The Organ of Meaning

As I read and learn more and more about the history of the basic branches of the Protestant church I find that the pattern of too-hard - too-soft - just-right in almost every run down of their distinctives and doctrines. There are issues of the “real presence” in communion, baptism (both child and believer’s), church political structure and its interaction with the secular politics, defense of the doctrines (or dogmas), the interpretation of the Bible, the nature of God, the nature of salvation and election… I find truth and different kinds of “missing it” in all of them.

Am I Goldilocks with my theology? Will I find the high Papa Church always too big, and hot but with the right firmness? Will the Mama church always be too soft and cold, but the right size? And the infantile church “just right”? And will I find myself thrown out of the house altogether?

Maybe the metaphor of the story breaks down around here - finding the extremes too much but comfort somewhere in the middle. It’s as if I’m looking for the medium sized, hard and cold… and not all of them go with the same system (Papa, Mama, Baby)…

Is it that I just find myself uncomfortable in every house but still welcomed… as if the bears welcomed Miss Locks into their home to stay.

[1/19/08]

This question and prayer came after reading a portion of the history of the Protestant Reformation where Luther actually had someone executed for preaching a differing understanding of baptism than himself…

Is there an example of anyone in the scriptures who died because of bad doctrine on par with a bad understanding of baptism (or less)? I know not of even one! For pride; for lack of pursuit of God; for disobedience and dishonor of God; for a sin in action or condition that is not confessed? Yes, yes, yes, yes. For ignoring God’s Word - yes. For blasphemy - yes. For heretical action - yes. For heretical words - none that I know of. Killing for worldview, for belief or for understandings does not fall in line with any definition of biblical - then, how can any judgment be leveled against a heretic or theological opponent?! For, all righteous judgment is a judgment that can (at some degree) be taken to judgment unto death… and indeed it will on that great and terrible day.

[1/10/08]

Last night I was catching up on my feed reader and came across a link to this humorous post called You Might Be Emerging If…

The post is quite funny, and to be honest it doesn’t bring up a contention with the Emergent movement within the church as much as people’s “need” to draw lines and create camps of Christian (and other) thought.

This is the portion that bothered me the most:

You use these words in a positive way:

Missional, Liquid/Aqua, Ancient-Future, Post ___________, Jesus, Community, Derrida, Liturgy, Global, Creed, Experience, Social Justice, Conversation, Spiritual, Ritual, Beauty, Art, Blog, Ooze, Journey, Discussion, Open, Random, Culture, Technology

You use these words in a negative way:

Foundationalism, Absolute Truth, Church Growth, D.A. Carson, Calvinism, Modernism, Fundamentalist, Bush, Seeker Sensitive, Preaching, Pulpit, Doctrine, Innerancy, Power, Enlightenment, Rationalism, Meta-narratives, Universal, Judgmental

As I look through this list of words I identify positively with a number of them on both lists, and this is what kills me. The Emergent and anti-Emergent movements like to cast a lot of these things as if they were mutually exclusive, and they (quite simply) are not. And to be honest, there are some that I’m not even sure what they mean… (Ancient-Future, Foundationalism or Ooze anyone?)

The list of ones that I use in a primarily positive way are:

Missional, Liquid, Jesus, Community, Global, Creed, Experience, Social Justice, Conversation, Spiritual, Ritual, Beauty, Art, Blog, Journey, Discussion, Open, Random, Culture, Technology, Absolute Truth, Church Growth, Calvinism, Modernism, Seeker Sensitive, Preaching, Doctrine, Inerrancy, Power, Enlightenment, Rationalism, Meta-narratives and Universal.

What I don’t understand are what it is about lists like this that make people feel that the things on them need to be mutually-exclusive. In my understanding of the world at-large there are constantly beliefs and truths that seem to be exclusive and irreconcilable, but they often are. While I probably fall into a category that some would call Fundamentalist, it doesn’t mean that I don’t value people’s stories, experiences and artistic and subjective expressions of faith that are personal. While I lean towards Calvinism, I am convinced that it does not have to be something that is off-putting to people struggling with personal meaning and direction as we all perceive life as being self-directed and therefore find a need for personal meaning to our actions and our beliefs.

We must strive more towards unity in the worship of Christ regardless of it’s expression. Where I will largely credit the Emergent Movement (I don’t really hate it) is that they seem to strive to understand others’ perspectives moreso than Christians who are Modernist, Calvinist and Fundamentalist… and that moves toward unity. Our unity needs to be in Christ, not our church or our doctrine, but Christ himself.

Charles Spurgeon, the Puritan Baptist Mega-Church pastor from the 19th century had it right when he said that we all have fellowship and communion in the sacrifice and body of Christ - that we are united (even when we don’t like it) by our common love and reverence for Jesus Christ.