Post Series
0: Intro
1: Narrative Question
2: Authority Question
3: God Question
4: Jesus Question
5: Gospel Question
Theological Foundation Recap
6: Church Question
7: Sex Question
8: Future Question
9: Pluralism Question
10: What-Do-We-Do-Now Question
11: Final Thoughts

After setting down his alternative theological foundation, Brian launches into an exploration of “be-ology”—what it means to be as a Christian and human. (160) A natural first question after such a jarring experience with the first 5 questions is this: “What do we do about the Church?” Or more specifically: What is the Church?

Interestingly, up until this point Brian has not used the word church. I found this incredibly odd and disconcerting in a book that is supposedly exploring a new kind of Christianity. Odd that he would not use the very word Jesus Himself used to describe the group of people who are his followers, i.e. Christians; disturbing that his new theology and faith is not specifically for the Church. For someone who describes himself as “a lifelong churchgoer and a veteran pastor,” I wondered why in 160 pages (and beyond this chapter) he never utters the word. I think the reason becomes clear when we explore the answers Brian provides to his question.

He begins this section, and rightly so, describing the fear and antipathy modern culture has toward the church. The sentiments he describes reflect one which someone exclaimed in a conversation I describe in my book I had with a fellow Starbucks barista: “The church is fucked up!”¹ As Brian describes the current crisis, “When enough church leaders wake up and smell the Ben-Gay, when they realize that their faith communities are shrinking and wrinkling and stiffening, they start to ask the church questions very urgently: What are we going to do about the church?” (162)

He says that we should stop worrying about what forms the church takes (thanks you!) and start seeing “ourselves as servants of one grander mission, apostles of one greater message, seekers on one ultimate quest…What would that one mission, message, and quest be? Around what one grand endeavor can we rally? What one great danger do people need to be saved from and, more positively, what one great purpose do they need to be saved for?” (164)

In other words: Why does the church exist? According to Brian, “to form Christlike people, people of Christlike love…the formation of Christlike people of love naturally becomes the grand unifying preoccupation and mission of our churches.” (164, 165)

At one level this seems fine, but does the church in any way exist to save people as the earliest church themselves existed? Yes. According to Brian, the church exists to save people “from the great danger of wasting their lives, becoming something less than and other than they were intended to be, gaining the world but losing their soul.” (emphasis mine. 164)

In answering question 6, then, the Church must totally rethink the Her core mission and identify that mission along these terms. (165) That mission, then, is “forming people of Christlike love” (171) and “save them from…wasting their lives” (164)

That’s it folks.

It’s funny, because I thought the Church was a community of redeemed and rescued people sent on mission to reconcile the world to God through Christ.

Does not Paul explicitly explain the mission of the Church in 2 Cor. 5:11-21 when he explains the God gave “us” the community of believers the “mission of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them”? Are we not Christ’s ambassadors who have been committed the message of reconciliation: “Be reconciled to God”? Is not God making His appeal through the Church to be reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ? And is not the basis of that reconciliation that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”?

While I am with Brian at one level, that the mission of individual church communities is to form Christlike people. Christlike formation, however, is part of sanctification! In other words, forming Christlike people who follow the way of love happens only after that have been made new through individual “transformation moments.” What is that transformation moment? When a person choses to be “in Christ” (that incredibly key, distinctive theological rallying point for Paul throughout his letters) and the old person goes a ways and the new person begins.

For Paul humans are born “in Adam” and live out of the flesh, their sinful nature (Rom 5:12-20). They are alienated from God and His enemies and by nature people of His wrath (Col 1:21; Eph. 2:3). But “in Christ” Paul also makes clear that this condition is a past condition. “Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.” (Col. 1:21) “Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”

These and other pieces of the Holy Scripture make plain that there was an old condition and a new condition; a moment when someone is not a believer/follower and when someone is. Even more important there is a time when someone is not reconciled to God and a moment when a person is through Christ. To put it in more exclusionary terms: a person is part of God’s community or they are not, part of the Church or not. Brian cannot voice this, however.

All of this is incredibly important to Brian’s definition and mission of the Church, which misses a vital, necessary piece: faith in Christ. The church is NOT simply a group of people who act like Christ and follow the way of love (though this is an important, vital part of having a real, genuine faith in Christ) and saved from wasting their lives. This is the Kiwanis, a great group of people who’s current motto is “serving the children of the world.” Service and love is not distinctive to the Church nor to Jesus. You could say the same thing for the PeaceCorp, though such Imperial comparisons might draw a lightning bolt or two from Brian.

No, the Church is the community of people who have been rescued from death through the forgiveness of their sins by faithing in the final sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, who by His own blood entered the Most Holy Place once and for all, thus obtaining eternal rescue and life for those who faith in Him. Consequently, those who are saved and believe in Jesus act as the continuing presence of Christ to spread His Kingdom Reign on earth.

That’s the Church, Brian McLaren.

As Paul writes in Ephesians 2: “Because of His great love for us, God, who is rich and mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions— it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages He might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.”

The word “us” is used 4 times along side with/in Christ 4 times. Paul is speaking to the Church, the redeemed and the rescued and the reconciled in Christ. This is the message and banner of the Church: BE RECONCILED TO GOD IN CHRIST!

This is the very message of the earliest of the Church in Acts. They didn’t preach “live like Jesus” but “believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” (Acts 16) In the face of Jewish persecution and Roman imprisonment they didn’t proclaim “don’t waste your life” but “Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2) God raised Jesus from the dead, and the forgiveness of sins and freedom from sins in Christ was the consistent message of the Church, stemming from Her mission to go into all the world and make disciples of Jesus Christ. (Acts 13 and Matthew 28).

In reality, Brian’s church is not church at all, but a social club devoid of any power because it is disconnected from Jesus Christ as exclusive Lord and Messiah.

This Holy Friday I am reminded how important it is for the Church to boldly, confidently shout from roof-top to roof-tops that Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again! Through the Church God is dispensing His grace and forgiveness and reconciliation and rescue from sin and death, because it is through Jesus Christ and Him alone that all of this is accomplished. The power for forgiveness and reconciliation and life transformation and individual rescue from evil, sin and death is through death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, both of which are mysteriously missing from the mission and message of Brian’s church.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. the (un)offensive gospel of Jesus, 37. [↩]

My Monday morning blog post announcing my departure from Emergent drew far more attention than I ever expected! E-ver! Geesh, I’m just a 29 year old pastor/theology student from G-Rap who’s happened to blog for several years through my theological journey. This is one more iteration in that progression. Thanks to all those who gave encouragement and critique, questioned my motives and theological endeavor, and expressed solidarity. Your comments and interactions have given me much to think about and consider, comments I’m sure to carry with me over the course of the next several weeks.

I know I promised I would begin offering my bottled-up critiques, but I thought I should pause and clarify the obvious elephants: why? and how? Why did I leave? Why did I strap on the platform shoes and Christmas lights and strut myself down the blogosphere making my announcement. (How immature, right? How positively arrogant!) How did I come to the point in my theological/spiritual journey where I decided it was time to move beyond this conversation?

So, why? How?

First, I should clarify that I don’t want to cast aside my friendships and relationships in the conversation. In fact, Doug Pagitt and I had a great conversation yesterday about my change of heart where we reiterated our commitment to friendship, despite theological differences. My departure is much more theological than relational, so I hope similar relationships will still be preserved.

Now, in answer to the questions, here is some short context to my frustration and reasons for walking. Perhaps they will mirror some of your own. I know the comment section and my inbox is filled with similar stories, so I add this to the mix. On Friday I will begin explaining my theological frustration and perspective with some of the emerging church theology, beginning with interacting with Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing through a 6 post series (Btw: I emailed him a copy beforehand of the original 30 page examination because I thought that would be fair.) Before then, here is some context:

As I explained a few days ago, I’ve been part of the emerging church conversation for half a decade but have grown increasingly uncomfortable and saddened by the theological trajectory of the project. Deeply saddened, actually. This isn’t disillusionment. This is a deep sadness and heartache over what is happening from the top ranks. And what is that? A departure (perhaps deliberate?) among the leaders of Emerging Church Inc. from the historic Rule of Faith and a fashioning together of a new, fresh version of Christianity built on “other forms” of Christianity that have been deemed foreign to that Rule.

That version questions God’s “clear and certain” self-disclosure/revelation;¹ minimizes actual individual culpability in rebellion;² ignores the deity of Christ; downright denies the exclusivity of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ;³ reduces the cross to simply an example of love;⁴ denies real judgment and universalizes salvation,⁵ among others.

It wasn’t always like this, though.

At the beginning, from what I remember back in 2005 when I entered the conversation it really was an exploration. Such sites as emergentvillage.org and opensourcetheology.net were catalysts for bursting and burning through the cobwebs and rickety structures of conservative evangelicalism. It tried to root itself in the more ancient, forgotten parts of our faith—like the Creeds—to moor itself while forging ahead with re-imagining the Church as centered around the teachings of Christ and the Kingdom He bore.

Theologically, it was a deconstructive tour de force with it’s crosshairs aimed squarely at conservative evangelicalism, and rightly so. Reconstructively (is that a word?) it helped construct a missional response to a real, genuine shift occurring within Western culture known as postmodernity. Most of the church was ill equipped to deal with the tectonic shifts our culture was undergoing, and Emergent helped navigate those shifts for church leaders as New Tribes Missions does for tribal missionaries. At the time I greatly appreciated and benefited from both, because it intersected with my own faith exploration.

Since late 2003, I had been ministering on Capitol Hill for a little known entity (The Center for Christian Statesmanship) of a more well known entity, Coral Ridge Ministries (run by an even more known entity, Dr. D. James Kennedy). During this season I became increasingly uncomfortable with the theology behind this thoroughly conservative evangelical ministry, especially their theology of the gospel. The gospel Story it told was rooted in Dr. Kennedy’s Evangelism Explosion, which started God’s Story of Rescue in the end and middle, at heaven/hell and sin. Jesus, we were told, came to inaugurate a cosmic transaction between me and Him in order to beam me outta here “some glad mornin’ when this life is o’r.”

The theology of the Story disturbed me, so did the methods methods we used to sell that Story and manner in which we did ministry in our context. You see, the mission context of Capitol Hill is thoroughly postmodern and young adult: at the time there were roughly 24,000 congressional staffers (an average age of 27) who were from the brightest liberal arts institutions this country has to offer. Missionally, we sucked because we were ill equipped to engage this  young adult postmodern culture. Theologically, God’s beautiful, majestic Story of Rescue was reduced to 5 talking points and Jesus was reduced to a product sold like a vacuum cleaner or set of kitchen knives sans nifty accessories. After my first year in ministry I began to wonder: is THIS what I’ve committed myself too?

Then along came Emergent.

My story follows others, me thinks. Many others have endured similar frustrations before wandering into the oasis-village of Emergent, finding solace, healing, and inspiration from a band of sisters and brothers making a similar trek. There I found what I needed at the time and am thankful for what Emergent was during those years. I absolutely appreciated the theological deconstruction and missiological reconstruction this conversation provided.

Over the past year or so, however, it seems like the later (missiology) has faded and the former (theology) has shifted. I have been struck in recent months by this: now that we’ve gotten the missional response to postmodern culture down, many believe the time for theological construction has begun; we “get” postmodern ministry, now we need an alternative Christian faith built on an alternative Christian theology.

So began this new era of theological construction.

Four books crystalize for me this progressive theological construction effort: Peter Rollins‘, How (Not) to Speak of God (2006); Doug Pagitt’s, A Christianity Worth Believing (2008); Samir Selmanovic’s, It’s Really All About God(2009); and now Brian McLaren’s, A New Kind of Christianity (2010).

While I sound way more conspiratorial than I actually mean, the conversation absolutely has moved from simply talking to sketching, especially the last few years. While I am fully aware (thank you very much!) that the emerging church is bigger than three or five voices, we all know it is intimately bound-up with them. Furthermore, those closely associated with the emerging church are by-and-large ensconced in their theological reflection. If I am wrong, please point me to someone on the inside of the conversation who has offered a proper, pointed theological assessment of Peter or Doug or Samir or Brian. I realize I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure it has yet to been done.

Now it will be.

It’s not personal. It’s academic.

Rather than reacting out of hurt or pain or woundedness (as some have annoyingly suggested) I am trying to provide space for an academic “airing of ideas” for the sake of healthy discussion and disclosure. I’m not blaming all things emerging for the problems of the church. What I am trying to do is live out of the person I have become through the past three years of academic training: I have a deep concern and passion for God’s Story of Rescue and for people to experience the rescue that Story provides through Christ; for theologically rooting the Church in Her faith by properly understanding the Story History and the Spirit has given us and seeing those outside the Church rescued from rebellion and put back together again in Christ. .

That’s why I wrote my first book. That’s why I’m doing this. That’s why I’m moving beyond Emergent.

Now, perhaps I am immature and petulant for bidding “au revoir” and “goodbye.” Perhaps that’s a fair critique. I don’t exactly want to leave my friends who identify with this conversation or invalidate my friendships in order to critique it. Goodness no! I just don’t know what to do anymore with the sad, devastating theological constructs being packaged and sold to thirsty, hungry, unsuspecting souls who long for rescue and re-creation and re-connection to their Creator. I can no longer sit idly by while said leaders fein innocence and drape themselves in “I’m just a mild-mannered guy” excuses in an attempt to ignore legitimate critique of their other faith.

In short: I’m tired of people being hoodwinked by the “different” theology being pushed and the hoodwinkers getting a pass, especially from those inside. Their version of Christianity isn’t different. It is other. We’ve seen this before, and I think something should be done about it. I guess someone should do something about it, so I’m stepping to the podium.

You may disagree with and decry my method, even my critiques. I’m sure both are flawed. Please grant me one request: deal with the ideas. The Emerging Church is an idea; it pushes ideas. In fact, how about those of you who think I’m whack actually deal with the ideas by giving a reasoned, intellectual defense for the theology that is pushed by Emerging Church Inc.

Yes, thats a direct challenge: Someone, anyone—Steve, Mike, Makeesha, Jonathan, Trip, or Julie, perhaps—please deal with the ideas by posting an 8-10 post theological series on both Doug and Brian’s book explaining why their theology is good and correct. I’ll even host it here, free of charge.

I myself am an ideas person. I’ve got plenty of them strewn about throughout novus•lumen, most having little to do with the emerging church and even less blasting it. The idea I am most passionate about, that is the impetus behind what I do as a pastor and theologian, is that Jesus Christ is both Lord and Messiah.

Lord. Messiah.

Both are ideas the New Testament is clear about. Unfortunately, evangelicalism all around seems incredibly confused about both, especially Emerging Church Inc.

Perhaps I can speak into the conversation (especially the Grand Rapids one) by pushing back against emerging church theology and help bring better definition to the contours of God’s Story of Rescue, for the sake of the Church. Perhaps I can follow in the footsteps of J. Greshem Machen, who wrote nearly 90 years prior: “The purpose of this book (blog) is not to decide the religious issue of the day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible.”

Perhaps.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Rollins, Speak of God, 46. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 165 [↩]
3. Selmanovic, All About God, 9; 60-61 [↩]
4. Pagitt, Christianity, 194-195 [↩]
5. Pagitt, Christianity, 230-231 [↩]

Update 3: Apparently I misunderstood Doug’s post on fear. I am sorry for suggesting those who critique him are driven by fear. Instead, Doug means a certain kind of attitude and vitriolic reaction is “driven from fear.” Sorry for mischaracterizing you, Doug.

Update 2: An important follow-up that explains my journey in, through, and beyond Emergent.

Update: Another one who doesn’t care about the emerging church anymore.

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 (my apologies for misunderstanding Doug’s original point. He and others brought correction, so thanks!) 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.

Popularity: 4% [?]

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?

Popularity: 1% [?]

A week ago my wife, Melinda, and I attended a lecture at Calvin College by Shoon-Chan Rah entitled “The Next evangelicalism and the Changing Face of American Christians.” It was based on his similarly titled book by IVP, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. It was a very interesting, wide-ranging lecture on the ‘fate’ of evangelicalism, or it’s changing ‘face.’

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

Popularity: 1% [?]