Evidently I’m still thinking about this. EC is charged with weakness two:
2. It does not face the concept of sin.
One rarely comes across personal sin in emerging church. Steve Chalke is interviewed by Mclaren and they both agree that Jesus’ message is the Kingdom of God and not trusting in Christ’s death for salvation. ‘Original goodness as well as original sin need to be emphasised,’ they say. The mood of the church is not the courtroom needing a verdict but the pub having a chat. No it is not. Nail the sinner to the wall. “Are you going to leave this place tonight with or without Christ?” This ‘Christianity’ is not even liberalism. The plot line of the Bible is redemption accomplished and applied. That ought to produce electricity and radicalism.
Off the cuff… if there’s no personal sin in EC, isn’t that a good thing? Wow, complete sanctification! No, wait – EC is about action, we don’t just talk about sin, we actually get out and do it. No wait, maybe that’s not what he’s getting at either.
Maybe he’s just looking in the wrong places. When I look at EC, I find people who actually aren’t afraid to talk about their sin so much… not because it doesn’t matter but because there’s less judgementalism in response. It’s talked about as something to overcome, something for which the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit are available to overcome with. In some of the traditional and charismatic churches, I found sin wasn’t talked about either — unless it was somebody else’s sin. It’s talked about to condemn it, to the point where if you’ve got some sin, you wouldn’t dare speak up because even if Jesus somehow found a way to forgive you, the congregation wouldn’t. In EC, I hope sin is talked about in a gracious way because it’s a disease and we’re all infected — but we have lots of antidote available, and we want to share.
Oh, and “Nail the sinner to the wall”? I thought Jesus got nailed to a tree so we might avoid that little eventuality.
“EC is about action, we don’t just talk about sin, we actually get out and do it.”
That is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a while… thanks!
I think there is much more of a grace oriented, journey and process of sanctification concept in most of the “emerging” arenas as far as I have seen. There is probably a reaction going on against legalistic, sin-repent, sin-repent, sin-repent kind of mentalities and guilt-based theologies of life. These things are extremely unhealthy and are perhaps being seen for what they are for the first time by many people who’ve stepped out of their old ecclesiastical settings. So, most likely, yes, people are probably seeing a marked theological and practical shift in the notion of “personal sin” and what it means as well as how it’s handled. Here’s to not going back out of fear. Let us move forward.
I’ve heard it said that humility is the one thing that once you realize you have it, you don’t. Likewise, judgmentalism is becoming the one thing that once you claim to be without it, you have it. The ones who declare themselves not to have it are pretty quick to point out those of us who they say do.
I don’t think it is so much that the EC is light on ” Sin “. We have
grown beyond the ” Sin List “. I think that sin is any separation
from God. So much of the church tend to focus on the personal aspect
of sin. But couldn’t program oriented, just doing things in our own
power and effort outside of him…be seen as sin. But lets join in
this mysterious journey abiding in Jesus as co-partners in this
process re-creation, redemption of all God’s creation…people, the
environment, social justice and the balance of wealth. I realize I’m
always going to be a sinner, screw up from time to time and may get
it right 3% of time if I’m lucky. But I have faith he can work with
that and many of my friends who have embarked on this journey.
Aren’t sinners just sort of Saints that fall down from time to time
…but just get up and keep going…allow God’s grace to dust us off.
I think that the ec is more willing as well to move beyond the tired formulations of personal sin and address the issues of systemic sin. It seems to me that part of the interest in issues such as social justice or environmentalism is the recognition of a sinful system, a willingness to own one’s participation in that system, and a desire to bring the Kingdom of God to bear on it.
He means we don’t whip out our can of sin repellent enough and spray everybody down with it.
Nevermind the toxic fumes we’re spraying in peoples’ eyes, noses and mouths. REPENT! Here’s some
sin repellent. WEAR IT! SPRAY IT! What, your eyes feel like they are on fire? GOUGE THEM OUT!
I’m not sure I’m totally comfortable with the idea of replacing “personal sin” with “systemic sin” — while I agree that there are systemic things that are quite sinful, I’d be very wary of excusing myself from personal responsibility for my own actions and blaming it on my upbringing or environment. That sounds a little too much like the “I’m a victim so nothing is my fault” mentality that ran rampant in the 1990’s.
How do we love sinners while not condoning sin? Well, I suspect the first step would be to get out of our comfortable IC or EC clusters and actually become friends with people who don’t believe the same as us. And as a prerequisite, we might choose to start hating our own sin enough to do something about it.
Or am I misinterpreting some of the comments here? If so, I apologize if I came across too strong.
I don’t think it’s either/or. I think we need to own up to our personal sins, including participation in systemic sin, and work to change them both. The western Christian formulations of sin have typically focused almost exclusively on the former, not even acknowledging the latter. There’s a mistaken (imho) belief that if we each individually get our crap together then all will be well. But it’s not enough unless we address the underlying structures that are also sinful.
Scott B,
YES! That’s a balance that I think is probably more biblically sound than just focusing on either option to the excluion of the other. Well said.
Calling pet-peeve issues in society “systemic sin” is really nothing new. We had a system in this country where distillers profited off of drugs that ruined families and led to wife-beating, so churches were a big factor in instituting prohibition. From this discussion, it sounds like the EC is simply being a mirror-image of the “religious right,” telling people that they are sinners if they don’t share your beliefs about environmentalism or the balance of wealth. It’ll be interesting to see how far that method carries the Gospel.
Opie said, “It’ll be interesting to see how far that method carries the Gospel.”
Opie, my question for you would be how you are defining the Gospel. If your gospel is primarily a message about how to get into heaven when you die, you’re going to have a different perspective than if your gospel is, “The Kingdom of God is among you.” My perspective is that Jesus talked a whole lot about the latter and very little about the former. And I don’t think it’s so much defining a particular set of beliefs to which everyone must subscribe, but I would say that there are some big issues, which I think Brother Maynard has illustrated quite nicely, that are things we should at least be talking about from the perspective of sinful structures.
Brother Maynard: There are a number of issues here we could argue about but I think it’s more productive to cut to the chase. Let me run something past you.
I’ll put some cards on the table: I am, politically, a pretty conservative person, and I sense that you are basically liberal. I think there are some ways people like you and I could team up to improve the church. Rather than react to the conservative bias in the Gospel preached in right-wing churches by offering an alternative “emerging” church that preaches a left-wing one, why don’t we join forces, act as a check on each other, and preach a gospel pure of political taint?
Here’s why I think this is important: in an increasingly secular society, lots of people are forming their political opinions before they form any religious ones at all. When that happens, the quickest way you can turn someone off to the gospel is to give them the feeling that it’s based on political ideas they don’t share. In a united effort, Christians like you and I could warn each other of the unconscious human biases we insert into the church’s message, and avoid scaring away people from both ends of the spectrum. What do you think?
ScottB: The Gospel is about both what happens in this life and in the next. I can’t relate to the false choice you seem to be giving me, but if I’ve misunderstood something, re-state it for me and we can talk. One thing I do not deal in is the phrase “your gospel.” I emphatically disagree with Brian McLaren that my story is part of the Gospel. I have no Gospel whatsover, but Jesus does.
Opie, do you think the gospel has political dimensions? I’m just curious. I find it interesting that, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you define things like taking care of the poor and being responsible stewards of creation as left-wing concerns. If people are not serving the poor, shouldn’t the gospel challenge that position regardless of political conviction?
I think you’re reading something into my question that I’m not providing. My thought is specifically that Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom, something with political, social, and eternal dimensions. The gospel incorporates all of these concerns. When I said “your gospel,” I meant more accurately “your interpretation of the gospel.” The point I’m getting at is that if you interpret the gospel as having social dimensions, then your approach to sin is probably different than if you interpret the gospel as primarily a message related to eternal destiny.
Oooh, I love it when people ask about my opinions, because I find myself so fascinating. ;)
First, I don’t see the gospel as being political. Social, yes, spiritual yes, but Jesus had his chance to be political and took a pass on it.
Second, I fully agree that we are called to help the poor and to be custodians of the environment. What I think we have to be careful of is using portraying this call as an endorsement of any political ideology. To use an example close by, look at Brother Maynard’s use of the phrase “balance of wealth.” I can tell you that in the language of a conservative, that particular wording is going to conjure visions of forced wealth redistribution, and it’s going to interfere with her consideration of the gospel. I’m not even sure Brother Maynard meant it that way, which is why in my earlier post today I chose to skip the political debate. But in spreading the gospel, I think that in this age and society, we need to be sensitive as to the possible political misinterpretations that could result from how we word these things. It’s more important to me that a liberal become a Christian than become a conservative. If I communicate the gospel with a wording that becomes a stumbling block to a liberal, I want to know. Someone like Brother Maynard (or maybe you) could be valuable in letting me know that, and maybe I could provide the same favor in the opposite direction.
Good thoughts. I think I’d argue the point that Jesus wasn’t political, but then again I have a fascination with Yoder’s Politics of Jesus, so I may be defining the word differently than you. I do think that he set out to create a social community that would stand in contrast and opposition to the political powers of his day, but he did so in such a way that it would be hard to define it in the terms that we commonly use for “political” in our current society. As to your other thoughts, well said. I do think that there are elements of the gospel that could be stumbling blocks to people at both ends of the political spectrum, but (and this is what I hear you saying) if that is to happen it should be on the merits of the gospel itself and not on our presentation of it in service to any one ideology. Fair?
Opie,
Backing up a few posts, I think this is maybe the first time I’ve actually been called a liberal. Politically speaking, I’m actually more conservative. In saying that though, do recognize that I’m in Canada and the liberal/conservative lines aren’t in quite the same place on the continuum as where they are in the USA. Still, I understand why I might come across that way, particularly in this thread. The truth is, while in general I still cling to conservative ideals, I have a few more liberal ideas, but they’re basically confined to a few areas.
I agree that it’s more helpful for people from different political persuasions to come together around the gospel and try to understand how each of their political views are influenced by the gospel, and how the gospel sh/could be expressed through their political affiliations. In truth, I’m not sure I can separate my views into political or apolitical ones… so in some ways, the gospel might always come through with some kind of political “taint.” I’ll think about that one, and watch the conversation unfold further.
Is the gospel political? Was Jesus? Hmmm, I think yes — and no. Jesus avoided political comment when he said, “Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s.” A bit later on the same subject, he told Pilate, “Why, yes, I am a king — but not the kind you think.” I imagine Jesus answering the question by drawing a line on the table over which the conversation is taking place, and circling his hand above the line, palm down, while he explained the weakness in the question, and why the answer doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means. Basically he’s political but on an entirely different plane.
Politics and the gospel. I don’t want to oversimplify, but I tend to wonder if one reason why social programs to care for the poor exist and are government funded is because these tasks aren’t being done adequately by the church. “Balance of wealth” was ScottB’s phrase, not mine, though I understand what he means. There’s no virtue in forced wealth redistribution… Jesus wants us to share without being forced. Societal greed kicks in though, and we participate in it while hoarding “our” wealth.
One item that may require caution in how things are phrased or subjects reacted to, in a general sense the pomergent doesn’t want to see a rejection of one’s personal participation in corporate or societal sins (to bring us back to that item).
Good thoughts here in this thread – I think ScottB’s summary of what Opie was getting at is a good one… sure, people are going to stumble; let them. But make sure they’re stumbling on the gospel and not on whatever we’re adding to it.
It was a former pastor of our church who convinced me, by example, to separate one’s political views from one’s Christian witness. Once, when I was thanking him for this, he told me a funny story:
He was paying a visit to the home of an elderly man who had been a member for years. He said to the man, “I wouldn’t talk about these things at church, but I sense that you, like me, are on the conservative side of politics. Am I right?”
The old man looked him right in the eye, dead serious, and said, “Pastor Herb, the only person more conservative than me is God!”