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
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% [?]
- Rollins, Speak of God, 46. [↩]
- Pagitt, Christianity, 165 [↩]
- Selmanovic, All About God, 9; 60-61 [↩]
- Pagitt, Christianity, 194-195 [↩]
- 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
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
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% [?]
A 4 week series based on a paper called “DIGGING UP THE PAST: KARL BARTH AS FOE TO THE EMERGING CHURCH ON THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION.” Non-identified citations relate to Rollin’s How (Not) To Speak of God. CD equals Barth’s Church Dogmatics.
Series Posts
1—Introduction
2—“God Speaks”
3—“God’s Revelation is Jesus Christ”
3—Conclusion
“GOD SPEAKS”
In How (Not) to Speak of God, Rollins operates from the assumption that, “That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking.” (xii) Though we are called to continually speak of God, we cannot really ever speak of or actually describe Him. Throughout this rhetorical tour de force, Rollins attempts to re-understand the traditional understanding of the nature of God’s self-disclosure along such fault lines.
As Rollins explains, traditionally Christianity has been understood to rest upon the idea that God has communicated to humanity through revelation, a concept that has been known as “that which reveals,” is the opposite of concealment, and God has graciously disclosed to us something about himself. In other words, in the past revelation meant God has actually revealed, de-concealed, and graciously disclosed Himself to the world. In fact, Rollins suggests it is thought that “Christianity…has privileged access to the mind of God,” an access which is contained and controlled by Christianity alone. (7) Rollins believes otherwise.
According to Rollins, this idea of revelation came after Christianity (falsely) embraced the Age of Reason, believing that “God was open to our understanding insomuch as God was revealed to us through the scripture.” (9) For these Enlightenment Christians, it was simple: God gave us a document (the Holy Scriptures) and the ability to understand and explore that document (the mind), thus providing access to God’s full, real Self (revelation). For Rollins, however, this notion of theistic accessibility is nothing short of “conceptual idolatry.” He insists the idea of any system of thought which the individual or community takes to be a visible rendering of God—in this case an intellectual rendering—is neither God nor of God, but is instead an anthropocentric construct, an idol. (12) Rollins insists that Western theology has reduced God to conceptual idols by the very exercise of naming God. Instead Rollins suggests God is not only unnameable, He is omninameable, he cannot be revealed through human words, and at the site of revelation, even when we think we can see God revealed to us, “we can only speak of God’s otherness and distance; Revelation has concealment built into its very heart.” (13, 14, 15, 16)
Rollins believes that Christianity has far too much confidence in a full divine self-disclosure, too much confidence in an actual complete revelation at God’s own behest, resulting in an overly defined, imbued “God” term. “If we fail to recognize that the term ‘God’ always falls short of that towards which the word is supposed to point, we will end up bowing down before our own conceptual creations forged from the raw materials of our self-image, rather than bowing before the one who stands over and above that creation.” (19) Christianity, especially the Western variety, has and is bowing before self-made revelatory “blocks of wood” in the form of theological constructs.
These constructs never really point to God Himself, however, because God blinds us with too much information about Himself. We must realize that our understanding of God comes as a result of One who overflows and blinds our understanding; God’s incoming blinds our intellect, saturates our understanding with a blinding presence, and gives us far too much information, resulting in an intellectual “short-circuiting” by the excess of presence. (22, 24) Ironically, while God blinds us with His presence, he agrees with Gregory of Nyssa that the more we move toward God we journey into divine darkness. While religious knowledge begins as an experience of entering into the light, the deeper we go the more darkness we find in that light; God is beyond the reach of all thinking. (27) In short, “Christianity testifies to the impossibility of grasping God because of the hyper-presence of God.” Barth would suggest otherwise, however.
For Barth, there is real, genuine knowledge of God because God has chosen to really, genuinely disclose Himself to us. Through His own purpose and volition, God made the decision to encounter man. “God encounters man in such a way that man can know Him. He encounters him in such a way that in this encounter He still remains God, but also raises man up to be a real, genuine knower of Himself.” (CD II,1:32) Rather than being hyper-hidden and overly concealed, God sets Himself before man in such away that he can really and genuinely speak of and describe Him. In other words, God is “graspable” by the very fact He has placed Himself before man to be grasped. In fact, though Barth does acknowledge a hiddenness and mystery to even His revelation, God has made Himself “clear and certain to us,” seeing to it that He not only does not remain to us hidden, but that we already have this knowledge from God Himself. (CD II,1:39) We can really and genuinely know God because He has chosen to show Himself to us in such a way that He can be considered and conceived by us. (CD II,1:10) What we must understand, however, is that this knowledge is not from us, but from God.
This knowledge of which we speak “cannot at any moment or in any respect try to understand itself other than as the knowledge made possible, realized and ordered by God alone.” (CD II,1:41) In part, this is the point Rollins attempts to make: the source of our desire (God) is set as an object that we reflect upon in order to grasp it, hold it. (1-2) In an effort to maintain God’s “otherness” and “beyondness,” Rollins ultimately makes God unreachable and unknowable. Furthermore, he argues that even when we describe God and claim a knowledge of Him, that claim and knowledge isn’t really even God Himself, but our understanding of God. (98) As Barth insists, however, “there is a readiness of God to be known as He actually is known in the fulfillment in which the knowledge of God is a fact.” (emphasis mine) (CD II,1:65)
Rather than being hyper-hidden and our God-talk other than God Himself, God can be known because God wants to be known and what we say of God, by His grace, is really God. As Barth continues, “‘God is knowable’ means God can be known—He can be known of and by Himself; in His essence, as it is turned to us in His activity, He is so constituted that He can be known by us.” (CD II,1:65) God has in fact set Himself before man in such away that we can confidently say “God can be known.”
While human efforts at accurately and exhaustively describing God are fraught with inconsistencies, fragility, and incompleteness because man is fallen and sinful, “God makes Himself known and offers Himself to us, so that we can in fact love Him as the one who exists for us…and He creates in us the possibility—the willingness and readiness—to know Him; so that, seen from our side also, there is no reason why this should not actually happen.” (CD II,1:33) Real, genuine knowledge of God can “actually happen” because we have a revelation from Him that comes to us in a manner that is intelligible, accessible, and clear.
This revelation is clear, accessible, and intelligible not because we ourselves are capable of thinking our way to God through our own ingenuity and gumption, though. Barth makes it clear that, “it is by the grace of God and only by the grace of God that it comes about that God is knowable to us…He gives Himself to us to be known, which establishes our knowledge of Him. God’s revelation is not at our power and command, but happens as a movement ‘from God.’” (CD II,1:28) Barth also makes it incredibly clear that this ultimate movement of God to reveal Himself to humanity was through Jesus Christ, an assertion that is as questioned as our ability to even know God.
Popularity: 5% [?]
A friend of mine wrote a guest editorial piece for the Grand Rapids Press entitled, “Discord need not divide believers.” It is a piece that reflects sentiments within the emerging church conversation to view belief in centered set vs. bounded set ways.
Here some of the text:
Right now, Christianity is seen as a set of beliefs. Believe the right stuff, and you are Christian. Step in this box with its bounded sides, and you are “in.” Step out of line, and you may be outside of the realm of what we consider “orthodox” or right belief. We live and work out of a bounded set constraint.
But there is another way.
A centered set paradigm places Jesus at the center and asks that we move toward him.
Your path may be different than my journey; your conclusions of what may be the best way to go may differ from mine, but that is really not a problem because I know you are headed toward God. I don’t assume you have to have the same set of beliefs as me to trust that you believe in Jesus.
In the case of the big three at Cornerstone, the truth is: All three are headed toward the Kingdom. I trust that. They need not be forced into making a stand or boxing one another in or out. In the centered set paradigm, a conciliatory mind-set replaces a dividing mind-set. As a Christian, I really don’t like seeing fights in the hall of my school. A new way of thinking can eliminate these troubling skirmishes.
Popularity: 5% [?]
National Emerging Church leaders and authors Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Mark Scandrette are crisscrossing the country in a bio-diesel RV to visit 32 cities with a message that combines old time revival flair with a 21st century gospel on a tour called the “Church Basement Roadshow,” and I was able to snag them and set them up at the church I’m interning at during seminary.
Taking a page out of the Billy Sunday playbook, the authors will spread the emergent message of a generous, hope-filled Christian faith in the style and cadence of the tent revival preachers of a hundred years ago. They plan to have fun with it, wearing frock suits and selling “healing balm,” but the goal is, as in the revivals of yore, to preach the good news. “This will be unlike any book tour people have seen,” says Jones. “We’ll be barnstorming the country, shaking the rafters with our ancient-future message of hope.”
The second to the last stop on their journey is Grand Rapids, MI and Fellowship Covenant Church is hosting that stop on Sunday August 3 at 7pm. If you live in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, or Indian (and EVEN Canada!) and are interested in dreaming of an alternative Christianity and following of Jesus, please come to what should be a rockin’ good time! Also, if (somehow) you read this blog and live in the area I’d love to connect during and after the show, so please try and make that Sunday evening.
ps-show up early, cause we’re expecting a big crowd and our capacity is 200ish!
Popularity: 2% [?]
