Recently Moody Press released Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. The “Emergent Church” (EC) is a name given to a loosely knit “group” of Christians who see the church emerging out of its tryst with modernism and emerging into and beyond the post-modern era. Because of its very post-modern way of thinking/being, definitions become nebulous. If you want to learn more, read the book. I highly recommend it.
Salvation and Eternal Life
My thoughts today relate to one aspect of emergent thinking: salvation and eternal life. As is true with much in the EC, they tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
Listen to what one EC leader, Spencer Brooks, says about salvation. “I am discovering to my wonder, joy, and amazement that I have mistakenly placed the emphasis of the good news on the eternal. In the Gospels . . . people could become a part of the Kingdom of God . . . not a heavenly dwelling but the place where God is King.”
Let that quote percolate in your mind while we read what another EC leader, Brian McLaren, shares about the kingdom versus salvation. He claims that the stuff of our evangelistic tracts—“God’s grace, God’s forgiveness . . . the free gift of salvation”—is, at best, only a “footnote to a gospel that is much richer, grander, and more alive, a gospel that calls you to become a disciple and to disciple others, in authentic community, for the good of the world.”
Come Let Us Dialogue Together
I could dissect these quotes (excuse me, in the EC, people don’t dissect, they dialogue and converse—so I could converse about these quotes) from many perspectives. However, given my passion for church history and given the EC’s hatred for modernity, here’s the point. The EC would have us believe that the church’s focus on salvation as something you get in the future rather than as something you are now is a result of Enlightenment modernism.
I have news for them . . . long before the Enlightenment, Christians focused on both—salvation as a future gift and as a present reality. Again, I could share much more about this both/and focus. But since the EC denigrates the focus on salvation-equals-eternal life, and since they claim this is a thoroughly modern facet of Christianity (and, therefore, evil to its core—bad, really, really bad), dialogue with me as we briefly focus on their historical fallacy.
Historical Fallacy
As many of you know, I have studied church history for over a quarter century. The church fathers, the desert mothers, the medieval scholastics and the medieval mystics, the Reformers and the Counter-Reformers, men and women, black and white and brown all lived today in light of tomorrow. They all emphasized salvation as the future hope that sustains us now. Yes, the Kingdom had already broken in. Yes, they wanted to live differently now. But, they only survived and thrived because they remembered the future—salvation as their future, eternal hope.
Writing Sacred Friendships: Listening to the Voices of Feminine Soul Care-Givers and Spiritual Directors, my co-author, Susan Ellis, and I have over 1,000 pages of research notes. More than 1/3 of those pages highlight salvation as our future, eternal, heavenly hope. Now, it is possible, I suppose, that all of these godly women, living pre-Enlightenment, could have all gotten it wrong all the time. But that’s not really the point. The EC folks insist that salvation as eternal life later and not only or primarily as eternal life now, is modern. That is, it started in the 1700s with the Enlightenment.
Hmm. Someone should tell the female martyrs of the first and second centuries, like Perpetua, that they were impacted by a movement that did not start for another 1,500 years! Someone should tell the desert mothers of the second through fourth centuries that they were influenced by a movement that did not start for another 1,300 years! Someone should tell the women of the Reformation that they were infected by a movement that did not start for another 100 years!
Before we contextualize the nature of these women’s eternal hope, dialogue with me about another group of historical believers who also focused on salvation as eternal hope. Many of you know that I co-authored with my African American friend, Karole Edwards, Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction. Granted, some of these African American believers lived after the Enlightenment (though some lived before it). However, historically there is no evidence that enslaved African American Christians had any exposure to Enlightenment thinking. But guess what? These non-Enlightenment African American believers highlighted salvation as a future eternal hope.
Situational Pomposity
Now, let’s contextualize this motif of salvation as future eternal hope. In letter after letter, in journal entry after journal entry, in martyrdom report after report, in repeated conversion narratives, in repeated slave narratives—in other words—everywhere, suffering women and African Americans looked to their future eternal salvation as their only hope to survive and be sustained through the horrible abuse they were enduring.
Now, here’s the point. The leadership of the Emergent Church is predominantly lily white, upper class, affluent, well-to-do, country-club-like, and male. In terms of their experience of life, they have had it made in the shade. They have lived the good life. So, it is so easy for them to say, “Thinking about salvation as future eternal life is selfish, shallow, and modern!”
Well, historically it is hardly modern.
And personally, experientially—it is hardly shallow.
Instead, for the oppressed, the suffering, and the persecuted it is pre-modern and it is deep. It reaches from before the dawn of time into time to give all those who are currently oppressed a future hope so they can draw a line in the sand of retreat, so they can survive, and, yes, through Christ’s grace, so they can thrive.
Biblical Sanity
Eternal life for the great masses of persecuted and suffering Christians has always been both/and. It has always been salvation later and the strength to live for Christ now in light of the future hope.
Isn’t it fascinating that this emergent idea of salvation only as a now thing did not emerge from an oppressed people. It is easy for those living a life of ease to say that “the free gift of salvation” is only “a footnote to a gospel that is much richer.” Oh yeah? Take some time to read the plethora of primary sources where pre-modern, non-Enlightenment Christians clung to the biblical view of salvation as an eternal future that gives hope for today.
So perhaps when you mix one part life-of-ease and one part historical-inaccuracy (and one part diminishing-original-sin . . . but that’s a blog for another day) you bake a fluffy cake that claims it is sinfully modern and shallow to emphasize the Gospel as focusing on eternal salvation later. But let the yeast of suffering and history infiltrate that mix, and your cake crumbles.
Applying Church History to Ministry
What has motivated my twenty-five-year study of church history? My passion for relating truth to life. I want to learn from that great cloud of witnesses how they applied God’s truth to human relationships.
Guess what? With suffering people 100% of the time soul physicians helped them to find healing hope by looking candidly at misery now in light of a future where there will be no more tears.
The EC in all things claims to want to be relevant. Relevance has been elevated by the EC to God-like status.
Okay, someone explain to me how in the world it is relevant to suffering people to jettison an other-worldly, future-worldly perspective?
The EC also claims that in all things they want to express concern for the least of these. In fact, they correctly define one aspect of kingdom living as active compassion on the least of these.
Okay, someone explain to me how in the world it is compassionate when the “most of these” (the affluent) jettison an other-worldly, future-worldly perspective that for 2,000 years has been the only perspective which has brought sustaining comfort and healing hope to “the least of these”?
Truth Really Does Matter
You see, truth really does matter. Historical truth matters. Biblical truth matters. I have no qualms with the EC folks reminding me that salvation ought to impact how I live today. I agree 100%.
But I have big problems with anyone telling me, and telling suffering Christians that our future salvation, our eternal life are the crumbs off the table. I’m sorry, but those “crumbs” have nourished hurting hearts and hungry souls since the Cross.
Take away “God’s grace, God’s forgiveness, and the free gift of salvation” and you rob and abuse every sinner who ever lived—which is every person who ever lived except our Savior—the one who promised us eternal life for now and for forever.
Dr. K,
You’re right that salvation is and always has been both about a future gift and a present reality. Having spent some time with Brian McLauren personnally, I think he would agree with that assesment.
I think the Emergent Church is arising because some, not all, churches and para-church organizations have focussed exclusively on the future gift and ignored the present reality. Doing so presents a rather small God, because it ignores what God is doing right here and now. When I was in college I went on a mission trip with Campus Crusade for Christ to Panama City Beach in Florida. For an entire week the only work we did was to talk to people on the beach and try to share with them a pamphlet with four spiritual laws on it. There’s nothing wrong with this per se, however there is a danger of collapsing the entire Bible into those four laws, and believing that it comprises the whole of Christianity. God is so much bigger than we, in our finite minds, can comprehend. That why we need mystery in our worship. We may know a lot, but we also come to realize that there’s a lot that we don’t know, and that’s okay. We can have faith and trust God even when we don’t understand.
Another trap we can fall into is the idea that salvation is a kind of ‘eternal fire insurance’ or simply a way of getting into Heaven – as if God’s work is done once we’re there. The Book of Revelation ends with a new heaven and a new earth being created, for the former had passed away. A new Jerusalem came down, and a voice cried out that the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with him. They will be his people, and God himself wil be with them and be their God (Rev 21:1-3). God is in the business of saving and redeeming the whole of creation, to restore that which had gone awry. Again we can’t comprehend this fully, but we can trust.
To be fair I have encountered some who do focus on the present reality at the expense of the future gift. I have seen this more often in mainline protestants, but not among all of them. I probably don’t have to expound on this line of thinking too much, except to say that what I’ve encountered are churches who in their quest to be relevant, have lost all of their relevance, because their not looking at the eternal. Where else are you going to draw your strength and inspiration from?
I believe the Emergent Church is drawing from both of these extremes. From one side Christians are realizing that you can’t wrap everything up with a neat bow and say this is God. From the other there is a hunger for spirituality that draws us towards the eternal. Ironically I’ve seen these two extremes come together best in an Eastern Orthodox Church. From their culture they didn’t have an enlightenment / post-enlightenment / modern / post-modern with which to draw these distinctions, and so they all work together beautifully.
So just as much as the Emergent Church is something coming out of our cultural shift, it’s also something that’s returning to our roots, to the early, orthodox ways of thinking and worshipping. We’ve just given a new name to it. Personally I’m really excited about what’s coming as it draws us closer to our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.
Thank you Dr K for sharing your perspective on the EC movement. I believe that all of the research, study, and work you have done lends itself to challenge the rest of us to “think wisely” (as some great professor I know would say).
I consider myself to be a bit of an Emergent… Post-Modern… something-or-other. While I do fit into the category of being white, living in one of the wealthiest counties in the entire world, and never having had to really survive political or racial oppression, my perspective is from one who grew up in a religious oppression of sorts.
I gather from reading and listening to these various EC thinkers that they share similar backgrounds to mine. So a majority of their thinking has more to do with overcoming religious, stereotypical, and misguided presented “truths” than undoing all of the history of the church. My understanding is that the intent of this “movement” has nothing to do with tearing down the understandings and activities of the modern church, but saying to the current Christian community – look, the world isn’t what it was 50 years ago. Culture has changed. Society has changed. We can’t do “business as usual.” It’s not that they/we “hate modernity”, but rather that the world itself is no longer modern and therefore the church shouldn’t be trying to reach people in out-dated ways. I don’t hate myself or my wife for using rattles to get the attention of my son as a baby – but he is 5 years old now and using a rattle isn’t appropriate. Now it’s soccer balls, legos, and nickjr.com! It isn’t about which is right – the rattle or the lego?! It has more to do with my relationship with my son! My perspective of postmodernism is that this is an attempt by Christian leaders to discover what we’re supposed to use after the baby rattle to appropriately relate to the changing, growing world. That may require re-thinking our theology and belief systems a bit, but that shouldn’t be viewed as an evil thing.
Using a futuristic “hope of salvation” perspective by those oppressed in the past doesn’t really fly when those doing the oppressing also had the same futuristic “hope of salvation” model! Christians were just as responsible for their involvement and endorsement of slavery as anyone – apparently even using the Bible as their justification. I wonder if the Christian slave owners sounded much like those who are now struggling with Biblical interpretation and understanding that is being presented by the EC-ers?! I wonder if they too defended the years and years of historical understanding about slavery? I wonder if the “liberal” Christians who opposed slavery were treated with as much skepticism and disdain?
I do not consider the faith of those who put their hope in the freedoms of Christ that they could not experience in the present (ie – due to slavery) to be “evil” or invalid as expressed in this blog – nor have I interpreted anything I’ve read or heard indicating they share that same perspective… what I do hear is that perhaps we have been missing the point in some areas of our faith and understanding of God’s Word in relationship to experiencing it and expressing it. Since the greatest thought we could ever have in the best moment of our best day about God is 15.5 billion light years short of who God actually is – perhaps we should be more willing to examine why we believe what we say we believe and be open to God continuing to reveal more of who He is to those He loves so dearly! (loosely translated and statistically updated version of a quote by Mark Batterson, Pastor of NCC – see Isaiah 55:8-9 and http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/earliest_galaxy_020308.htm)
In a recent podcast I listened to on “Spiritual Formation in the Way of Christ, esteemed author Dallas Willard says, “The central point of the Gospel is not grace. I hope that puts a kink in your thinking. For if we’d never sinned, we would still need (to experience) God’s grace.” I would have to agree. I experience moments of God’s grace that have nothing to do with forgiveness of sin. So why then do I place such emphasis on the Gospel equaling a futuristic “hope of salvation” – as something that is reflective of being forgiven (getting to heaven), instead of placing emphasis on the grace of God in it’s entirety that is experienced here and now, and then forgiveness of sin as a subset of His “Amazing Grace?” Also, Brian McLaren first talks about salvation versus the Kingdom – but then goes on to say, “perhaps it isn’t about one or the other, but about how similar they actually are.” (podcast, Ministry in a Post-Modern Context). From this I gather that Brian is less concerned with which side is “right” and more with our approach and assumptions in developing theology.
Just recognizing that the current, typical, articulated version of the Gospel being communicated hasn’t been greatly effective in actually moving “Christians” to Love God and Love Others like Christ is enough proof for me to be re-examining God’s heartbeat throughout the Bible. Personally, this is leading me to a place where I feel closer to my Father, my heart resonating more with His heart towards His creation, and awakening passions that I hope will impact the world for the benefit of the Kingdom of God. So, from my own experience so far – I’d say the EC community has been more beneficial to my walk with Father over the past year than the historical church has been for the other 32 years of my life.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too hasty to lump the beliefs or statements of a few onto all of those who happen to be walking down the same highway. This rings of what Dr K blogged recently about Rev Wright::
My outrage is directed primarily toward one specific claim in Wright’s speech to the National Press Club—that his fiery denunciations of white America and his radical accusations against the American government (which Barack Obama disavows) are par for the course for the typical African American church, and that historically, the African American pulpit has always spewed such vitriolic, hateful, and angry messages.
Just as Rev Wright’s claim lumped all African American churches into the paradigm of his own lens, so I suggest we all keep from doing the same when it comes to those who are exploring other perspectives on God and His Word.
Finally, I would also like to encourage us all to consider viewing blogs and conversations that may ruffle our feathers to be of the utmost importance! For it is by these very words that we either become more convinced of our beliefs or question them – demanding further reflection, study, and prayer – both of which are beneficial to the spiritual formation of the believer! I applaud Dr Kellemen for connecting his passion for church history with the current conversations taking place! It has caused me to continue thinking!
I must admit, I have yet to come across an author or speaker I agree with 100% of the time – including myself. Imagine that.