It has been my experience that the term "spirituality" is a cheap veneer for the lack of committment to God and his word's. Most of my experiences with this term has been with people who keep searching and searching and when they find upon Christ they pass him up, claiming moldy stale religiosity, simply because he wants them to submit.

If you cannot say that you are committed to Christ and Christ alone than you have need to step foot into a church. If you are there just to add to your belt of 'spirituality' there is no place for you there.

It not about religion or spirituality, its about a simple, obedient, loving relationship with Christ. Religion adds extra rules and parameters that need not be there and spirituality offers no committment and no foundation to live upon. The true way to live is in relationship with God, the rest is man-constructed nonsense.

Blessings,

I realize that this statement I'm about to make is a generalization of a complex sociological shift, but its supposed to be :). I think alot of the positive attitude about spirituality has to do with how the new culture thinks and reasons. For me, spirituality starts from my experiences and then built up by interactions with others. Whereas with religion, it starts with the institution and then it informs me about my faith. For either group on their side of the fence the other side seems self-centered, but really its just today's culture comfort with inductive thought compared with yesterday's comfort of deductive.

Can Barry give some examples of the "pseudo-orthodoxy" he references?

There's much to discuss here. i got a little hung up on the predicate of Prof. Taylor's argument: "traditional faiths are no longer the first resource that people go to in order to develop and nurture their spiritual lives." I'd be interested in seeing the studies which quantifiably justify this claim. Are there any? Or is this the Prof's own perception based on his own experience?

Perhaps that is a question too rooted in modernity. Prof. Taylor seems thoroughly rooted in postmodernity where truth is localized and temporal.

My bigger problem with Prof.Taylor's thesis here is that he seems to conflate cultural modes and means of expressing faith in Christ and worshipping him with Christian faith itself. Is everything in the Christian faith really up for grabs? Is the totality of faith always, in every time and culture, to be questioned and reinterpreted? I'm not sure that restive impulse productive or even necessary.

If, however, Prof. Taylor is pointing at the tendency of Christians to conflate praxis with orthodoxy, or to effectively grant divinely inspired authority to certain verbal or physical means of expressing Christian faith, and by extension questioning the faith of those who do not subscribe to them, then i generally agree with him. Most of us do not worship in exactly the same ways, or speak of our faith in the exact same terms, as Christians in earlier periods of history. Nor do we need to.

I have read and re-read this post several times I have to admit there is something worth thinking about here. It is true that many people today are engaged in a quest of spirituality. I often hear people tell me they are not religious but spiritual. And as the author points out that word lacks any real definition. In fact when I ask people what that means they cannot tell me except to identify what it is not or tell me what they are against. I don’t do church, organized religion, I do not need some old book or priest telling me how bad I am. This is very often the tone I hear from emergent thinkers.

Too often I hear what is wrong with modernism and very often I see it as well but I guess what I wrestle with here is the total willingness to define and nail down modernity, and most of the time from the emergent voice it is bad. This willingness lies in contrast to an unwilling bent toward nailing down or defining emergent, spirituality or much of anything else.

I would love to see the emergent community gain a voice of this is who we are, this is what w do and this is how we decide our beliefs without contrasting that to modernity, without trying to reinvent something and without trying to claim a corner of Christianity and church history that was lost or hijacked by those evil modernist.

Go be emergent and quit pontificating about it. It is almost as if the emergent voice wants a place at the faith table but does not like, respect, and trust or honor anyone at the table.

It is almost as if there is a love affair with having everything unsettled because at least when all is unsettled we can feel good about anything in our religion because anything goes. My two cents.

If not spirituality then which church?
There are so many competiting churches with competing voices that it's easy to believe that religion and certainly Protestant demoninations all come from man, not God.

If there can be some many different Christianities, why not just have a "spiritual" search, a church of one if you will?

Yes, I believe this is a relevant issue for these times. Religion and Spirituality may be best when operating together within our souls, but that is not always what I see in the world.

Going to church and being involved with the worship, ministry and missionary efforts are outward manifestations of our religion, but personal prayer and Bible reading, singing by yourself and journaling are the spiritual manifestations of our faith and relationship with Christ. We all know some of our brothers and sisters are more religious or spiritual, and many are both.

Examples of the pseudoorthodoxy in today's American Christian church are many and prevelant. Just look at how emotional many Christians are about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Roman Catholics, Pentacostals, contemporary praise music, classic hymns, women in ministry, what we wear, what translation of the Bible we preach from, Liturgical or non-liturgical, seminary trained or Spirit-led, etc.

Give me a spiritual person, of any faith or no faith, over a religious bigot or hypocrite any day of the week. Of course, my prayer is that they will one day accept Christ as Lord and Savior. But that inner spirituality is, in my opinion, an essential element to being a true disciple of Christ and not simply someone in church who says, "Lord, Lord" and Jesus never knew them, nor they Him.

If we can't beat the world, let's just join it then. But let's not call this collapse "Christianity."

I just want to throw this out there because it is the first thing that came to my mind. Couldthe phenomenom that Professor Taylor is describing be what Paul talked about in 2 Timothy 4:3-4
For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander away to
myths.
I could certainly be wrong.

I find this post troubling in subtle ways. For one it seems that spirituality has mutated its meaning to what was the meaning for religion. Moreover, religion has been forced into meaning legalism. This goes will begin to corrupt understanding the Bible. Look at James 1:26-27, I just looked at five translations side by side none of which indicate religion is legalism, but implies that religion could be antinomian. We must be careful with what we do with our words lest they become worthless drivel. If we need a dictionary for each religious/spiritual group then we only demonstrate that we truly do not understand what religion (or for those who insist on it, spirituality) is all about.

As an aside Leoskeo has a really good point. I want to say it differently. We cannot define ourselves negatively. By only saying what we are not we never say what we really are. For example from the article, professor Taylor writes about modernist Christianity's problems.

"The assumption is a singular understanding of the faith."

This is good and I agree in principle but the statement is vacuous. So they believe that multiple understands of the faith exist, or it is that multiple understandings may exist? If multiple understandings do exist, are there limits to what is acceptable? To put it another way are Hindu understandings of faith valid? If limits are needed how do we begin finding them? Statements of negation are easy to make, but they are not always beneficial. I agree with the quote in principle, but there are some areas it could go that I will not touch. A Hindu understanding of faith may be sincere and earnest, but it misses the mark and therefore is not valid.

Perhaps this is an issue of semantics. For example, years ago if I prayed on a regular basis, read my Bible and sensed a deep communion with God I would be considered to be 'religious'. Now if I do those things I am considered to be 'spiritual' . Same activity, different term.

There can be no doubt that Christianity is undergoing tremendous changes and there can be no predicting as to how things will look 20 years from now. The issue may be what will go and what will stay. How inclusive will we be? What will our attitudes be towards those of other faiths? What about homosexuality and other personal moral issues? Religion and politics? ect.

Lest I predict I can at least make a wild guess that in the next 30 years the rational propositional form of evangelicalism that many of us now know will no longer exist. If indeed the authors term pseudoorthodoxy applies here we will see it no longer or at least it will be found among those who have been driven to embrace the seperatistic form of fundamentalism still found today.

Well perhaps the final question may be this. Do we fight to preserve what we consider to be preservable or to we let time and the spirits of the times take their course?

Being in the Out of Church movement, myself and fellow bothers and sisters do not see the changes begun and still coming as being the result of spirituality replacing religion. There is much spirituality in the existing Christian religion, and more so in other world religions. All strongholds and deceptions are spiritual at their root, and it is quite plain that these forces have the existing church structures well in hand.

What will replace religion is the Cross of Jesus Christ. Seminaries and Bible colleges are poor at teaching a "pastor" to lay their lives down for the sheep.

This learning only comes through brokeness and humility, something that I have rarely seen in American Christianity. Though I have seen them do a good job training hirelings.

To my old friend Leoskeo,

The reason why Emergent folks are so focused on critiquing modernism is because this is the dominant paradigm that we're all "emerging" from.

The western Church was pretty much thoroughly modernized by the middle of the 20th century. This is not necessarily a bad thing- its just a "true" thing.

Now we're in a phase where we are stepping back a little, trying to see with a more historial perspective.

And as far as nailing down what we (Emerging Church types) do believe, I think we're "in process".

Sometimes, growing impatient and asking someone to hurry up and decide whether the answer to the question is A or B, misses the fact that the question itself might be problematic.

Shalom to all,
Darren King (http://www.precipicemagazine.com)

Barry Taylor states that people call themselves “spiritual, but not religious,” implying that the two are mutually exclusive. I do not think that is true. People of all cultures have constructed “religions” through which they attempt to express the longing of their spirits to connect with that which is spirit in the world around them. They have established their own requirements and taboos (religious acts of “spirituality”) and have defined what is to be called sacred and secular.

Today we live in a shallow, quasi-religious culture identified by “feel good” music, sentimental fiction (think “Touched by an Angel”), a plethora of self-help books, industrialized Christianity, Wiki-theologia, and endless talk shows (think Ophrah). We pride ourselves on our individuality and our diversity—-filling our spiritual plates from the smorgasbord of different cultures and beliefs (think dream-catchers and drumming) in the world around us.

I decide what is sacred, and I worship at my own altar. “Spiritual” now means faith in my own discernment. It is nothing more than a bespoke robe covering a lack of true faith in Christ alone as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

As I read what the prophets of the emergent movement are saying, there seems to be a disturbing “spirituality” there without a certainty of…anything. Even those religious systems whose beliefs and practices are anti-Christian are given a hearing within this new orthodoxy. In the attempt to be “generous” and “tolerant”, all voices seem to be equally valid. Except the Word of God.

Robert—

You are right when you call it a “church of one.”

leoskeo—

I agree with you that “the emergent voice wants a place at the faith table but does not like, respect, and trust or honor anyone at the table”. It seems to have elbowed its way to the head of the line at the potluck.

Kat
http://where-we-live.blogspot.com/

I have been reading the Out of Ur blog for several months now, and the Emergent movement has been a frequent topic throughout the many posts and replies. My concern with this article, and the Emergent movement in general, is that it is a ship without an anchor. It is perfectly acceptable to postulate on new applications of the Christian fate, and I think that history demonstrates how the Christian church shifts its focus from one aspect of Christ and Christian living to another. However, without an anchor of basic Christian truths, truths that cannot and should not be compromised, it is easy to move from the realm of Christianity to a realm of religions. The problem with focusing on spiritually it is that it focuses on a feeling or a belief about a personal state of being, instead of focusing on the Truth. People argue that Christianity must be reinterpreted for this post-modern age. However, Jesus set up his Church to transform and transcend the ages. He set up his Church as the anchor to the outside world. This world will come and go, but God is eternal. His Church is eternal, and to think that the Church must change in order to be relevant is folly. Throughout its history, the Church has had to deal with many heresies. In every instance, the Church did not seek to redefine itself; rather, it clarified and strengthened the wording of its beliefs and practices to let the world know that there is little doubt what the Church believes. The old ways continue to exist because they have always been relevant. To deny them or alter them is to attempt to remake God and his Church in our image.

I appreciate the discussion going on here. This is critical to consider: "Issues and questions raised by our particular cultural situation not only inform but shape the various ways in which we interpret the gospel." We must see that our perspectives (our pinched horizons) are intimately tied to socio-cultural factors, which give us an avenue to understand God but not the sole avenue. For starters, our minds are not able to completely understand God, so all of our attempts fall short, especially our institutions of faith. Being freed by this awareness, we can continue responding to God's revealing of God's self to us as we "keep in step with the Spirit." This requires daily discipline, radical faith, uncomfortable vulnerability, a lack of answers, continual questioning and seeking to discover, and.... Those who feel fairly comfortable with their religion, as if they've arrived, I would encourage you to find new experiences and engage "other" people: other religious people, people of other races/ethnicities and cultures, immigrants, native Americans, and so on. I'll sign off with this quote from a Benedictine sister (Joan Chittiser): "It is in community that we come to see God in the other. It is in community that we see our own emptiness filled up. It is community that call me beyond the pinched horizons of my own life, my own country, my own race, and gives me the gifts I do not have within me." And I would liken "community" to Jesus definition (story) of "who is our neighbor?" in the Good Samaritan story. Onward.

Hey Darren,
The problem with your answer is the critique of modernism is being dropped on everything from mainline denominations who deny scripture to the tiny Baptist church in rural Idaho. The blanket criticism does not apply and modernism is not a one size fits all. This is one of the things I have heard Pagitt say bothers him is the (my words) one size fits all response from the “modern” church toward the emergent.

One critique I have of fundamentalism is that while it might say we are built on the word of God, in reality it has been built on what it is against. This in my mind is why it can be so narrow and damaging. I see the same thing happening with emergent. The definition of emergent in practical communications is "not modern" and that in itself will make its foundation weaker.

Let me add here. I think the emergent is necessary to the mission of the church. But its anti-modern identity weakens it credibility and foundation. Truth be told we need to narrow the gap between emergent and modern because we are one body, not widen it with inflammatory language and broad brush strokes of negativity toward modernity or emergent for that matter.

I think Taylor is right to point out that religion and spirituality are slippery terms today. They can mean a broad number of things to a wide range of people. And the Christian faith is open for discussion, but just for that reason it also can be shown to be true and merit belief.

Taylor is perhaps less convincing in his more pluralistic notion of the faith. Rather than such an untethered perspective, Christian faith would seem to have certain matters settled, one being the centrality of the person and work of Christ.

There is so much to comment on this article, that I don't know where to start. Suffice it to say that religion was and always has been our problem. Jesus spoke strongly against the "religious system and sects" of His day, in fact some of His strongest words were aimed at them. As long as we insist on fitting God into a design of our own making we will continue to fail, much like the ship without an anchor that "Kat" above was talking about.

It is Jesus I worship, and He never changes. It was His Holy Spirit that transformed a bunch of fearful, quaking Apostles into a powerful Church that changed the course of history. These men and women took the transforming gospel of Christ to the uttermost parts of the earth, in the face of terrible suffering, persecution and death. That is the kind of faith I want, and that is what we need today, and if you want to call that spirituality then I guess that is fine.

The saving Gospel of Jesus Christ stands by itself, it needs no interpretation from our culture to make it applicable or more palatable.

Blessings to all, enjoyed the article.

the problem with religion - and we see it now very clearly in the US - is that it is now and always has been about control. it's about one group deciding what is right for all people of all time. absolute power corrupts absolutely. religion is about denying the priesthood of all believers and setting up yet another layer between believers and God. everyone claims to be biblically sound, yet all the interpretations differ. go back and read the comments given in response to the "what salvation means" article at ct.

"Issues and questions raised by our particular cultural situation not only inform but shape the various ways in which we interpret the gospel."

and it is to the detriment of our faith that the loudest voices fail to see this even in the NT gospels themselves: that the individual authors were even then interpreting what those events meant in the very stories they told.

a writer above said he worried that the "emerging movement" had no anchor. it's precisely these kinds of anchors that prohibit the faith from moving forward in the light of new understandings, new historical findings, and new vivid pictures of what my-god-or-no-god is doing in our world today.

mike rucker
http://escroll.blogspot.com

oh yeah - the belief in an eternal fiery hell has a lot to do with it too... :)

Hi again Leoskeo and all,

I understand that it's important to try and stake out an identity based on more than what we are not. However, I still think you're missing something about Emergent.

First of all, it does not claim to be a finished product. As I said, on some issues, it is "in process". Hence the reason why its called a "conversation". It is a dialog- not a doctrine statement.

Secondly, I think people sometimes underestimate the uniqueness of the era we live in. The western world, as well as the Church along with it, is in a transition period. These kinds of metanarrative shifts only happen once every 500 years or so.

That being the case, its going to take some time for us to figure this all out.

I often use the term "perspective". That's what we're seeking. And sometimes, when its foggy out, one has no choice but to be patient and wait out some clarity.

Historically, there have always been counter-reformations in the church. Mostly catholic against Protestant. Now, the Protestant movement has its own struggles.

Evangelicalism has been dominant for the last 50 years primarily because of simplicity, commitment to the literal interpretation of the word, and its focus on personal piety. The emergent and megachurch movements have effectively dissipated its grass roots effectiveness on two fronts: Political and ecclesiastical.

The emergent movement is basically the new mainline with different terminology but the same agenda: to provide a counter-weight to what it sees as a legalistic, virulent form of Christianity. The megachurch boomer movement is essentially the last gasp of a cultural christianity trying to reassert itself on a populace that no longer wants to practice Christiantity but wants its practical benefits.

The megachurch movement put the focus on power and influence and the emergent conversation has effectively distracted folks off a simple faith in Jesus and into intellectualism, cultural analysis, and syncretism.

Someone wrote: "The saving Gospel of Jesus Christ stands by itself, it needs no interpretation from our culture to make it applicable or more palatable."

Sorry, there's no such thing as an interpretation that exists outside of culture. Welcome to postmodern understanding.

"Sorry, there's no such thing as an interpretation that exists outside of culture. Welcome to postmodern understanding."

Depends on what you mean. But before we deal with "interpretations" in a cultural context, we need to understand something more basic. The event we want to "interpret"--is it eternal? Is it real? Our culture shifts, our natures do not. We still fight lust, greed, fear, pride; all these internal things only take a different cultural form. We are not so far from Cain as time might make us think. Culture is only the current expression of this.

We need an interpretation of the event of the Cross that will deal with the human heart for whatever ages are left to us--one that deals with my culture but transcends all cultures. I do find this in the New Testament: The Cross meant for Jews what it meant for Gentiles, though it was explained differently, with different symbols.

Darren-
Perhaps the greatest difference in the Emergent "transitional shift" is the fact that other transitions/reformations did not have the technology utilized by today's society. Then, change took place far more slowly because news and ideas traveled slowly. Neither Constantin nor Luther blogged, appeared on talk shows or flew across the country to conferences. What took years then, now takes only seconds. Although Emergents claim that they are only "in dialog" about the path they are taking, there are many who are already test driving a prototype on the freeway. And it's hard to stop a speeding car...especially in the fog.

Kat

Darren wrote: "Sorry, there's no such thing as an interpretation that exists outside of culture. Welcome to postmodern understanding."

Matthew 16: 15-17
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Welcome to biblical revelation!
We cannot know if it were not for the spirit and his word acting together supernaturally. Natural law will get us some of the way, but in the end God reveals himself to us.

Beware wolves in sheep's clothing who strain out a cow to swallow a gnat. You shall know a tree by its fruit.

When you call this the demise of Christianity I shudder...and pray that you have no support.

Questioning the way the church thinks and acts is one thing, and it is GOOD to question that which we have done so well for years, which is Church. But we can not say...nor dare we say that the gospel is irrelevant or that there is other ways to reach the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the one true and living God and through him we are saved.

By allowing any other spirituality what so ever we are in danger of Christ spewing us out of his mouth like luke warm water.

Nate quotes:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Then Nate said:
"Welcome to biblical revelation!"

Nate, even the way the revelation is interpreted will be affected by the cultural, religious, personal, familial history of the individual. God does not force himself on us without a context. We do not receive him in a vacuum!

I'm sorry, but if you don't realize that then you are not seeing the forest for the trees.

Why do you think the Jews of Jesus time had a hard time seeing him as the Messiah?

Because of the biases of their own cultural, religious history.

Thirdly, Peter recognizing Jesus for who he was was a God-inspired revelation, not a biblical one. After all, he didn't read about his own experience in the Bible.

A persistent problem in the Emergent movement is its tendency to redefine terms without regard to their historical or biblical context. Biblically speaking, a "spiritual" person is one who worships God in the manner God desires, in spirit and truth. It is a term which has to do with one's inner orientation, which has been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit out of sin and disobedience and into holiness and obedience. The contrast drawn in Scripture is with the "natural" person, one whose inner orientation is corrupted by the fall and is thus incapable of any good will toward God.

"Religious," biblically defined has to do with the outward manifestation of one's inner "spiritual" orientation. James writes, "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1.26-27). In church history, "religious orders" have been formed around particular practices and disciplines (including works of charity and mercy). Those who live out their life's vocation in such orders are often referred to as "the religious." Among such persons are those known as "spiritual directors." As the title should imply (but apparently doesn't in the new Emergent redefinition), such persons give direction on spiritual matters to persons seeking a deeper relationship with God. Generally speaking, they would not encourage mixed up, confused people to seek whatever "spiritual" path suits them. The disciplines and practices they prescribe are often rigorous, strict, and some might say overbearingly "religious." James himself is something of a biblical prototype, and it is highly doubtful he would have much use for the cheap post-modern imitations masquerading as "spirituality" sans "religion."

Needless to say, Taylor's thesis is way too full of holes on this point alone, never mind his contention that "Christian faith is open to discussion" (Jude, the brother of James, might want to argue that point with the good professor). Just as the Enlightenment created a false dichotomy between religion and reason, so the post-modern Emergents want to create an equally false dichotomy between religion and spirituality. Religion without spirituality is dead works. Spirituality without religion is a dead end.

Nate wrote: "Beware wolves in sheep's clothing who strain out a cow to swallow a gnat. You shall know a tree by its fruit."

I hope this last comment wasn't meant for me, Nate. For all the concern about Emergents coming across as arrogant (some of which I can understand and am sympathetic too), it is those of a more conservative orientation that are constantly calling Emergents "wolves", "false prophets", "the end times deceivers" etc...

It gets a little tiring. Can we have a dialog withour calling each other the anti-Christ?

About a year ago I was in a small gathering in dialogue with Erwin McManus. At one point he was asked if he considered himself part of the emergent or emerging church, and if there is a difference.

Erwin's answer has stayed with me and I think it fits this conversation. I cannot quote him exactly, but I took good notes. First he said that the emerging church is something that God alone is in control of and because it is always in process, we don't completely know what that will look like.

Then he tackled the emergent church question, saying that he has many friends who are shaping this movement and he appreciates them. But he added that the problem is twofold. psot-modernism is essentially a critique of modernism. Therefore, Post-modernism is destined to implode either because of success or because of failure. If it succeeds in destroying modernism, we all lose because the lines of truth will be irreparably blurred. If Post-modernism fails in its critique of modernism, then it will either just die out or morph into a reform of post-modernism itself.

Then he offered the best thought of all, that he didn't want to settle either for the modern or the post-modern reality. Instead he longed for a return to the church that thrived before modernism - to the mystical experience of Acts 2 church. That sounds a whole lot more attractive to me.

pseu·do [soo-doh]
–adjective 1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.
2. almost, approaching, or trying to be.

or·tho·dox - [awr-thuh-doks] –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.

Professor Taylor accuses an unnamed captor of holding "Christianity" hostage for most of the twentieth century with "pseudo orthodoxy". Does this mean he is in favor of bringing Christianity back to it's 'orthodox' historical roots found in the Bible? Obviously not. But if one holds to what the Bible actually says, how can that be 'pseudo' or only pretense? And if Mr. Taylor challenges the "status quo" why would he not expect to have his 'orthodoxy' challenged? 'Orthodoxy' IS the 'status quo'. Additionally, if Prof. Taylor wishes to "challenge the status quo" are those he challenges not allowed to respond to the challenge. Are they to simply raise the white flag and surrender the discussion?

I haven't found in the discussions what I have considered the definition of religion. To me it is man's attempt to reach god. Christianity represents the opposite, God reaching out to man. It can be that spirituality is just another form of religion. As such it is no better than legalism. To be a Christian is to accept God's ownership of us. If we seek to have a mystical feeling of our own, it is religion. If we rely on rules it is religion. If an emerging "believer" thinks he is better simply because he has thrown out the rules, he is mislead. If a church goer thinks he is better because he follows the "rules" he is mislead. My only close experience with an emergent was simply to see a prodigal. That limited experience makes me fearful of the damage that could take place. Not that there aren't conservatives that lead people astray. But, it seems that the emerging church is risky in that they may rely on emotional stimulation as a form of spirituality. The apparent pride that they have no anchor is not very reassuring. Despite the negatives, I do like some of the goals I see emergents have.

"Seek ye first the kingdom of God." I agree that there is a fundamental difference between religion and spirituality. Religion can be found anywhere, in and out of the church, no matter the label that may be applied. I see the difference in that as Christians or Christ-followers we are to seek God through Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I see being "spiritual" as seeking God on a deeper level than the average pew warmer that attends a local church week after week. The Pharisees that called for the crucifixion of Christ were the "religious" leaders of the day. They failed to connect with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and David.

This brings me to my objection to the emergent movement, all fluff and no stuff. In their effort to offer something for everyone, they offer little in the way of substance. A church without theology is frankly, just another committee meeting.

The discussion of "spirituality" vs. "religion" didn't catch my attention as much as Prof. Taylor's implication that a commitment to a singular orthodoxy is a commitment against dialog. Certainly, dialog about how we understand Christ is for the purpose of coming to a common understanding! From the start, the Church has come together to talk about what is really true of Jesus--and then make a statement of common understanding. Calling someone's orthodoxy into question is the first step of dialog, not the end of it.

Regarding Melody's question, please re-read this passage from the article:

"Christianity’s love affair with modernity and its universalizing tendencies created a climate in which the general assumption has been that what constitutes Christian faith has been “settled,” and therefore any challenge to the status quo is often rejected as unbiblical or unorthodox."

Melody: The captor implied here is the thoroughly modernized western Church. The term pseudo-orthodoxy is used because it is orthodoxy- heavily filtered through a modernist lens.

Again, one cannot limit the question to whether something is "bilbical" or not. Pre-modern, modern, and postmodern individuals will read the same biblical passage in different ways. In a sense they are all being "biblical", and yet drawing different conclusions. Why? Because the paradigm we bring to the table predisposes us to certain interpretations, before we've even flipped open the page.

For more info on this topic you might want to read this post: http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0307.html#rogue_christianity

The Bible stays the same, but the believer's set of spectacles changes over time.

Somehow this whole conversation reminds me of listening to a middle aged man trying to justify leaving his wife of 30 years to run off with his new and improved trophy wife.

This whole discussion bogs me down...I appreciate dialog...I appreciate brothers and sisters who I can pray with and be challenged by in my thinking, I am thankful that we all don't think the same way, or talk the same way...i remember one time recouting to a friend all the things i was learning at seminary...She said that was great, and then added a comment I will never forget...wow, I'm just struggling to know what it means to love my neighbor as myself...it was the whisper of my Father to me...
In the midst of the conversation I hope that our lives continue to be compelled by the love of Christ...that we would know what it means to fear Him, that we would be ministers of reconciliation to a world that desperately needs to know that abundant life is for the taking...offered freely through great cost...maybe i am too simplistic...maybe Peterson (in the words of The Message) would call me a Simpleton...i think though that I have realized that sometimes the most profound lessons of faith are found in the most simple of terms...
"Let's not get distracted from being His." Let's dream His dreams for His church, and in humility walk into the future together.

Spirituality is a crutch when one doesn't want to bend a knee to Jesus.

Read your Bible. It is the Truth. It is the ONLY Truth.

Find that relationship with Jesus that challenges you to be humble and courageous.

Love God with all of your being.

This is not hard to understand.

The problem is this guy is putting God in a box to fit his needs. God is much bigger than his box.

As 'coincidence' would have it, this is my 30th year with Cathy who is also my new and improved (emergent?) wife every day because she knows the sacred writings which have made her wise enough to yield to the living Christ Jesus who she experiences in the midst of a very messy community composed of those who are calling on his name.

regarding the article:
I wonder if Religion and Spirituality are being seen as opposite points on a line. Religion is often seen as the rules and legalism where as Spirituality is the emotional and feeling. Just a thought.

regarding the dialog:
I appreciate the comments. I was quite impressed by the respect that has been offered to each other.

my 2 cents:
While I consider myself a bit more emerging in theology and approach to GOD's Kingdom here on earth, I have deep roots in conservativeism. I am concerned not in who is "right," but in how we are seen to those around us. Was it Schaffer who wrote "The Mark of a Christian?" Remember that old song "they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love." We bite back and forth with each other and love is the first casualty. Is this what Jesus died for? For his followers to fight against each other?

Quote: "Spirituality is a crutch when one doesn't want to bend a knee to Jesus."

Response: I think you're missing the point. People are rejecting the modernistic, institutional church- not Jesus.

Quote: "Read your Bible. It is the Truth. It is the ONLY Truth."

Response: I wonder what those poor early Christians did when there was no Bible? I guess they had NO TRUTH; even though they loved and followed Jesus.

Quote: "The problem is this guy is putting God in a box to fit his needs. God is much bigger than his box."

Comment: I think you're completely misreading the point. It is the modernistic Church- with its enlightenment-inspired conception of reality- that people are trying to escape. In other words, people are trying to "unbox" God from our western, modern traps; not the other way around.

Quote: "Love God with all of your being."

Comment: I agree!!!

Darren-
Thanks for responding the way you have. I wanted to jump in the conversation sooner, but I chose not to because I knew that my comments would probably be put in the "crazy-emergent" box. Thank you for your grace and compassion as you've responded. You've been a good voice in the conversation.

As I reflect on this blog and it's responses as well as reading many others like it across the world wide web, I can only conclude that the emerging church and and its old counterpart Evangelicalism are obscurantist at best. The emerging movement is just more proficient at it than their more conservative counterparts. I am sure that in the next 20 years from now another new movement will 'emerge' that will feel the same way as the emerging church movement now feels about the expressions of Christianity it's trying to reform. What if we do revert back towards modernism? Or post-post-modernism? Will you emergent guys be ready to get on the band wagon? Who cares? That's why I care to watch all this from a distance. 10 years of going to Bedside Baptist, Pillow Presbyterian and Mattress Methodist every Sunday morning has made me very ecumenical. And let's Not have a conversation about that one please!

"Religion is always a cultural production, and sociocultural issues cannot be discounted from the ways in which we envision and understand faith."

My response.

And Spirituality is not? I'm confused here, Barry.

Simply put and evaluated these claimers put physical things in the place of spiritual. What they call spiritual freedom consists of wearing or not wearing certain clothing or other physcial adornments. While if they were truly free they wouldn't be so confused.In my opinon these claimers are very immature, confused or have not been born again and so they think carnally and physically, seeking material applications as expressions of spirituality, very much like a Christian form of paganism.In fact I think that is what they seek. They rebel against historical tradition simply because they can and for no reason but they are restless souls. Whereas true spirituality overcomes the fleshly desire to be unique, extrememly individual(yet not really) and its physicalised soulish substitute "spirituality".The saved soul can be happy, joyful and content obeying in all things for the glory of Christ and doesn't need a certain type of modern t shirt or ear ring to feel spiritual, and it is in these kind of vain unspiritual things that i think I see them think their 'spirituality' consists. It is simply allowing adolescence to lead and define the way according to their immature and inexperienced desires.