finitum non capax infiniti

My favorite aspect of having a blog is reading the comments on the posts. Outside of a Red Sox game, there is little else that excites me more than talking to people about Scripture, theology, the church, and culture. So, thank you for your comments.

In the last post I had a few comments that, I feel, deserved more attention.Christian made two great points: (1) every institution begs for conformity from its members and (2) people tend to feel more safe when they hold onto older, time-tested traditions rather than traditions that have been recently developed.

(1) I think that you are correct. I think that one area where the church has erred, however, is that the conformity that it has been striving for has been external in nature. The church has been calling people to embrace a culture of three piece suits, short hair cuts, and black KJV Bibles. What do these external things have to do with the Gospel? Nothing.

Instead of asking people for this external conformity, the church should be striving for a more spiritual/intellectual conformity. New believers are now part of a new family and a new way of life. This family is built on the Gospel, which is what the new believer should be asked to conform him or herself to. This is where Christian is correct: that new members of the family of Christ are asked to conform their worldview to the Gospel. The great thing about this is that God does the work. The Holy Spirit will continue to transform the new believer’s life by renewing his or her mind according to the Gospel.

(2) I also agree with this. There is something strangely comforting to me about reciting the Apostle’s Creed and knowing that centuries of faithful Christians have recited the exact same thing. Things such as the Apostle’s Creed gain our trust more easily because they have stood the test of time, stood through shifts in worldviews and scientific revolutions. Our generation, for better or for worse, is quick to write off the traditions developed by the previous generation because they have not stood the test of time.

Brian also made some comments regarding the newer generation of churches simply putting on different clothes and calling themselves something new. I agree with this statement in some instances. During Westminster’s Emerging Church Conference I made a similar comment to John Franke regarding contextualization. I said, “You can’t slap a FUBU shirt onto Martin Luther, throw him into a hip-hop club and call it contextualization.” I think churches and theologians alike can fall into the same trap. But, there are churches and theologians who are doing more to contextualize and reform both the church and our constantly growing understanding of Scripture. What we have emerged from is modernism (although some call “post-modernism” the inevitable result of modernism…so they label it “high modernism”). Also, I think there are certain “power structures” that are mandated by Scripture, such as having deacons and elders to care for the church in leadership positions. I’m sure these have been abused in the past, but if Scripture mandates them, we must adhere. I also completely agree with Brian that relationships are a key part to our new life in Christ and should be a major focus of churches.

Heather made a comment about some people not liking some of the emerging churches forms because they are used to traditional churches. I think that is a very valid point and is the exact point of striving to be “contextual” and not striving to be “emergent.” In other words, if you are in Upstate New York and being a traditional or high church is what reaches people in that area because that is part of their context then, by all means, please have a church with traditional or high church services and liturgy. That is what it means to be contextual: to understand your context and adapt to that context, i.e. becoming all things to all men. I think it is perfectly valid to have many different churches that look very different from each other in form because they are all being pushed by their passion to reach the world that they are willing to reach out and meet their community where they are at. Christ did the same thing.

Sam, I think contextualization and being missional are also going to be big topics in our denomination…and I’m excited about that!!

I don’t believe that there is something as a “meta-culture.” I think there are similarities in cultures that we can all embrace, but I think a search for a meta-culture is as empty as the modernist’s search for a “metalanguage.”

Thanks for all your comments. Keep them coming!