I have a question to all those associated with the emerging generation in the church. I was challenged today that the entire reformation that is occurring within the Christian church today is actually the great falling away described in revelations...
Any thoughts?
The reason I ask is because there seems to be a complete absence of the word Holiness in the lingo and the lifestyle of those who are leading the reformation... Have you noticed a low level of personal integrity when it comes to issues like drinking, swearing...and drug abuse... and other things that in other generations would be considered taboo?
Are these now social norms and as such are covered by the bibles understanding of Matthew 15:11... (I have a hard time believing that.) or is this generation simply, under the ruse of "the creation of new worship" and "experience", rejecting the standards of behaviour that they don't choose to follow? Under the guise of being contemporary and relational have the reformers lost the holiness that Jesus describes when he asks us to also be holy?
I'm not convinced that this is the case but it sure begs a discussion. So are we the generation that is falling away or is the existing church in fact the ones who have rejected holiness as described in prophesy?
Now that I have offended all my friends...thoughts anyone?
38 comments:
I think there's two ways to look at this. One, this generation is falling away. Two, this generation is refusing to allow unessesary standards get in the way of a holistic approach to the gospel and the means of spreading it.
Issues like drinking, swearing, drug abuse; What does the Bible really say? Why are we not as passionate about abolishing lies, gossip, and hypocrisy? Why does overspiritualization, like the pharisees, not warrant a holiness debate?
I suspect God is much more diverse than our current cultural, sometimes poorly contextual, interpretation of His Word often presents him. Any thoughts?
Regardless of the spiritualizations of the church both the pharisees (claiming their beliefs) or the enlightened ones (knowing their truth and freedom there in) the society that we live in judges the church on the very same standards that are previously mentioned...both ways...
So if people are going to a Christless eternity because their views are closed minded will the end result be any less devastating?
Should I get some millstones for both sides?
Or is the statement that God is "more diverse" a statement removing the responsibility we have for those lost and our personal influence on them...
thoughts...
thoughts?
I don't think that negates any responsibility. Everyone, that is, every believer is called to go and make disciples. (After loving God w/ all our heart, soul, mind, and strength) What I'm saying is that we've been making disciples of church tradition and not soley Jesus.
If I was to write a verse for this issue, I might say in Pauline fashion "Therefore I urge you, my fellow evangelists, to throw off the tradition that so easily entangles. Forget the pre-Christian checklist, and show people the fullness of God, the true character of Jesus, and allow him to do the rule making in their lives."
We are in agreement sort of... I just find this discussion is so often used as an excuse to allow for lifestyles that the culture we live in find "anti christ". Whether they are or they are not is open for debate after enternity but in the mean time normal people (ie. people outside of the church) use this lack of morals as a clear indication of the hypocrasy with the power of Christ.
Under the name of expressions of life we are destining countless silent watchers to a Christless eternity as we rotate the deck chairs on the titanic that they are riding on.
Normal people seem to have a clear moral compass what is and what is not christ like...why don't we? Certainly within cultures this varies and within circumstances there are also variations but that in no way removes our responsiblities...
Let me take my shot at writing a verse in Pauline fashion... "what I can do is certainly allowable but definitely not for the best especially in regards to those who are watching."
I appreciate your thoughts Boomer, it is the rare reformationalist who dares to be considered narrow while discussing such a meaty topic. Thanks for being you.
I think that this is a common conversation these days. A Common conversation based on some misconceptions.
First off... this is not a generational 'thing' it is a world view.
2) Who is right and who is wrong? Its like asking are french speaking people wrong because they speak french or are english people wrong because they speak english?
A communication system with its language and values are seperate from morals.
3) The 'emergent' church is not without values or morals but it has a differnet way of expressing them and not only that expresses them in areas that have not necessarily been the norm in the past.
4) The drinking and swearing and such I must admit does at times go too far, however in every movement there is always a place where an extreme is taken to make a statement... this in time will normalize itself.
5) As Martin Luther was seen as one who fell away from the truth so too will many be accused of the same today... it should also be asked--- in what arrogant spirit is anyone makeing statements about certain groups falling away as if they were the judge and jury on such matters.
6) This holiness message has been so convoluted that even those who tote their hyper-holiness cards do not really know what they stand for but can make a case for all the wrong things that people are doing.
I could rant much more but I shoudl leave this here for now for some to muse.
Mark, I hear most of what you are saying but am hung up on point one and two. Through some recent discussions and teachings, I have come to resent moral relativism, though I find its sentiments embedded in my life at times.
Who is right and wrong is an important message. To claim everyone is right within their personal framework is moral relativism which is the gospel of tolerance. A self-refuting gospel that is tolerant of everything except intolerance.
It is my understanding that God has standards, by whom he will judge all. I don't believe the church has interpereted these all correctly. On a positive note, I think your 4th point is well said, but back to the top, I don't see how values and morals are disconnected? Can you explain?
Dave,
I agree something needs to be said to those who don't know Jesus. Like I said, God has standards. To do w/ the Titanic analogy, we must pick our battles and decide which way we believe Jesus might approach the loungers. Sometimes it seems we're more concerned w/ smokes and beers than fostering an opportunity to connect with Jesus. It seems Jesus met the people first, then the action.
Regarding the Christ like compass of non-Christians, it is my experience that they get this from Flanders, and fundamentalist street corner evangelist types.
This is a great conversation...I look forward to more dialogue.
Boomer
My Question of who is right and wrong is applied the the context of Dave's article. Are the emerging ones wrong or are the 'others' wrong. What I am saying that disection of the two groups is what's wrong.
The Trick of this whole scenario is that everyone woudl agree that they value the same thing... life... but when people superimpose some kind of moral code [that is relative in the cases that Dave has given] how can we possibly say we are representing Truth or Right and value life, that brings death, always. So we say we value life but our morals actually propogate an opposite to our values... equalling an 'intolerable hypocrisy'
I find it odd that relativism is thrown in the face of the 'emergent' when it is the non-emergent that is propogating the same thing by suggesting drinking, and swearing have to do with morals.
This comes back to the whole holiness crap. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT MORALS REALLY ARE. We must know what are the things to live for and what are the things to die for. And Frankly I think the church for too long has made its own moral code based on subjuective interpretation ...that creates a 'christian' worldview but not a biblical one.
Ok I think I hear what you're saying, for the most part, and agree.
I'm on a moral discovery rampage right now. I see how you are speaking only to this specific context, but I think logically, thoughts need to fit everywhere in order to have anykind of strength or truth value.
Dave any thoughts?
Do we have any resposibility to the generation in which we find ourselves to present a christian image that would point them closer to christ? (obvious question) (answer = yes)
...therefore if we are presenting an image that is pointing real people further from a relationship with Christ, even if their premise is based on a poor thinking or poor understanding of the grace and freedom of God. Are these people not still lost?
Now I know that ranting is easy but the question I ask is an earnest one... is the message of freedom and honest Christ following of the emerging generation being undermined? Not by the conflict with the pharisees that are in the church but by the absense of accountability to the culture in which it finds itself.
We easily throw Ned Flanders as an example of the world view of Christians but the normal ones that I've spoken to know that he is not real..he exists yes...but he's not real. They are looking for authentic real honest, pure, kind, long suffering people, etc etc. but as they said..."we rarely find any..."
Asked another way...if the culture expects our walk with Christ to radically effect our lifestyle for the better...shouldn't it?
Dave
You have precluded your statements with several suppositions that must be questioned.
Dave Says - Do we have any resposibility to the generation in which we find ourselves to present a christian image that would point them closer to christ? (obvious question) (answer = yes)
Your answer is correct yes but I woudl suggest an image is not what we want to portray as that is where we begin to create a veneer type faith. And you are coming to that statement with some thought of what an image of a 'christian' should be like. That is where there is the major disconnect for the emerging. Its that a cultural morality and not a bibllical morality has been superimposed over our fatih. The question needing to be asked is how do I know what is a true representation of Christ to our world?
Jesus himself was accussed of being a drunk and a associate of 'sinners.' I am in no way advocating any behavior but I am suggesting that our 'Image of Christ' and moral definitions are missappropriated.
It is also important to point out that moral relativism is a cleverly crafted term by moral folk trying to poke holes in a worldview that they do not understand... sound like a form of spiritual ethnic cleansing to me.
An emergent completely has a sense of truth just not your definition of it. Truth exists ... but the way an accused 'relativist' defines, categorizes and processes it is completely differnt.
Boomer
Your Statement - "Who is right and wrong is an important message." True but that is not the most important message.
It is on this premise that I think you mention the second statement "I think logically, thoughts need to fit everywhere in order to have anykind of strength or truth value."
Philosophically you have a applied a 'rule' which says 'precise truths are the best way to build an argument.' This cannot be applied carte blanche into every situation. My statement was not one of a precise truth it was one of context and therefore you cannot apply that rule.
Santa wears red is truth but is contextual therefore I cannot apply this to all white bearded men with large bellies and say that they are santa.
So the value to my original thought was to expose a deeper erroeneous thought process that says "I have to be right"
All this to say ... MY statement about who is right and wrong is simply a statement pointing to the fact that we are barking up the wrong three in this.
Do you ever watch an arguement or debate between two or more people and think... "I agree with each - and so do they, but they don't see it"? I think I'm seeing such a dialogue here.
Good comments all, and a compelling post Dave.
It's easy to lump a person into a category... ie. "you are just like the other emergents I've met who take sin too lightly"... or "you are judging me because I don't limit myself to YOUR version of holiness - I want biblical holiness". If there are at least 2 sides to this - I guarentee you that both has their wackos.
Personally - I agree with Boomer and Markimus, holiness hasn't changed, some cultural definitions of what it looks like has.
But I also have to admit that some emergent leaders are missing the point. Namelt: To be transformed into Christ likeness, on God's terms, not mine.
Besides - I can't totally agree with Dave - he's my new boss!
Mark are you claiming that morality is not interwoven with the fabric of life? You say:
"moral relativism is a cleverly crafted term by moral folk trying to poke holes in a worldview that they do not understand... sound like a form of spiritual ethnic cleansing to me."
You would be hard pressed to put any foundation under this statement. This is a bit of an argumentative backhand, a straw man. Relativism is popular, but this proves little, what misunderstood worldview are you refering to here? Certainly morality is a involved in everything, because it is a part of the framework upon which we make decisions.
As for a contextual truth, I agree w/ you. Pardon my overgeneralization, but that is not what I was refering to.
I do agree w/ you however that right in wrong is not the most important question. I think Christianity is far more holistic than right and wrong.
Dave,
I do not believe that the current evolving cultural representation of Christianity is moving people farther from Jesus. While, as Mark said, some may swing the pendulum too far, I think that this generation is adopting the missionary mindset. They are "go"ing, and removing any unecessary obstacles that have been formed through traditions. This is bound to be a shock to the system of us who have grown up in a system whose framework is being shaken.
On a personal note, I am battling this myself, trying to decide what does God want us to avoid, and which is traditional to avoid, but not a biblical mandate.
Finally, I agree people don't think Ned is real, but they do. Illogical I know, but while they know he is not real, it is easy to see that his principles are a reality when talking about touchy issues with Christians...enough for now:)
What do you think?
Rob,
Hi.
Boomer
Understand I am only iron sharpening Iron here... My premise woudl be very similar to yours but I am just trying to sharpen your suppositions.
1) I AM saying morality is woven into the fabric of all life... even those that are labelled as relativists... BUT they frame it differently.
2) I am not saying relativism does not exist but I am suggesting we have thrown far too many people into this 'pot' that only a few are really peddling this ware. The general pop. are not relativistic and have a stonger anchoring than most think. Example "I personally do not belive that drinking is a moral issue... therefore I must be a relativist." OR "because I am not opposed to war I am therefore a bible thumping, right wing, fundamental democrat."
3) In saying this ... many people will claim relativism in a discussion to avoid really playing their cards. This is the straw man that you talk about. I personally know that for 70% of the people I talk to when really pressed will recant relativistic musings.
Ok...good I understand what you're saying now. And I AGREE.
That's an interesting thought, people hiding behind relativism.
Mark...I'm so sad with this discussion because we have perfected the art of missing the point.
ONE SENTENCE...(breath) When we as emerging leaders reject the expectations that the culture around us places on us...are we being negligent? Are we to become a Roman in order to win a Roman?
there I've said it...now please try and refrain from button holeing me any further...
I'm not hyper-holiness,
'intolerable hypocritical',I'm not into spiritual ethnic cleansing nor closed minded about the issues described here.
You said...An emergent completely has a sense of truth just not your definition of it.
How do you know what my sense of truth is?
..but one thing is clear Mark, that you do not know who I am..too bad...I'm kinda nice...
And I'm not as hard nosed as your (and my) language suggests.
I'm sorry...
...and by definition I would hope to be a bridge from the existing church to the emergent.
I think we need one...
Ok now we've come back down to a single issue.
What expectations do you think the culture around you has put on us? I'm not sure that we violate it in a bad way.
I has been my experience that the expectations that people have for us are connected to the reasons why they don't come to church. Thoughts?
Before We go down discussing the issue at hand. I want to clarify that my intention was not to buttonhole at all as that woudl be missing the point completely. Provoking a clearer and more concise supposition is probably really what I desire. I can see very clear Dave that you are feilding a view point for discussion that you do not personally own.
Forgive me if my writing style has left that impression, again that was not my intention, I think I/you/we have fallen prey to my hectic schedule and me trying to cram a converstaion that I dearly apprecaite and long for into a very focused and intense day.
I cheer you on Dave and know that we are tracking.
I woudl echo the same question from Boomer with an addendum
1) What expectations?
2) What Culture [the church one or the real one]?
Well... one cannot be all things to all people. Therefore the discussion concerning expectations is a moving target. As is the crowd.
My encouragement is to be aware of the crowd that surrounds us. (not the church crowd but the real one) in everything that we do...
When the question was asked by Cain, "am I my brothers keeper?" I am beginning to believe that the answer is...yes.
Aware...sensitive...and even dare I say it...accomodating.
Mark...the phone just cut out...not sure why...
Dave
phone call was good... not sure why it cut out either...you will see our strategy unfold in teh coming months ... our temporory site will launch within a few weeks. www.yaaway.com
Paul does say be all things to all men...the future looks bright.
There is no single set of expectatons, placed on us by our culture. Rather, I suggest that culture expects to see something of God in us - and therefore looks for what their limited (and even misconceived) view of God allows. ie - moral taboos.
Are we responsible to champion a set of taboos that misrepresent the character of God? Of course not.
Can we try to find the truth in the expectations of those around us, and then affirm it be living it?
I'm doing my best and I'll let you know how it turns out.
I think this is not just a generational view but actually a worldly one. Look around you and you can see the arguments for a relaxed view of Christianity everywhere.Its the shhh don't let anyone see that I am different here approach. There was a time when the idea of a Christain even tolerating the idea of alchol comusption in any form was the norm but now I know personally of leaders in our churchs who are into home brewing wine and the like, and I am talking Pastors here. Where then is the accountabilty to the congregants? Is this leadership or the holiness we are reading of in the Bible? I for one say its hypocracy. I suppose it comes down then to interpretation, which is a dangerous place to be in the Word. I was taught that the Bible was the infallable Word of God and to be taken in its literal sense. That being said then, what part of the do's and don'ts do we not get here. Language on the other hand I think is just plain laziness, and from what I hear, mostly coming from younger people. If you allow that kind of gutter talk around the table at dinner time then its gonna happen everywhere, which it does. And in a lot of cases I find its the girls who are worse than the guys. We have lost the meaning of holiness and we definetly need it to be preached from the pulpit in black and white not with rose colored glasses...
Rick...
Thanks for the input and welcome to the world of blogging.
You opinion is welcomed here as all opinions are...just get ready because some of the topics can be challenging...as are the people.
By the way...if everything is literal in the Bible and not open to context, history and understanding there would still be slavery and stoning for Childhood rebellion. (just a thought)
Thanks Carps,
While I have no doubt that some are getting lazy in the faith, I think that a great many of those who are questioning our church culture's interpretation of scripture (moral taboos), are looking for a purer culture of obedience to scripture. Not an easier one. Rather than a list of do's and don'ts, lets have a living faith based on obeying scriture for real - not unfounded rules.
For example... I don't drink alcohol. But I recognize that scripture does not prohibit it at all. Rather, many scriptures assume alcohol is anormal part of everyday life and celebration. So it makes no sense for me to support this particular taboo. Now drunkeness is clearly a sin, but what about "social drinking"?
I'm finding that the actual "don'ts" in scripture are pretty few... in light of the New Covenant we have in Christ.
But I also understand how intimidating this all can be to someone who has grown up associating Godliness with a set of rules, which we were told are biblical.
The interesting thing I find that whenever these conversations come up is that there needs to be an understanding of what morality and ethics truly are. IF WE make behavior the moral standard we are just a guilty as anyone for relativism. Morality and Ethics transcend behavior. WE cannot assess morality by behavior we must assess morality by morality.
If you come over to my house just at the moment when my dog bites my son's are. You may not see [nor hear] behavior that reflects the attributes of all that I am. Does my behavior mean that I defined as that?
Absolutly,
Your behavior does NOT define your morality. But it is the best way for me to perceive your morality.
We are not to judge someone's character (we can't), but we are called to judge fruit (Matt 15:7-20). Is that not behavior? Or in 1 Tim 3 where we look at behaviour to discern who are qualified leaders? I accept that while my behaviour is not morality - it is an indicator of it.
Rob
Thank for clarifying the exact point I am trying to make... my bad spelling and all.
If behavior is an indicator albeit not always accurate it must be kept relative. Behavior has the potential to change in different dynamics... Morals cannot be applied to these dynamics because if we believe them to be static then they cannot change. Classifying certain behavioral elements as static indicators of morality simply puts the cart before the horse.
Therefore(let me try and sum up)
...are we saying that although we are not in favour of a moral code of behaviour rather we are in favour of an internal-desperation to discover the heart of Christ?
i.e. the cart before the horse is...
...aggressive adhering to a moral code to discover Christ...(behavioural holiness to bring us to the spirit of holiness)
rather than the horse before the cart...
where our aggressive search for the spirit of Christ brings us to confront our moral behaviour?
(spiritual holiness (Christ) in proximity that brings us to behavioural holiness)
Because if that is the reality of the world view your describing... tell me where to sign up...
Because...
the world around us (we are assuming) will be able to sense the reality of our honest agreesive search.
I hope this last assumption is true...because their lives depend on it.
Dave
Our heartfelt 'agression' for Christ is irresistable. The journey is shared by all of us ... we are searching... whether we know it or not we are searching to discover Christ in us the hope of Glory.
Christ is not found in moral codes he is found in the hearts of imperfect people being changed into someone better.
Mark:
If the journey is indeed shared by all...why would God declare any lost at all? Just give everyone enough time to find him.
"How can they know unless someone tells them..."
...they may be searching but that in no way guarratees them finding. I know emergents want to be relevant and relational but if they had a cure for cancer and they did not tell me when a loved one of mine was dying of cancer, I would be some ticked at the funeral.
Your statement, " The journey is shared by all of us ... we are searching... " can be used to remove any motivation a person has to share the gospel. (oh I know... share the gospel and if you have to use words) but somehow I know that sharing, caring, being there is encompassed in our words, blogs and our lives.
So lets agree to Seek Him and Speak Him!
Oh and by the way...I'm chewing over another question about the present world view that I will be posting soon...
Dave good point
I must say any motivation must come out of a pure love for him and to do what He asks (John 14:15)
This same de-motivation that is seen amoung emergents was/is also seen amoung the reformed approach to the sovereignty of God(of which are my roots). The focus is more on the establishment of the kingdom now as opposed to the coming establishment of the kingdom on His return and the telling the world in prep.
I think I see in the emergent a backlash to the guilt driven, manipulative evangelism that has been seen. This again in time will normalize. Bottom line in my own journey I have discovered it takes wisdom to know the times that a person must speak with words and the times they must speak with actions. both are needed and one connot truly win anyone without engaging in both.
look forward to more posts.
Post a Comment