confused with Christ's values. Now we are reaping the results?This marketing effort directed at the church is not Disney's fault. It was invited by the church. And there really aren't any church leaders speaking up saying "the church and commerce don't mix." Instead, it is being embraced by many outspoken church leaders.

Posted by Tim Johnson

From:
Closed for Christmas 2: The Megachurch Response

I am a Vietnamese refugee and, sadly, all these arguments about celebrating the Lord's Day this Christmas or not remind me that I have forgotten how wonderful it is to be able to worship God together freely with others and not get into trouble with the police.

As long as I live, I will thank God for this free country. And I thank you for bickering about this Christmas Day 2005. You have helped me to re-examine my own heart and see where my Lord is in all things.

I am genuinely glad that Americans don't have to go through persecution for their beliefs, but, at the same time, I've begun to be keenly aware of the blessing of the hardships I had to go through. Without such hardships I wouldn't know the incredible joy of being in God's presence and the great pleasure of worshiping Him, in His house, freely with my brothers and sisters, let it be on Christmas Day, the Lord's Day, or every day. It's a privilege.

Posted by Anh Vu Sawyer

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 28, 2005 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 20, 2005

Closed for Christmas 3: Scot McKnight's Good Will Toward Megachurches

Advent 2005, rather than a season of peace and good will, may be remembered as a month when cantankerous Christians did battle with the culture and one another. This was the year a Florida church spread Christmas spirit with a billboard that read, "To Hell with Happy Holidays," and Christian activists went to bed with dreams of boycotts dancing in their heads.

But the story that has caused the most uproar on this blog has been the closure of megachurches on Christmas Day. Christian leaders on both sides have defended their positions with vigor and conviction. With Christmas just a few days away, I wanted the final installment of this conversation to be thoughtful, intelligent, and charitable.

Scot McKnight, professor of Religious Studies at North Park University, has insightfully addressed the Christmas closure controversy on his blog. Below are a few quotes from his post.

My suggestion is this: let's be a little more charitable in light of what the NT does and does not say. Let's permit our brothers and sisters, once every seven years, to make decisions that we might not approve of but know that they answer to God, that we answer to God, that it is about worship of God and incarnating the gospel in our world for the good of others and the world.

Let's ask a question at the heart of the discussion: Does the NT teach a Sunday morning worship service? Well, the evidence isn't what some are making it out to be. We need to be fair here: there is a distinction between what is taught and what is mentioned or hinted at as something practiced. And there is no clear text legislating that Christians are to meet for worship on a Sunday morning.

let me assume that many who are blogging and commenting about this issue are low-church Protestants where local churches make such decisions ? that is, the local church pastor and board of elders/deacons/whatever, as leaders of a congregation, make the decision about whether or not there will be a worship service on Sunday morning. If we believe in such a theory of church government, then we get decisions like this and we have to trust those elders and pastors and churches to make good decisions.

You can read Scot McKnight's entire article at his blog, JesusCreed.org.

Whether your church building will be open or closed this Sunday, I hope you have a blessed and merry Christmas. -Url

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 20, 2005 | Comments (24) | TrackBack

December 16, 2005

Beyond Sermons and Songs 2: Further Thoughts on Worship and Liturgy

Pastor, author, and professor David Fitch has responded to the discussion he began about the pitfalls of experiential worship. To read more about worship and ministry in a postmodern culture we recommend Fitch's provocative new book The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies.

Hey all, thanks for this lively conversation. I'd like to take the opportunity to repond to some of your comments concerning the validity or lecture hall and rock concert style worship.

Some have said that what we need is "line by line" preaching. If by the "line by line" study of the Word of God you mean expository preaching, I do not wish to deny the importance of preaching, perhaps even expository preaching. However, if the peaching becomes simply truth propositions inductively sliced and distributed to autonomous isolated minds sitting in the pews taking notes on how to improve their lives (even their Christian lives), then to me this is not worship.

It is the distribution of information as another form of goods and services to consumers who are not changed by God's Word but only seek to use His Word to achieve their already decided wants and needs. This is what I am calling the danger of "lecture hall" worship. Would you at least concede that this in fact happens in many of our evangelical churches, esp. mega churches of our day?

To those who think we're over criticizing worship ... I think we need to rethink the format of many of our contemporary worship gatherings which rely on a long set of rock concert songs to elicit a good "worship experience." If this is another form of a "feel good pep rally" whose hymnody is not substantive enough to shape one's orientation towards our holy, almighty and sovereign God, then this worship inevitably turns narcissistic and fails as worship. To those of you complaining that we have once again criticized someone's worship, would you not at least concede that some evangelical worship falls into this category? That we then at least need to talk seriosuly about this issue in our worship?

There is certainly a sense in which all of life is worship. On my own blog I have argued that a "good party" can be a liturgy that shapes us in response to God's grace. I agree that liturgy is not limited to Sunday a.m. But I believe the postmodern writers powerfully argue that our selves (our subjectivities to use a good postmodern term from linguistic philosophy) are being shaped by cultural forces, discourses and ways of seeing. Therefore worship becomes the place out of which I as a Christian am formed towards His glory from which my life can be centered in my relationship to God in Christ. I can then go out and live the rest of my life out of that orientation. To me then it is simplistic to say all of life is worship.

Because of all of the above, I believe the return to liturgy is important. I believe the return to the mystery of the Table and the call-response participatory patterns of a relationship with God in worship are all important. And I am encouraged by the interest many emerging churches are showing in ancient forms of worship.

To all ... thanks for conversing. My wife and I leave for two weeks out of the country to adopt our son. But I'll try to at least get one more response in if it is warrented.

Blessed Advent to all

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 16, 2005 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

December 15, 2005

Closed for Christmas 2: The Megachurch Response

By now it seems everyone has formed an opinion about the decision of megachurches throughout the country to not hold services on Sunday, December 25th. Some see it as proof that the American church has surrendered to consumerism. Others believe it is simply an exercise in Christian liberty.

Jon Weece of Southland Christian Church in Lexington, Kentucky, has been one of the megachurch pastors at the center of the controversy. After being bombarded with criticism from both the media and church members, Weece preached a passionate and defensive sermon on Sunday concerning the church’s decision to not open on Christmas Day.

A few quotes from Weece’s sermon are below. You may also listen to the entire message at the Southland Christian website.

"I was deeply saddened by the knee-jerk response of the Christian community as a whole to give the benefit of the doubt to the media and not a church or a Christian brother. I'm still troubled that more Christians did not stand up for us. Can you see or begin to see that the devil is stirring the pot on this?"

Praising the elders decision to give staff and volunteers the Sunday off, Weece said:

"You chose to value families. People over policy. I've watched too many ministers in my life sacrifice their families on the altar of ministry, and ego and pride ..."

"Christmas began as a pagan holiday to the Roman gods, and if we were to really celebrate the historical birth of Jesus, it would either be in early January or mid-April. I'm only pointing out the historical technicalities not out of intellectual arrogance, but again because of the illogical, ill-informed and even hypocritical arguments that were aimed at me this past week."

Comparing the critics of the church to Pharisees, Weece said:

"There were some whose zeal even in the days of Jesus was misguided. They emphasized religion over relationship."

Earlier in the week Southland spokeswoman Cindy Willison defended the decision:

"The intent was not to send the wrong message. The intent was to face the reality of our logistics and to still have a meaningful celebration of the birth of Christ."

Willison said Southland requires a staff of 90 and up to 700 volunteers to make each set of weekend services possible. She also affirmed that the church was being family friendly by giving staff and volunteers a day off.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 15, 2005 | Comments (46) | TrackBack

December 13, 2005

Beyond Sermons and Songs: Why Experiential Worship Isn't Enough

Churches pour enormous resources into creating meaningful worship experiences. But what if those experiences don't carry the meaning we intend? Pastor and theologian David Fitch believes a worship experience by itself is not enough in our postmodern culture. Instead he calls us to think beyond sermons and music to create a new framework for understanding worship that may not be new at all.

At our theology pub last month we sat around and conversed on the issue of worship. I put forward the typology of "lecture hall" versus "rock concert" as the primary modes of worship for evangelicals, and I suggested that both were inadequate for forming truthful minds and faithful experience in Christians.

The people at our pub ranged in age from 16 to early 50's. Most seemed to agree that a worship service geared entirely towards a 55 minute sermon seeking to dispense information to Cartesian minds is inadequate for spiritual formative. Less obvious and hotly debated was rock concert-style worship's ability to form us into Christlikeness.

I continue to assert that a sufficient theology of worship must come to grips with the epistemological shifts of the last century whereby we can no longer be naive that a "religious experience," like the one sought in a rock concert worship service, provides immediate access to God. Experience is something learned and trained into. An experience is produced through interpretive frameworks, particularly language. As Lindbeck would say, "there is no uninterpreted experience." This is one reason the evangelical church must move beyond the "rock concert pep rally" if we wish to recover a worship that shapes truthful minds and faithful experience. Rock concert worship produces an experience, but then fails to give people a framework to interpret it.

Carl Raschke's The Next Reformation: Why Evangelicals Must Embrace PostModernity (Baker, 2004) argues that charismatic worship is the best way forward. I am certainly grateful to Prof. Raschke for his analysis and am in agreement with him on many points. Still, I am puzzled by Raschke's proposal that evangelicalism embrace charismatic worship experience as an engagement with postmodernity. He states:

Charismatic Christianity is emblematic of the new postmodern evangelicalism. It is multicultural, global in scope, and interracial. It is post denominational, not simply non denominational. It is post propositional and post theological. For the most part it is more biblically oriented than many of today's so-called Bible churches. The dance with the Lord is the dance of the believer in the full presence of, and in full relationship with the Lord of heaven and earth, who is the Lord of the dance. Dancing, like genuine faith, is an intimate experience.

I think I get what he finds attractive about charismatic churches from this quote. I find all of this attractive as well, including the multicultural-interracial-global nature of charismatic churches and the authentic self expression that is found in their worship. But if the theologians are right and there is no "uninterpreted experience" than even the Charismatic worship experience alone cannot be the answer.

However, this does not require us to forgo charismatic experience, or any authentic experience of God's presence in mystery and transcendence. Rather, we must go to the deep, rich, and historic liturgies of our history in Christ that help people properly interpret the worship experience. Instead of seeking a spontaneous experience without a framework to understand it, let us return to the mystery centered around His Table, let us return to symbol, poetic prayer, liturgical participation, creedal affirmation, historic confessions, great responses in music and song all born within an arena of worship that is made accessible and beautiful by the liturgists, artists, and curators of our churches.

This then is where experience is shaped and formed out of our relationship to God. This does not mean a return to dry, dead, rote liturgy. Rather let's make liturgy alive and accessible just as several of our emergent church brothers/sisters are attempting to do. As the emergent church seeks to take evangelicalism (and others) past modernity, we will only find authentic charismatic experience in these postmodern times through the passageway of renewed liturgical practices that provide both an experience and a framework to interpret it. I think the AMIA churches (Anglican Mission in America) are evangelical churches in our midst that are showing us the way in this regard. And I think there are several other emergent churches doing the same.

David Fitch is pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois, a professor of ministry, theology, and ethics at Northern Seminary, and author of The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies (Baker 2005).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 13, 2005 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

December 9, 2005

Closed for Christmas: The Ghost of Christmas Past

The media frenzy over the decision of megachurches throughout the country to close their doors on Christmas day doesn't seem to be dying down, and numerous articles are framing the action as unprecedented. But is that accurate? Although likely unaware of it, megachurches such as Willow Creek and Mars Hill may actually be more in line with church tradition by not conducting worship services on December 25th than those who choose to keep their doors open.

Few seem to remember that America's Puritan ancestors were stridently opposed to the celebration of Christmas. They saw no biblical support for the holiday, and believed the festival was a pagan ritual masquerading as Christian. Even as late as 1855, newspapers in New York reported that Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches would be closed on Christmas Day because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One."

The Puritan distain for Christmas had such a hold on American culture that by the 1860s only 18 states officially recognized the holiday.

This brief history lesson should remind us that Christmas has not always been embraced by the church, and the decision by megachurches to not worship on December 25th may not be as unprecedented as some in the media would like us to believe. The more intriguing aspect of this story may be why megachurches are closing. So far I am unaware of any church that is closing on Christmas because of its strong Puritan convictions.

The headline on the cover of the Chicago Tribune said that Willow Creek was closing on Christmas "so members can focus on family." However, Willow spokeswoman Cally Parkinson said, "Church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources." While you've got to give them credit for a nice spin, it would appear that operational pragmatics rather than family values is what's behind the decision. Might the staff--paid staff and, more importantly, the volunteer staff--just want to celebrate Christmas at home?

Before you start writing your critical comments, consider the factors. A megachurch worship service on Christmas would require finding hundreds of volunteers willing to sacrifice their holiday to usher, perform, care for children, and direct traffic. And don't leave out the financial costs of operating a mega-facility - water, heat, electricity - it's not cheap.

As Willow's spokeswoman said, given the lower attendance expected on Christmas, it's not the most effective use of resources. Ironically, the economy-of-scale thinking that has made megachurches possible may be precisely what is preventing them from opening their doors on Christmas day.

Of course, there are others who see a more sinister motivation behind the closures. David Wells, professor of history and systematic theology at Gordon-Conwell, says:

"This is a consumer mentality at work: 'Let's not impose the church on people. Let's not make church in any way inconvenient.' I think what this does is feed into the individualism that is found throughout American culture, where everyone does their own thing."

Dr. Wells is not the first person to accuse megachurches of consumerism, but his comments do raise another historic question - does the closure of churches on Christmas mean the church in America has finally admitted defeat in its battle with secular forces over Christmas? Does it signal the church has laid down arms and joined forces with the enemy - consumerism, materialism, and individualism?

America's opposition to Christmas finally weakened in the early 20th century with the rise of Santa Claus in the secular pantheon. Old Saint Nick became a marketing juggernaut for retailers, who by the 1920s had embraced Christmas as the premier season for shopping. Church leaders no longer objected to Christmas on grounds that it was a pagan celebration. Instead their concerns shifted to the ungodly materialism they were witnessing in the name of Christ.

The New York Times conducted a survey of Christmas sermons in 1931 and reported a common theme: "the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism." Another popular sermon of the period railed that Advent had become little more than a "profit-seeking period."

Few will hear these kinds of sermons in 2005. Instead Christians in the media are demanding more material consumption in Christ's name. The American Family Association is pushing to boycott Target for not using the words "Merry Christmas" in its marketing strategy. And Fox News anchors Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson have started a "Christmas Under Siege" campaign that lists retailers who use the maliciously anti-Christian phrase "Happy Holidays." (Interestingly, Fox News's own website was selling "O'Reilly Factor Holiday Ornaments" on their "Holiday Collection" shopping page until bloggers pointed out the hypocrisy.)

Strangely, the historic outcry of churches over the materialism of Christmas seems to have reversed. Now it appears that evangelicals are upset when rampant materialism in December is not explicitly associated with Christmas - how times have changed. Perhaps the values guiding the American church this Advent would appear more Christian and less consumer if more church leaders were visited by the ghost of Christmas past.

Posted by Skye Jethani at December 9, 2005 | Comments (118) | TrackBack

December 6, 2005

Marketing Narnia 2: Is That a Mouse in Your Pulpit?

Just when I thought commercialism in the church couldn't get any worse I read this from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Attention, pastors: You have just four weeks remaining to work a lion, a witch or a wardrobe into your next sermon. Walt Disney Pictures is so eager for churches to turn out audiences for The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which opens Friday, that it's offering a free trip to London - and $1,000 cash - to the winner of its big promotional sermon contest.

It seems Disney isn't content with having Narnia merchandise, posters, and books in the church--the Mouse wants a view from the pulpit too.

The article quoted above by David O'Reilly cites the financial success of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ as key to Disney's decision to market its film adaptation of C.S. Lewis' book directly to churches. One can hardly fault Disney for making a savvy business decision--Gibson's movie raked in over $600 million worldwide.

Far more disturbing is the lack of outcry from the faithful at a blatant attempt by a secular power to manipulate the preaching ministry of the church. The Southern Baptist Convention voiced public disapproval of Disney's policy concerning homosexual couples back in 1997, but where are the cries for a boycott when the Mouse attempts to shape pastors' sermons with promises of free vacations and cash? Which is a greater threat to the ministry of the Gospel and the integrity of the church?

Isn't this why the framers of the Bill of Rights created the First Amendment--to keep the government from preventing (or manipulating) the free practice of religion? I would hope church leaders would not tolerate the federal government manipulating the pulpit ministry as was the case in Nazi Germany, but is welcoming the intrusion of a multi-national entertainment company any different?

Perhaps the closest thing to Disney's sermo-mercials in recent years has been the sponsoring of a worship concert by Chevrolet in 2002 that involved displaying trucks and SUVs in church foyers. Steve Bets, a marketing manager for the auto maker, explained Chevy's motivation:

"Sponsoring the Come Together and Worship Tour provides Chevrolet and local Chevy dealers an opportunity to reach our target consumers, particularly families....This is a ground-breaking marketing effort for Chevrolet. With Contemporary Christian Music growing exponentially compared to every other genre of music for the past two years, Chevrolet recognizes the marketing potential with this tour."

The obvious question is how far will it go? Where do we, as church leaders entrusted with the ministry of the Gospel, draw the line? When do we become guilty of serving both God and money (or the corporations seeking to make it)? Maybe your next baptism service could be sponsored by Evian? Perhaps Nintendo can take out advertising space in your children's ministry newsletter, or maybe you're content with just having a Mouse on your shoulder while you preach.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 6, 2005 | Comments (25) | TrackBack

December 5, 2005

The Jaded Driven Church: Re-Introducing People to God & His Church

Some churches are seeker-driven. A growing number are purpose-driven. But one church in Denver, Colorado has positioned itself as jaded-driven. Dave Terpstra, teaching pastor of The Next Level Church, shares how his own disillusionment with ministry made him question the wisdom of targeting the unchurched rather than pursuing the increasing number of church dropouts, like himself, filling our culture.

C.S. Lewis once said, "One courts a virgin differently than a divorc?," (or something along these lines; I've had trouble tracking the exact quote). Even back in the mid 20th century, Lewis recognized that reaching people with a jaded perspective of the church (divorc?s) would require a different strategy than reaching those without any church experience to begin with (virgins).

Certainly there are still some in our culture who are "church virgins," but it seems increasingly more common to find people who have had some church experience or interaction with the Christian sub-culture that has left them jaded. The dominance of Christian media, marketing, and political influence in recent years has only increased this likelihood.

By now we're all familiar with Willow Creek's mission statement: "to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ." Clearly, they are trying to reach the irreligious church virgins. The question is, how long before there is no one left who is "irreligious" or "unchurched"? I'm not suggesting that every American is actually religious and churched. Instead, I'm suggesting that whether they have attended a church or not, most Americans have formed an opinion about Christianity, and are far more jaded toward the church than we might want to admit.

So, is it wise to continue wandering the countryside in search of the increasingly rare church virgin, or should we be finding strategies to reach the herds of church divorc?s roaming our culture? At The Next Level Church we have chosen to go after those who are jaded, not only because of their number, but because most of us in leadership were in that place not too long ago.

During my first year at seminary, I successfully blew up two youth groups. I couldn't get along with the pastors of the churches I was serving, and it was messy. I can't in a few words describe my pain and shame about those failures. Despite bearing some of the responsibility myself, the experience left me with a jaded perspective of the church and its leaders. Deciding to leave the church altogether, a mentor and friend recommended that I attend a church instead of work at one. He connected me with TNL (The Next Level Church).

After a year and half at TNL, my view of the church had changed and my perspective was far less jaded. However, six weeks after I was hired on staff, our senior pastor resigned due to a major pattern of sin in his life - another opportunity to become jaded. But this time something was different. This time the pain was not something unknown. I had felt it before, and through his grace God allowed me to help others who were feeling it for the first time.

Because of the growing number of people in our culture with a negative perspective of the church and Christianity, we have adopted a strategy at TNL to intentionally reach them. We are seeking out the divorc?s. One of our core purposes is to introduce and reintroduce people to God and his Church.

The term "reintroduce" means something to people around TNL. Our community is full of "church divorc?s," people who have been burned by the church in the past. This reality has informed everything from how we welcome people in our services ("Maybe this is your first time at church, maybe it's your first time in a long time; you are welcome here just as you are"), to what illustrations I use in my talks. And we have seen God bring those who were disenfranchised by the church as well as church-virgins through our doors.

There are some dangers to this strategy, however. Like marital divorc?s, many people who have been burned by the church in the past come needing spiritual, emotional, and even psychological healing. It takes a lot of time to help them sort through it. It's not an easy calling, and along the way I'm aware that TNL has burned people and become the very sort of church some people had left in the past. But our failures cannot deter us from reaching out to church divorc?s; there are just too many to ignore.

What about your church? Is your mission focused on the church virgins? Are you really just trying to reach people with no church experiences? Or do you desire to attract and heal the jaded and disenfranchised? Like me, are you someone who was jaded by the church and now leading one? How has that changed how you lead? I'm wondering if others agree that the church needs to spend more effort going after divorc?s and not just virgins.

Dave Terpstra is Teaching Pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver, Colorado and a regular contributor to Leadership Journal.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 5, 2005 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

December 1, 2005

Campolo and McLaren 3: Unorthodox Questions

Brian McLaren has been proclaiming the need for a different, more generous approach to orthodoxy. His critics say "generous orthodoxy" is an oxymoron that exemplifies the problem with the postmodern church. In part three of our interview, McLaren explains what this new approach means for the local church pastor. While Tony Campolo discusses the societal definitions of "orthodoxy," and defends McLaren's call to overcome restrictive categories developed five centuries ago.

Brian, you are pressing for a "generous approach to orthodoxy." What does this mean for the local church pastor?

McLaren: I think it's quite problematic, partly for reasons of sociology. I think a lot of conservative, evangelical churches where formed through a sense of competition with other churches, so everyone formed detailed doctrinal statements in order to defend how right their beliefs were, compared to the other churches. What I'm trying to say is that creating a 72 item doctrinal statement about your beliefs may not be the best why to "make disciples." We need to really assess what the essentials are and allow some latitude for people to think and process their faith.

In A Generous Orthodoxy, I'm trying to help us create a deeper focus on "orthopraxy" and not just "orthodoxy." Our deep challenge then is to invite people to dialogue with us not just about doctrine, but about what a life of discipleship looks like.

This is a delicate and precarious discussion. So, where does "generosity" override or even negate "orthodoxy?"

Campolo: When you use the word "orthodoxy" you have a very complex term. When I hear the word, I immediately think of belief in the Apostles Creed, holding a high view of scripture, and having a personal relationship with Jesus. Now, what has happened is that certain 15th and 16th century theologians tried to interpret their faith to the people of their day, and they did a brilliant job of it, but they did it for people who lived 500 years ago, and it made sense 500 years ago. But, what people like Brian are trying to do is say, we still believe the Apostles Creed, and have a high view of scripture and Jesus, but we don't want to say it the same way Calvin and Luther and Zwingli said it. And furthermore, there may be things that we see today that need to be said that they didn't talk about, or they didn't grasp.

Now, we evangelicals often criticize the Catholic's for their belief in the popes' words as "ex cathedra." But we too have often committed similar offenses when we deviate from the doctrines of Calvin and Luther and call people heretics for that. I'm not differing from the Apostle's Creed, or differing from scripture, or from a personal relationship with Jesus. Yet, some of my ideas and Brian's do differ from Calvin and Luther. Now is that heretical? Well, to many of our brothers and sisters it is!

There are some who would say that if you're not a T.U.L.I.P. Calvinist you're not orthodox, and Brian and I simply aren't there. We believe there are questions in our culture today that must be addressed by Christians, and not just by 500 year old answers. I mean, who really cares about the doctrine of predestination or eternal security today outside of theologians? Most people are like the single mom trying to raise her daughter, or kid's facing the peer pressure of drugs and sex, or the aimlessness of so many people. These are the issues Christians must address.

We are not new gurus, but we do advocate looking at the new questions that our world is seeking answers to. We are not "unorthodox" in doctrine but "unorthodox" in the questions we are wrestling with.

McLaren: Tony, I really like what you just said and I agree! The only thing I'd like to add is that there is a group today bringing together Evangelicals, Mainlines Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox for what they call "cross confession conversation." And they have a term they use which I really like, seeking "the highest common denominator." I think the old ecumenical movement was about finding the "lowest common denominator" which was not helpful. I'm thrilled that we are moving in some good directions. Also, there seems to be an embrace of the idea that "to have orthodoxy without orthopraxy isn't truly orthodox." It's saying, we actually have to love our neighbors, care for the poor, and be increasingly transformed into Christlikeness in our actions. Now that's orthodoxy.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 1, 2005 | Comments (18) | TrackBack