I was looking through some of the comments from my post entitled "A Quiet longing after a busy weekend" and one particular comment caught my eye. "Sis" wrote:
...I feel compelled to join a group of people of faith that are standing up for injustice in the world, rather than trying to evangelize to the world; to look at our faith as one that is inclusive and welcoming regardless of who they are and what they've done; rather judging people through a narrow set of "right or wrong" lens...
When I read that comment again, the word "inclusive" jumped out at me. For me, that one word sums up the tension between the "traditional evangelical" ways of understanding the Christian faith and the so called "Emergent" views. (As an aside, I normally dislike "labels" especially in this type of dialogue, as I have always felt that labels carry with them assumptions and baggages that are not universally true nor generally helpful. I used those two terms here simply as a quick reference to try and give a rough sense of the two "camps" we are dealing with. )
It seems to me, much of the tension and debate between these two ways of looking at the Christian faith surrounds this question: "What do we mean when we say that the Christian faith is 'inclusive'"? Traditional Evangelicalism would answer by saying: "We are inclusive in that we strive to invite everyone, regardless of background to become Christians and to be baptized into the Church, and thus becoming a part of the family of God."
On the other hand, the "emergent" views may answer the same question by saying: "We believe the Christian faith is inclusive in that God is at work to bring redemption and blessing to a world that is broken, and everyone, regardless of their religious convictions can become a part of what God is doing."
(Again, I do not profess to speak for either "camps". These words are strictly my own)
So far, the way the church has dealt with this difference is to argue that there isn't one. The argument usually goes something like this: "It doesn't have to be an either-or situation. The church should be involved in BOTH evangelization and social action. Some brothers and sisters are more gifted for evangelism and some are more passionate about social justice. But we should be able to work hand in hand to help the church fulfill both mandates."
On the surface it looks like a workable solution. However, I am not sure if this attempt to "bridge the gap" sufficiently deals with the foundational questions that are being raised. Questions such as:
(1) What is the nature of the "Good News"? Is it simply to answer the question: "How does a person go to heaven after he/she dies?"
(2) Is the Gospel good news only for "Christians"? Or is it good news for the whole world? In other words, does one have to "become a Christian" to partake of this good news?
(3) Is becoming a part of God's "kingdom" the same thing as becoming a part of the "Christian religion"?
(4) Is it possible that God includes and engages people of other faiths, or even people with no religious alliances to partake in and contribute to the work of His Kingdom in redeeming and restoring all of creation?
These are a few of the questions that I had wrestled with for a number of years. Whenever I had an opportunity to talk about these issues, without exception I end up meeting others who say to me: "I've been struggling with the very same thing!" My sense is that until the church is willing to engage in dialogue and discussion surrounding these and other similar questions, it will fail to engage the passion of a new, "emerging" generation of believers.
More to follow....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
{On the other hand, the "emergent" views may answer the same question by saying: "We believe the Christian faith is inclusive in that God is at work to bring redemption and blessing to a world that is broken, and everyone, regardless of their religious convictions can become a part of what God is doing."}
Isn't this "regardless of their religious convictions can become a part of what God is doing" a 'dangerous' view. How about "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one come...." stated in the bible? In the name of inclusiveness, aren't we lost the real perspective of the biblical teachings?
Alfred: Please don't lose track of what's the essence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ - your Lord and Saviour!
Sincerely.
Dear Anonymous:
Thank you for your comment! The issues you raised are precisely the ones that many in the "emergent movement" are wrestling with. In response, let me offer a few words from that perspective:
The mention of other faiths or religions always becomes a lightning rod in these discussions because in our evangelical way of thinking, the first question that comes to mind is "Are we saying that people of other religions can go to heaven as well?" And that, for evangelicals, is where all dialogue ends. For them, the "essence of the Gospel" is "How does a person go to heaven after he dies." Of course we all acknowledge that the Gospel involves more than that: changed life, being a blessing to others, living in a renewed relationship with God, etc. But ULTIMATELY, the "evangelical" understanding of the Gospel message is anchored to the discussion on heaven and hell after we die.
However, for those in the emergent movement, the "essence" or "main thrust" of the Gospel is NOT about heaven after death. Rather, it is anchored on the concept of "The Kingdom of God" that is at work in the here and now. They do not deny the truth in Scriptures such as the one you quoted, where Jesus says "I am the Way...no one comes to the Father except through me." The centrality or uniquensss of Jesus in the Gospel is not in question. There is no Kingdom without Jesus. God's work of restoration and redemption for all creation is centered on Christ. The hope inherent in the Biblical story is built only on what Christ has done and continues to do. The key question that is raised by this emerging generation is: Perhaps the work of God's kingdom is more "inclusive" than what we think. Perhaps being a part of God's kingdom is not necessarily the same thing as being a part of the "Christian religion".
May be it is helpful to think about this from another perspective: As much as this discussion is a 'lightning rod', wasn't it just as much, if not even greater a 'lightning rod' in the Bible when it was suggested that gentiles could be a part of God's kingdom? There seems to be a pattern in the Biblical narrative: Throughout history, God has always had to stretch the minds of His people to get them to see that His "inclusiveess" is way wider than their understanding. He had to do it with the Israelites throughout the Old Testament. He had to do it with the church in the New Testament. He had to do it with Paul and Peter. Is there any reason to think that He does not have to do the same with us?
Again, just some food for thought. As always, thank you for reading and taking the time to comment! Blessings!
Dear A:
I guess you have read McLaren's " A New Kind of Christian" and "A Generous Orthodoxy". Seems like your thinking is along those lines and you will find support there!
Blessings.
Post a Comment