Once upon a time I was enamored by the “I-am-not-a-movement-but-a-conversation” known as the emerging church (In fact, at my seminary I’ve been known as Emergent Jeremy!) Five years ago, I stumbled upon an “emerging” author known as Brian McLaren (even attending his church for a stint). I gobbled-up his “A New Kind of Christian” trilogy because it’s question-asking permissive narrative gave flesh to the phantom that was haunting me at the time: What the hell is this whole Christian thing about?!

Pastor Dan was my doppleganger; Neo my mentor.

Five years ago I entered a period of faith deconstruction (one particular post I wrote that I was fond of at the time was, “10 Ways to Deconstruct Your Faith“) and reconstruction the likes of which I had never experienced in my life. For the first time I was taking my faith in Jesus Christ seriously and asking a whole lot of questions.

These questions were healthy and freeing and opened up a whole new world to explore and enjoy. For this I am grateful to the emerging church conversation of which I’ve been apart for several years. As my relationship with Emergent progressed, though, I began to wonder why it was cool and trendy to disregard Paul, pity the fool who believed in real judgment, ignore the cross, and downplay individual participation in rebellion/sin.

In short: I became uncomfortable and have grown downright tired of the theology that has bubbled-up out of the emerging church.

I’m not exactly sure when my saucy love affair with emergent and liberal Christianity ended. My “I don’t” isn’t as crystalized as my “I do.”

Maybe it was when I read Pelagius‘ writings and realized much of Emergent theology really does mirror his 5th century theology.

Maybe it was after the former head of Emergent Village, Tony Jones, rejected original sin, a historic part of the Rule of Faith, claiming that it is “neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable. “.

Maybe it was when I read Fredrick Schleiermacher and realized his and modern liberalism’s vapid, gospel-less faith are being repackaged and popularized to an unsuspecting, ignorant Christian community as a wholesome alternative to what has been.

Maybe it was after I read Karl Barth and realized the natural theology pushed by popular emergent theologians is not revitalizing Christian faith, but killing it; it is the same kind of faith Barth so vociferously fought against in order to preserve the historic Rule of Faith.

Maybe it was after reading a leading emerging church voice suggest that God and grace and the Kingdom of God are not tied directly and exclusively to Jesus Christ; ultimately its not really about Jesus, but about a vanilla, generalized World-Spirit god (lower-case “g”).

Regardless, what I’ve come to realize is that while Emergent may believe it is believing differently—and consequently believe it is offering the world a different Christianity that is more believable than the current form—in reality the emerging church simply believes otherly; the form of Christianity that this version of Christianity pushes is neither innovative nor different: it is a form of Christianity other-than the versions that currently exist but mirror those that have already existed.

The Christian faith that the authors, leaders, and followers within Emergent believe “feels alive, sustainable, and meaningful in our day” (ACWB, 2) is really forms of faith from other days. They combine other forms of faith that both the Communion of Saints and Spirit of God have deemed foreign to the Holy Scriptures, Rule of Faith, and gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the history of Christ’s Bride, the Church.

I hope my friends from Emergent West Michigan won’t claim this is a “heresy hunt” and suggest I am no better than the hyper-fundamentalists who exalt themselves as Truth Defenders and tirelessly work to expose false teachers in the church. I think this suggestion would be grossly unfair for 2 reasons:

1) I am bidding “au revoir” as one who has been on the inside of and involved with this conversation for half a decade. I attended Brian McLaren’s church; I helped host the Church Basement Roadshow at my church for Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette; I’ve had several interactions with Doug Pagitt, someone I like as a person and who even introduced me to my wife and attended our wedding; and I am personal friends with the coordinator of the Emergent West Michigan cohort who is also a member of the new Coordinating Council for Emergent Village. In short, I am an insider who is simply leaving the inside.

2) I approach this effort as one who has pursued academic training in biblical studies and systematic/historical theology for nearly three years. I’m NOT trying to play the “education card” here, but rather offer this bit of information to give context for my leaving. I am finishing up the Master of Divinity (M.Div) and have begun the Master of Theology (Th.M) in Historical Theology. Specifically, I’ve spent a number of hours reading many primary theological sources from the Early, Reformation, and Modern Church, giving me a broad picture of the historical “movement” of church dogmatics. While I have been trained in a more conservative institution with Baptist roots, I am a free thinker who is familiar with the theological arguments from both sides of the aisle and historical progression of theology.

In his book, The Story of Christian Theology, Roger Olson says, “The story of Christian theology is the story of Christian reflection on salvation.” The same is true today. Over the next several weeks I am taking the liberty of taking two Emergent “theologians” to task: Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. Like Olson, I believe any theological inquiry is by nature soteriological, by nature reflection on salvation, which means the stakes are high. Both men have taken the opportunity to make public, written commentary on the nature of salvation, on the gospel, whether they know it or not; I doubt they are ignorant of their effort.

I would like to publicly, theologically interact with their own theological interactions.

First, I am posting a series based on a theological examination I undertook for my Early Church Th.M class called, “Pagitt and Pelagius: An Examination of a Neo-Pelagianism.” Many have suggested Doug Pagitt is dishonest about his Pelagianism, an early church teaching that was declared heretical. I thought it would be interesting to read all of Pelagius‘ known works (including an interesting, little read commentary on the Book of Romans) along side Pagitt’s. These posts will explore their writings on human nature, sin, salvation, discipleship, and judgment. It will drop Wednesday, February 10.

Second, I will post on the soon-to-be released book by Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity. In it he discusses the top 10 questions facing the Christian faith. In some ways it’s a tell-all that should finally give his critics what they’ve asked and wanted for years: answers. From what I have read so far in an advance copy, this is truly going to be a line in the sand that will determine where people are in their understanding of the nature of salvation and commitment to the historic Rule of Faith, which is why I want to tackle it question by question. Along the way I will provide a theological assessment in order to understand his take on human nature, sin and rebellion, the nature of Jesus Christ, the cross and salvation, resurrection, judgment, and God. Look for this interaction at the start of March. (A friend of mine has already begun such an interaction, here.)

Recently, Doug Pagitt wrote on his blog and Brian McLaren said in a video that those of us who take them and others to task are held in bondage to fear and thoroughly un-loving; my motivation for analyzing the theology and beliefs of leaders within the emerging church is fear-based and inherently un-love. One word: ridiculous. I am not fearful; this has nothing to do with fear. In fact, the loving thing to do is in fact confront, prod, and question.

Why, then, am I doing this? Two words: Grand Rapids. I am disturbed and deeply saddened by what I see happening within evangelicalism, from both sides of the aisle (I could say as much about Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and James Dobson as I will about Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. That will have to wait, though.) especially within my hometown.

Plenty of people are disaffected—even offended and wounded— by the type of Christianity offered here.

And they have bailed.

But here’s the thing: these disaffected Christians of my generation—and younger and older—still long for an intimate, rooted connection to Christian spirituality that is fresh, new, and vibrant. After leaving what they’ve known, they search after and pursue a “Christianity worth believing” and a “new kind of Christianity” that satisfies their establishment, traditionalism angst.

Yet while these fresh forms appear different and exciting, they are an “other” form from a forgotten age, a re-packaging of what has already been, what has already happened. Because most American Christians—even the ones from the Christian Mecca known as Grand Rapids—are biblically and theologically ignorant, they don’t realize what they are reading and pursuing.

So for Grand Rapids I write; for the Grand Rapids church I analyze in hopes it will better understand this other faith that is, in my estimation, foreign and inconsistent with the Church’s Rule of Faith and Holy Scriptures.

These posts will be my hyperlocal thoughts on the tension of spirituality and theology, politics and culture, belief and practice, existing and emerging forms of Church, the Kingdom of God and America, modern and postmodern thought, and the gritty drama that is our collective Grand Rapidian pilgrim story.

Bookmark the homepage, grab the feed, or subscribe to receive emails of my nifty posts straight in your inbox (no spam…promise!) Hope you join our local conversation.

PS—Next week will be a BOMBSHELL post drop. I’m planning to launch a controversial series of posts, so check back Monday for the announcement.

The year is 2020…you are 10 years older. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO BE?

A better question might be…WHO do you want to be?

Who do you want to be as a HUSBAND? A WIFE? Who do you want to be as a SON…or DAUGHTER? Who do you want to be as an EMPLOYEE? Who do you want to be as a FRIEND? Who do you want to be as GRANDPA or GRANDMA? How about as a CHRISTIAN, a follower of Christ?

May you run this years race with perseverance, throwing off your weights and entangling sins and fix your eyes on Jesus. May you also consider Jesus and what he endured for you, reminding yourself along the way that he is right there beside you so that you will not grow weary and loose heart.

PS—At the end I incorporated an Owl City song to end the message, so enjoy that, too

Spoiler Alert! Throughout this post I give away some of the movie themes and toward the end of this post I give away the ending. If you don’t want to know what happens, read no further

A week ago my wife and I watched the engrossing movie The Book of Eli. It is an American post-Apocalyptic film in which the main character, Eli (played by Denzel Washington), is on mission to bring a book to the West Coast. That book turns out to be the last remaining Bible, the last remaining Bible, a King James Bible no less. Along the way another man, Carnegie (playes by Gary Oldman), seeks to recover the book to use it for his own powerful purposes.

Many things could be said about the movie, but six things stood out, three good and three not so good. First the good:

1. A consistent theme was the idea of walking by faith and not by sight. Throughout the movie the only thing Eli knew was that he was to go from the East Coast where he came to the West Coast where he was to complete his mission by bring the Book there. He did not know what he would encounter or how he would survive. He only knew he would (because of the promise of survival and provision from the Voice who told him to ‘Go!’) and that he had to do this thing to which he was called. The same is true for us on our own journey called Life.
2. On that note, his blindness plays a significant role in the ending: at one point Eli is forced to give up the Book he spent half a life-time defending and protecting to the man who wanted it for powerful, malicious ends. He finally gives it up, but when the villian goes to read it, it’s in brail. I can’t help but think of Jesus’ line, “Let those who have ears, here.” Likewise, “Let those who have eyes, see.” It was impossible for Carnegie to “see” the Holy Scripture because he did not have the eyes necessary to understand and interpret it, much less read it. I could be wrong, but that stood out to me. In the end we also find out he has memorized the entire thing, which leads to the last point and the ending.
3. One line from Eli got me: “I’ve spent so long guarding and protecting this Book that I forgot to live out it’s teachings.” WOW! How true for much of Christianity! How many of us have memorized large portions of the Holy Scriptures, yet it never finds itself pouring out of our life? Toward the beginning there was a point when Eli stumbled across a husband and wife who were being harassed and assaulted by a marauding group of savages. Eli hid behind a rock and did nothing, right after he slaughtered a group of people to protect the Book inside his bag. He could defend the Book but not the people the Book told him to love. Reminded me of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Though the idea of defending the Text and caring for people in the process is not mutually exclusive (meaning we should only care about loving people at the expense of loving and defending what the Text says about how we are to live) it also reminded me how often we defend Scripture at the expense of other people.

Now for the three disappointing things:

1. The Book/Bible is portrayed as a weapon used by the powerful to gain/maintain authority and power over the weak. This was captured in Carnegie’s lust to get hold of this Book at all cost, including murder. Carnegie believed that what was contained within the Book could make him powerful and he could use it to control the masses in order to achieve his powerful aims. This is consistent with Michael Foucault’s deep hermeneutic of suspicion of Institutions that characterize our postmodern culture, including the Institution of Christianity. As I wrote elsewhere, our postmodern culture pictures the Church in the form of Christianity as a Warring Despot hell bent on using any powerful means necessary to bring all people and people-groups in subjection to their version of normalcy, which is through “The Bible says…” I am not suggesting this is true, but it does reflect our cultures institutional angst, much less Christianity angst.
2. The movie also suggested violence was justified to protect and guard the Book in order to carry out Eli’s mission. Throughout his journey to fulfill his mission, Eli killed or maimed in order to protect and defend the Bible. This movie, then, appears to be a scathing indictment against the ways in which Christianity has used violence to defend and promote its aims. While I understand many have done horrendous things in the name of Christianity (like the Crusades of a distant memory or abortion doctor killings of recent ones.), this is neither the Way of Christ or the Church at large. Though I could be misunderstanding this plot device, I am disappointed the movie would make this suggest Christians as individuals or the Church as a whole is simply about using violence (rather physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual) in order to live out its mission. Come on!
3. Finally, ending basically ruined the whole thing for me. It was quite disappointing, though utterly predictable (though as a committed Christian, I am confused why Denzel would even do this film!). As I’ve written in three other posts regarding the trend within even Christianity to dismiss the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. In the end, Denzel recites the Bible verbatim and a Curator of Culture (stationed at Alcatraz of all places) copies it by hand and reprints it using a Gutenber-style press. It was then brought to a book shelf and placed alongside three other books: the Tanak, Torah, and Koran. In fact, there was a space already created between the Torah and Koran, suggesting that the Bible is one more book among many, one faith-option among a myriad of options.This doesn’t surprise me in the least for Hollywood to produce a film that sends this message. It makes sense. Our culture believes that the Bible and Christianity is one option among many. I am surprised and deeply disappointed, however, that a self-proclaimed Christian would star in a lead role in a film that pushes this message. In his new book, “It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian,” another self-proclaimed Christian and director of a Christian faith community, Samir Selmanovic’s, says the same thing when he writes, “to say God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God.” (pg. 9) In fact, “As long as those of us who are Christians insist on staying enclosed in our own world of meanings, we have nothing more to say to the world. Without recognizing God, grace, and goodness outside of the boundaries we have made and without the possibility of expanding our understanding of God, grace, and goodness, we have come to a place where Christianity as we know it must either end or experience another Exodus.” (60-61).

It makes sense our world would deny Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. I expect nothing less, to be honest. It doesn’t that self-proclaimed Christians do, which is what these Christians are saying when they say God is revealed outside of Christianity. Christianity is a straw-man, anyway. The point isn’t Christianity. The point is Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures (Old and New) tell of God’s complete Story of Rescue which points to Jesus Christ and Him alone.

A few weeks ago I wrote how I am taking a more hyperlocal focus with novus•lumen. While this post seems to be outside that new focus, it isn’t: I am deeply troubled by the trend within the local, West Michigan Church that is trending toward discounting and downplaying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. In the interest of Inter Faith dialogue and religious accommodationism, it is not longer really about Jesus Christ, but It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian http://www.amazon.com/Its-Really-All-About-God/dp/0470433264″>really about God, a generic way of accommodating any and all expressions of God, which is really idolatry.

As Karl Barth said in His Church Dogmatics, “[God] is wholly and utterly in His revelation in Jesus Christ.” (CD II 1:75) “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.”(CD II,1:319). Why can’t Grand Rapids Christians proclaim this with as much boldness and courage as Karl? Or the apostles? When they (specifically Peter) was confronted by the religious leaders of his day, this is how he responded:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is ” ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.” Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

Then the Scriptures say that these leaders were “astonished” when they say the courage of the ordinary man Peter. Courage is what we Grand Rapids Christians need, not religious accomodationism. Tolerance of other beliefs and faiths, sure. I have no problem with that. Not at the expense of courageously proclaiming that “Jesus is Lord” and God raised Him from the dead and exalted Him to His right hand. I only wish Denzel had the guts to make this proclamation. Will the Grand Rapids Church?

I hope you enjoy the listen!

Here were some thoughts from the notes I took on my iPhone:

• Regarding US diversification, by 2043 more than 50% nonwhite minority.
• The Pew and ARIS religious survey reports suggest a decline of evangelicalism and Christianity. Show Christianity is in danger and in decline.
• 17.5% go to church in 2005. Mainline lost 25% in 25 years. Evangelical numbers flat and keeping up with popular trends.
• The decline in evangelicalism is in white evangelicalism. That’s what the Pew and ARIS show. Only reason evangelicals surviving is because of ethnic minority increase. Large and increasing denominations are stable and increasing because of nonwhites. Surviving because they are ethnically diverse. Smaller and declining denominations are 89-96% white, i.e mainline protestant. Baptists 64% white and pentacostals 58% white, which are increasing in size.
• There is a decline and collapse in Evangelicalism among white attendance and commitment. The silent story is increase an vitality among ethnic nonwhites. The story isn’t that evangelicalism is declining. The story is that it is declining among whites. Dying white churches and being replaced by nonwhite churches.

The lecture was an eye-opening glimpse into the future face of America, not to mention Her current face.

Afterward Melinda and I went to a local coffee shop to discuss our thoughts. We both came away with a similar feeling: while we appreciated Dr. Rah’s revelations regarding current evangelicalism, we thought he painted a more rosy picture than it deserves. We both were excited to see that massive shift away from an Anglo-Western domination toward a diverse portrait, but we wondered about the white community that is leaving the church en mass.

Now, here me out: I celebrate the diversification of evangelicalism in general and Western Michigan evangelicalism in particular. Near our house in Alger Heights there are a myriad of storefront hispanic and black churches that fit under the evangelical umbrella and several more throughout the city amidst the dominant form of “white” Christianity. This diversity is one of the reasons I have fallen in love with my city. I am excited about the increase in ethnic minorities who are coming to Christ and finding expression within the larger body of Christ.

A linger question remains: How are we to respond to the changes in our white evangelical Grand Rapids church community?

Let’s face it: for a long time (really long time!) Grand Rapids and the broader West Michigan area has been demographically white. Really Dutch and really white! Look at the statistics for three West Michigan counties from 2000 (From US Census QuickFacts):

KENT
White persons, percent, 2000 86.2
Black persons, percent, 2000 9.3
Asian persons, percent, 2000 2.1
Hispanic or Latino, 2000 9.5

OTTAWA
White persons, percent, 2000 94.7
Black persons, percent, 2000 1.5
Asian persons, percent, 2000 0.4
Hispanic or Latino, 2000 8.2

MUSKEGON
White persons, percent, 2000 83.3
Black persons, percent, 2000 13.4
Asian persons, percent, 2000 0.5
Hispanic or Latino, 2000 4.5

AVERAGE
White persons, percent, 2000 88.07
Black persons, percent, 2000 8.07
Asian persons, percent, 2000 1.07
Hispanic or Latino, 2000 7.4

Like I said. White

My guess is that these demographic averages across West Michigan will shift when the new census data is released later this year and our area will still be mostly white. While I am super excited about the ethnic shifts that have taken place and are occurring in my city, I’m still concerned with the analysis from Rah, Pew, and ARIS that shows a massive decline among whites in mainline and evangelical Protestantism.

I am not saying I am concerned with whites at the expense of ethnic minorities. Instead, it seems like (at least for Dr. Rah) there isn’t a concern for what is occurring in this particular demographic because so much good and growth and occurring in other demographics, in ethnic minority communities. Perhaps I misunderstood Rah, but it seemed as though he was saying the story isn’t so bleak because there is massive growth among minorities, even though it really is bleak for the white demographic.

It seems that if the national trends hold true for Grand Rapids, there could be major problems for the Grand Rapids church. Perhaps those problems have already been manifesting themselves. While the Grand Rapids church isn’t exclusively demographically white, it is by and large made up of white people. National churches that are majority white are hemorrhaging. National churches that are diverse are stable and/or growing. National churches that are ethnic minorities are growing. It seems as though the same could (and perhaps is) be said of Grand Rapids.

Perhaps I am making too much of these statistics and worrying too much about an entire demographic of people. Perhaps not.

Any thoughts? Specifically, do you think, demographically speaking, whites are exodusing from the Grand Rapids church in the same way they are nation wide. If so, why is that the case and what can be done about it? What are the problems this demographic has with the Church, especially in our area?

These are the lingering, hyperlocal questions that remain from Dr. Rah’s lecture

But next week I’m planning on beginning to post on Mondays and Thursdays. Some ideas I have relates to the church as it exists in Grand Rapids, the changing ethnic shift and what that means for missional engagement, the idea of starting a church in the city and how that might look, and a more theological series on a topic I’m not sure I want to post on yet.

I think this is enough to get things rolling! I’m excited for the new focus here and I hope my reflections, thoughts, perspective, and musings encourage, challenge and provoke the church as it exists in my city to courageously and boldy proclaim and be Christ to the world.

Be His,
jeremy

Two years later I moved back to a place I fled 5 years prior: my home town, Grand Rapids, Michigan. While I returned to pursue the Master of Divinity at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, I am convinced I was beckoned back home, called if you will. Since returning I was placed in a wonderful church community where I have the opportunity to teach and lead. I also entered into this wonderful, yet mysterious, thing called marriage after the most AH-mazing gal on the planet said “I do.” It has been quite an interesting and exciting ride since!

Along the way I’ve made some great friendships, entered into some significant conversations, and fell in love with Grand Rapids. While I used to raise my nose in disgust at this city for being so backwards and thoroughly midwestern, I now believe that some significant things are going on here, both culturally and spiritually. For one, my city hosted one of the largest art competitions in the world with the largest prize, called ArtPrize. I have also seen a significant shift spiritually, especially among my generation (18-35), away from the hyper-dominant form of organized religion: Christianity. Not just any form of Christianity, mind you, but conservative Reformed and Evangelical Christianity. While Catholicism and Orthodoxy is present in this part of the mid-west, Reformed Christianity and variations of Evangelicalism dominate. This last shift has consumed my interest the last 2 and 1/2 years since returning.

Since returning after being disconnected form my hometown for really 9 years (4 in college and 5 in DC), I was amazed and alarmed at the shift away from the Church among many of my peers and even childhood friends. It seems as though a generation has entered the front door of the Church, endured 18 years of Churchianity, and swiftly exited out the back once they’ve gained their adult freedom. Now many here look upon the Church with as much disdain as the rest of America, viewing her as anti-gay, judgmental, and hypocritical. (See the books, unChristian , for more information on this national phenomenon.) The response from this area is two-fold: 1) like elsewhere, churches are aging and dying; and 2) like elsewhere, other more progressive forms of Church are popping up. Both responses have my attention.

In concern that my generation is leaving the American church en masse, I wrote a little book to challenge the church, especially the Grand Rapids variety, to think about the Jesus She shows and the Story She tells. In regards to the later response, I’ve begun to write more openly to challenge certain trends I sense within these emerging versions of Christianity. But here’s the deal: I want to do more.

In recent days I’ve had this idea to take this space and transform it into a hyper-local cultural and spiritual space of inquiry. As I have become more involved and fallen more in love with my city and considered my place in it, I’ve thought it might be nice to shift my focus away from the national conversation to the local one. Part of this came about through pragmatism: it is much easier to join a hyperlocal conversation and provide input to it at a city-wide scale than a national one. The other part came through a recent study and reflection on the Acts of the Apostles and noticing how hyperlocal Jesus desired His disciples to begin in order to affect change for His Kingdom.

So today, novus•lumen is going hyperlocal. While I certainly welcome input and reflection from my friends around the country, I am shifting my focus toward providing commentary, thoughts, musings, and reflections on the culture and spirituality of Grand Rapids.

But as I say in my about section, I want to come before my city, God, and the world open-handedly. I want to come to give because I think I have somethings to say about a few things, but I desire to offer them in humility. I also come to receive, because I am a journeyman and know that my own clearness and continued understanding will only occur in community and conversation.

While the tumbleweeds have wreaked havoc throughout this space for several months because of sparse content, my plan is to post at least 500 word posts two times a week to start on Mondays and Thursdays. My hope for the new novus•lumen 2.0 is that through my hyperlocal participation in the blogosphere I may influence some city-wide conversations and spark some “Ah-ha!” moments among my fellow journey-persons, all the while growing and clarifying my own understanding in the process.

Series Posts
1—Introduction
2—“God Speaks”
3—“God’s Revelation is Jesus Christ”
3—Conclusion

CONCLUSION

Thanks to these emerging leaders, there is now growing confusion within the Church over both the extent to which we may know God and the manner in which He has revealed Himself. It is clear that Rollins understands God as hyper-transcendent and Wholly Other, believing He is far more hidden and concealed than Christianity acknowledges. For Rollins we can neither truly name God nor actually describe Him, because He is not really, genuinely revealed. Practically, this cashes out as what Rollins calls an “a/theistic Christianity.”

An a/theistic Christian can be said to operate with a discourse that makes claims about God while simultaneously acknowledging that these claims are provisional, uncertain, and insufficient; our questioning of God isn’t really questioning of God Himself but only a means of questioning our understanding of God. (98) By implication this would mean the revelation we have of God is not complete or real enough to understand, question, and know Him. This is why Rollins ultimately insists that speaking of God is really only speaking about our understanding of God, not God himself. (32)

Selmanovic, while acknowledging a real revelation of God that can be experienced by humans, believes that revelation is neither exclusively tied to Jesus Christ nor contained within Christianity. For Him, it’s really all about “God.” God is a vapid, generalized World-Spirit (This is the same language Fredrick Schleiermacher uses in his book, On Religion.) that is encased in all religions, rather than exclusively revealed through Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the Church, on the other. He is unsatisfied with the assertion that Christianity testifies to God’s Story of Rescue and that rescue is exclusively found in Jesus Christ. In fact, the grace of God to which the Holy Scriptures and Church has testified to for generations isn’t even unique to the Christ Event or Christianity. Instead, it is independent from both and common in the world’s histories, stories, and religions. God is present everywhere and in every person and the Christian faith cannot insist on an exclusive revelation in Jesus Christ or the Church. In the end, it is the kingdom of God that reveals God to the world, a thing that is trans-religious and separate from even Jesus Christ Himself. It is a revelation in-and-of-itself which is the gospel, a thing uncontrolled by Christianity and Jesus.

Upon surveying the writings of both Rollins and Selmanovic, one wonders why they are self-described Christians and committed to Christianity at all. If God doesn’t really speak, why posture one’s self as a listener? If God is not wholly and exclusively revealed in Jesus Christ, why commit one’s self to Him and His Story? In response to both religious thinkers, Barth asserts God does speak and He is revealed in Jesus Christ. For Barth, there is real, genuine knowledge of God because God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. This divine self-disclosure is in such away that humans can really, genuinely know Him. Barth declares that there is a readiness of God to be known, a knowledge that is “clear and certain.” While the knowledge that humans have is not through their own ingenuity and gumption, but through grace, God is so made up that He can be known by us.

Though apprehending revelation does not happen through our own power and command, it does happen and has happened. Barth makes clear that ultimately Jesus Christ is the point at which the world truly knows God. While others may suggest God is best defined by Jesus Christ, Barth insists He is only defined by Jesus. God is utterly and wholly revealed in Jesus Christ; to know Jesus is to know God. In fact, the only way to know God in intimate relationship is through the grace found in and through Jesus Christ. Barth maintains that God’s grace is only and intimately connected to Christ, rather than other sources and other religious faiths. Finally, Barth warns of the danger of selecting competing centers of revelation apart from Jesus Christ, like the kingdom of God.

In His Church Dogmatics volume on The Doctrine of God, Barth makes clear, “Theology guides the language of the Church, so far as it concretely reminds her that in all circumstances it is fallible human work, which in the matter of relevance or irrelevance lies in the balance, and must obedience to grace, if it is to be well done.” (CD I,1:2) Here Barth acknowledges the difficult task of “theologizing,” of speaking of God and His acts. While that speech is fallible and vacillates between relevance or irrelevance, requiring a healthy dose of grace along the way, it needs to happen nonetheless. Every generation needs to cherish, protect, and contend for the Rule of Faith given by our Lord once to the Church. If not, there is a real danger of precipitating into darkness and confusion. It is clear from the writings of these two theologians and thinkers that a shift is occurring within the Church regarding an important piece of that Rule, revelation.

Though historic Christian orthodoxy has consistently held to the real, genuine knowability of God and that knowledge being fully and exclusively revealed (outside of creation) in Jesus Christ, there are some who insist otherwise. There is a growing number who shove God so far into the clouds that nothing can be concretely said of Him. Others still, and perhaps more dangerously so, find God outside Jesus Christ, insisting God is in every person, every community, every religion. God and His grace is no longer exclusively revealed in Jesus Christ, but possessed by other faiths, too. It is worth ending with Barth’s warning as a reminder for these and other theologians: “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.” (CD II,1:319) May this not be the end of these or others who claim Jesus Christ as Lord.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, vol I, 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God. Translated by G.T. Thomson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1955.

________. Church Dogmatics, vol II, 1: The Doctrine of God. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by T.H.L Parker, W.B. Johnson, Harold Knight, and J.L.M. Haire. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957.

Erdman, Chris. “Digging Up the Past: Karl Barth (the Reformed Giant) as Friend to the Emerging Church,” Pages 236-243 in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Jones, Tony. “Introduction: Friendship, Faith, and Going Somewhere Together.” Pages 11-15 in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Rollins, Pete. How (Not) To Speak of God. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2006.

Selmanovic, Samir. “The Sweet Problem of Inclusivism.” Pages 11-15 in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

________. It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.

Series Posts
1—Introduction
2—“God Speaks”
3—“God’s Revelation is Jesus Christ”
3—Conclusion

“GOD’S REVELATION IS JESUS CHRIST”

Not only do leaders within the emerging church question our ability to know God and wonder about the extent to which God has truly spoken, the center of that knowledge and speaking is questions, too. The historic Christian faith has taken seriously Jesus’ own claim in John 14:9 that, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” In the past, it was believed that God the Father is revealed in God the Son, the One True God is only found in Jesus Christ. Now, however, even this central idea to the Rule of Faith is questioned.

In an essay in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Samir Selmanovic participates in this questioning when he claims, “We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign.”(emphasis mine) (129) In fact, he writes elsewhere that the revelation of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, which is so central to the Rule of Faith of historic Christianity, is not exclusively limited to that faith or person, either. “We Christians have insisted that our revelation is the only container and only dispenser of grace. The rest of the world, graced from within, has been steadily proving us wrong. Grace is independent.” (52) The revelation that has come through the Holy Scriptures and Jesus Christ himself are not the only containers of God’s grace; grace is found outside the Christian Story. According to Selmanovic, neither the revelation of God Himself nor of His grace is contained or confined to Jesus Christ.

In his newly released book, It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian, Selmanovic continues his initial thoughts on God’s Christian containment by arguing, “to say God has decided to visit all humanity through only one particular religion is a deeply unsatisfying assertion about God.”(9) In order to protect his argument in favor of religious pluralism, he claims that none of us are in charge of God, God refuses to be owned and to comply with our religious constructs. (16, 18) In fact, “As long as those of us who are Christians insist on staying enclosed in our own world of meanings, we have nothing more to say to the world. Without recognizing God, grace, and goodness outside of the boundaries we have made and without the possibility of expanding our understanding of God, grace, and goodness, we have come to a place where Christianity as we know it must either end or experience another Exodus.” (60-61)

In experiencing another Exodus, Christians must acknowledge that God is everywhere—in every person, every community, and all creation—otherwise we will loose the basis for seeing God anywhere. (61, 64) Ultimately, Selmanovic insists that “the Christianity that claims exclusive possession of God’s revelation in the person of Jesus has hijacked that same God from the world.”(68) After reducing Christianity to one of three monotheistic “religions,” Selmanovic shows his real hand: “People want God, but not one who is the captive of a religion. They want an unmanaged God. Free God. That’s where hope comes from.” (90, 92) Apparently, Selmanovic also desires a God free from religion, Christianity, Jesus Christ.

Barth paints a very different picture in his Dogmatics, however. He boldly asserts that God’s revelation is only, exclusively in Jesus Christ. While Selmanovic believes that God is simply best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, Barth insists God is only defined by Jesus Christ. To suggest that God is not limited to “the historical revelation in Jesus Christ” is foreign to the Holy Scriptures and historic Rule of Faith. Barth argues this very point when he writes, “[God] is wholly and utterly in His revelation in Jesus Christ.”(CD II,1:75) He also makes plain that we must know Jesus in order to know God, because “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). (CD II,1:252) Furthermore, Barth makes clear that what he describes in his Dogmatics is the knowledge of God as found in the knowledge of Jesus; unless Jesus Christ is the reference point for the revelation of God, “we have not described it in faith, or as the knowledge of faith, and therefore not in any sense as the true knowledge of God.” (CD II,1:252)

While Selmanovic may believe that “Grace did not start with Christianity and will not end with Christianity. It is a common thing in this world,” (51) Barth argues, “When we appeal to God’s grace, we appeal to the grace of the incarnation and to [Jesus Christ] as the One in whom, because He is the eternal Son of God, knowledge of God was, is and will be present originally and properly.” (CD II,1:252) For Barth, the revelation of God through grace is intimately and only connected to Jesus Christ because His own act of divine self-disclosure is bound up with Him, too. Jesus Christ is given to the whole being of God, not simply a part of Him, and God is not known at all unless He is known in His entirety as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Creator, Reconciler, and Redeemer. (CD II,1:51-52) It is in His grace through Jesus Christ that God is known as Reconciler and Redeemer. Rather than experiencing the knowledge of God and His grace apart from Jesus Christ, both are intimately connected to Him. It is only in Jesus Christ that we know and understand God and His grace, which is revealed in the gospel that defines life.

Selmanovic goes on to rhetorically wonder, “Is our religion the only one that understands the true meaning of life? Or does God place his truth in others too? Well, God decides, and not us. The gospel is not our gospel, but the gospel of the kingdom of God, and what belongs to the kingdom of God cannot be hijacked by Christianity.” (“The Sweet Problem of Inclusivism,” 194) In this argument Selmanovic does two things: 1) the Kingdom of God is not connect simply to Jesus; and 2) the Kingdom of God itself is a vehicle of what Barth call’s “divine immanence.”

Barth, however, makes it clear that God’s Kingdom is not known at all apart from Jesus Christ, and doing otherwise establishes a Christian heresy. As he warns, “Christian heresies spring from the fact that man does not take seriously the known ground of divine immanence in Jesus Christ, so that from its revelation, instead of apprehending Jesus Christ and the totality in Him, he arbitrarily selects this or that feature and sets it up as a subordinate centre: perhaps the idea of creation…or even the kingdom of God.” (CD II,1:319)

First, Selmanovic clearly describes the kingdom of God in terms that are utterly disconnected from Jesus Christ alone. Secondly, he has selected the feature of the kingdom of God and believes it as a revelatory ground of “divine immanence,” instead of Jesus Christ alone. Barth counters that such people are “oblivious of the fact that [divine] immanence both as a whole and in its parts has Christian truth and reality only in so far as it is founded in Jesus Christ and summed up in Him, so that if, as a whole and in its parts, it is affirmed, preached and believed as a centre in itself and alongside Christ, the Church will inevitably be led back into heathendom and its worship of the elements.” (CD II,1:319) Selmanovic affirms this devastating indictment by claiming the Kingdom is not exclusively limited to Jesus Christ:

Many Christians believe that the Kingdom of God that Jesus spoke about is inseparable from knowing the person of Jesus. If so, the question begs to be asked: Is the Kingdom of God present in all of life, among all people, throughout history, or is the Kingdom of God limited to the historical person of Jesus and thus absent from most of life, most people, and most history? The answer to this question depends greatly on whether Christians are willing to make their religion take a backseat to something larger than itself. (76-77)

Selmanovic completely disconnects God’s revelation from the person of Jesus Christ and makes it no longer exclusively connected to him, too. In light of these observations it seems clear enough from Selmanovic’s arguments that the kingdom of God, as part of divine immanence, has been wrested from its moorings in Jesus Christ and is “affirmed, preached and believed as a centre in itself and alongside Christ.” God is now revealed in the kingdom of God and alongside from Jesus Christ, not through Him alone.

Not only does Selmanovic believe that the kingdom of God apart from Jesus Christ reveals God, he denies that God is revealed fully and exclusively in Him. Selmanovic both favors another revelation of God apart from Jesus Christ (the kingdom of God) and denies that the fulness of God’s revelation is in Him alone. As Barth reminds us, though, “Any deviation, any attempt to evade Jesus Christ in favour of another supposed revelation of God, or any denial of the fulness of God’s presence in Him, will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.”(CD II,1:319) According to Barth, then, Selmanovic’s belief that God is revealed in a separate act of divine immanence (the kingdom of God) apart from Jesus Christ “will precipitate us into darkness and confusion.” Likewise, his assertion that God is not revealed wholly, simply, exclusively in Jesus Christ will have the same result. At this point it is clear Selmanovic’s belief in the revelation and knowledge of God largely departs from the historic Rule of Faith of the Church. In response Barth would adamantly declare it is really not all about God. It is really all about Jesus Christ.