If this article is correct, and I hope it is, we may be witnessing the transformation of American Christianity from a Blue Meme mythic worldview toward an Orange Meme rational worldview. In Spiral talk, the jump from first tier to second tier (Green to Yellow) is generally considered the hardest transformative move, but I think that the jump from Blue to Orange is pretty tough as well.
When moving from Blue to Orange, an entity is essentially moving from pre-rational to rational, and this is no small achievement. This is essentially the philosophical Enlightenment, but unfortunately, very little of Christianity has made that leap. Now that may be changing, if this article is to be believed. The impact of such a change will affect gay rights, environmentalism, and a whole range of other issues.
Contra the New Atheists, this is to be supported and encouraged, not ridiculed.
America's 'Emerging Church:' Will a New Post-Evangelical Christianity Reflect More Tolerant Views?
In the last half of the 20th century, Evangelicalism swept the American religious scene.
This period of American religious history will go down as the age of Billy Graham. He may have been light on theological prowess, but he was a spell-binding preacher and an organizational genius.
His call to Christ was supported by the establishment of new colleges, new seminaries, parochial schools, home schooling, new publishing companies, new magazines, radio and television networks, and new ministries such as Campus Crusade, World Vision, Youth for Christ, and Pioneer Boys and Girls.
Evangelicalism changed the face of America. Predictably the change is not permanent and the next phase is setting in.
Church historians and sociologists are now talking about post-Evangelicalism. The most popular buzz term is the emerging church. Change is constant and the American religious scene is not static.
Talk about the emerging church is appearing in significant journals and periodicals. To keep up with what is happening, I spend a lot of time reading. I have my favorite publications. I read Christian Century, Context, and Christianity Today to name three.
I also read an array of other periodicals that represent a broad diversity of perspectives. The emerging church is becoming a common topic.
Scot McKnight, Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University, has been studying the phenomenon that is pervasive, but as yet little noticed by the general public. He calls the change ironic.
This new breed of Christian is a product of Evangelicalism and appears to be carrying on the Evangelical tradition; but serious scholars are asking "Is this a subsection of Evangelicalism or is it something quite different?"
The developing ironic faith takes the believer to a fork in the road. Will the believer abandon the Christian faith altogether or will the believer redefine the meaning of being a Christian?
Dr. McKnight identifies eight characteristics of the emerging church. In condensed form I am sharing his observations:
First, emergents cannot accept the idea of Bible inerrancy. Verbal inerrancy will not stand modern critical examination in the study of languages. To assign fixed inerrancy to ancient documents written in the Hebrew and Greek used thousands of years ago stretches credibility.
Second, emergents have come to believe that the gospel that they have been taught is a caricature of the message of Jesus, rather than the real thing. Increasingly they are putting other Biblical writings in the background and have shown increasing interest in what Jesus said and did.
They ask "If we are followers of Jesus, why do we not live and preach his message?" In short, they are looking for a much more radical Christianity than they have found in the Evangelical (and mainline) churches.
Third, exposure to science in public education, universities and personal studies has led emergents to disown the conclusion that when the Bible and science appear to collide, science must take a back seat to the Bible.
In this conflict, emergents are not abandoning the Bible, but are raising critical questions about the Bible's nature and content. This new bread of Christian remains quite committed to the Bible but they are very open to new ideas and understandings.
Fourth, emergents have become disillusioned by the clay feet of church leadership. It is not just the Jim Bakkers and the Jimmy Swaggarts, but the rank and file of church leadership.
Emergents compare what Jesus had in mind and what is going on in churches, and they see a need to start over. They want a fresh start with serious intent to follow Jesus.
Fifth, our public schools and our nation in general are insisting that we be truly multicultural. The churches' teaching, that people not like us, are doomed, is not acceptable to emergents. They want a much broader definition of what it means to be accepted in the family of God.
Sixth, emergents are insisting that God be understood as totally gracious and loving. The angry, vengeful God that is sometime presented in both Old and New Testaments is not acceptable.
Seventh, acceptance of homosexuals in the family of God is common. Being pro-gay or anti-gay is not the issue. Emergents recognize that sexuality is far more complex than is generally recognized. To live in harmony with gay and lesbian friends and family members is a part of the emergent's perspective.
Eighth, echoing the first named characteristic, emergents recognize the role that language plays in their understanding and practice of the Christian Faith. Theology is language bound. Language is a limited tool of communication.
If theology is language bound, it is also culturally shaped. To be rigidly exclusive does not make sense to emergent Christians.
In writing about the people who are leading the emerging church, I have served as a reporter. I want my readers to be aware of what is happening.
20 comments:
You seem rather eager for this "movement" in modern Christianity to come to fruition. I think, however you will be disappointed. There are many layers to Christianity but when it comes down to brass tacks the Bible is pretty clear on most social issues. When people really begin to ask themselves the difficult questions, they tend to move away from these "fad" churches. Many forsake the faith alltogether, but a few move toward the more fundamental and traditional belief systems.
I am optimistic, Elizabeth,
Evolution applies to culture as well as biology, and American culture, including Christianity, is evolving. This will mean that more and more Christians adopt a rational worldview, to replace the pre-rational view so many now hold. It's inevitable.
Sure, some will regress to more fundamentalist positions, but more will advance to more rational positions. This is not a fad - it is the future.
Peace,
Bill
I’m hardly a believer when it comes to evolution. People will be what the human race has always been, hopelessly flawed. There is more evidence to support that than ever, in fact we are practically devolving. You say that in the future man will put aside irrational for rational, but what specifically is irrational about God. What is irrational about having some sort of standards in a world full of very flawed people? You cannot deny that we as humans do some very bad things to one another. Why not have guidelines, truths, have rules if you will, to live by? I can think of no better author of fundamental law then a supreme being. We as humans hardly qualify. Man is not rational and never will be. There is no evidence to support the thought. We must go to a higher source for rationality, for decency, for truth, otherwise we are lost.
I find it curious that one who believes we're so flawed that we need religion to tell us how to behave trusts that we're not too flawed to develop "scripture" and religion that adequately represent Ultimate Reality or God, and that we're not too flawed to reliably choose the right religion to embrace out of all those available.
Nagarjuna,
I scanned over your blog. I find your resistance to the idea of absolute evil naive at best, at worst, a willing blindness to reality. We are flawed; there cannot be a denial of this fact. Must I list example after example illustrating the existence of evil or wrongness, hate, selfishness, lack of empathy? You know it is true. Why do people resist absolutes? Is it because we are so afraid to see the flaws within ourselves?
I do not believe that “scripture” was developed for purposes of the personal gain of a few, but rather, I have faith that God inspired them for men to write so that we may live knowing that there is truth. We may exist with the certainty, solidity, and most of all the security that there are reasons for the horrors that face much of humanity even at this very moment.
This is a twofold issue. Some of it is faith but much of is merely common sense.
Elizabeth--
I don't deny the existence of evil defined as wrongdoing that causes needless harm or suffering. But I'm far from convinced that we need the Bible to tell us what is wrong and to threaten us with eternal torture for doing wrong, or that the Bible and Christianity are more authoritative arbiters of wrongdoing than are any other sacred texts and religions.
And it is not "willful blindness" but the reasonableness with which nature (or God) blesses me that has me, again, asking why I should take on faith that we admittedly flawed human beings should trust our judgment enough to dogmatically declare one sacred text and religion true and all the others false. And if, as you admit, you do this on "faith," and faith is, by definition, unproven belief rather than certain knowledge, then you do not do so on the basis of the "certainty," "solidity," and "security" that you so eloquently claim to have. You take your beliefs on an uncertain faith that I legitimately do not share.
Elizabeth,
On what grounds do you reject evolution?
The evidence is clear: we were once hunter/gatherers living in small tribes, then we discovered agriculture and began to settle into communities, eventually we built grand cities, written language, art and mathematics; next we developed science and separated it from religion, right up to the present where we began to peek into the nature of quantum reality, as well as developing tools to make ourselves healthier and wiser. The evidence for this is much more clear than your unprovable contention that humans are hopelessly flawed.
Yes, human beings are flawed, but not by something as irrational as original sin. We are born with the capacity for great love and compassion, that is our true nature. But we live in a chaotic and unpredictable world that causes pain and trauma - that is the source of evil in the world, not satan or some notion of human inferiority that needs divine intervention.
What you espouse is a pre-rational, pre-conventional, and pre-personal worldview that is dying out in Western culture - it is Piaget's concrete operations stage of development, which is no longer adequate to the world in which we live. There are still many who believe as you do, but this article is evidence that such an archaic worldview is no longer useful in this culture.
You ask what is irrational about belief in your God? The idea of a supreme being was an attempt by pre-rational humanity to explain an unpredictable world. There is and can never be a proof for God, because it is a human creation, not an observable entity. See Sam Harris's The End of Faith.
There may be a power greater than humanity in the universe, but it will look nothing like the Biblical God.
And there is no need for such a divine being to live a moral life. There is not a more moral people on the earth than Buddhists, and there is NO god in their tradition. Be compassionate to each other - that's all the morality anybody needs - no God necessary.
Peace,
Bill
To Nagarjuna,
I really have only one argument with your last post yousaid:
“and to threaten us with eternal torture for doing wrong,”
That is not at all what the Bible teaches. We all do wrong, God sees me no differently than any other person, even, let’s say, a child molester. There is no hierarchy of sin; it’s all one and the same to God. The only difference is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the arbiter of that sin. He took it upon himself, as written in the Bible, out of love, the only thing that keeps me from eternal hell is that most profound of sacrifices. The only reason a person must enter an eternal hell is by rejecting that said sacrifice.
As to your other statements, I think you are right, I choose the God of the Bible, out of faith yes, but also because it makes so much sense. I have developed a relationship with Christ through my Christian walk not only based on scripture, but also on the fact that He yet lives, and better still wants me just as I am.
To WH,
As you probably are aware science has been with us for quite a few years now. In the 1500’s through the 1800’s the top scientists of the day believed that bleeding people suffering from illness was a cure for any number of maladies. We now know, upon further study, that this is actually a sure way to kill the very person you are trying to minister to. Science is an ever-changing thing. There are always new discoveries to be made, new technologies to be unleashed. Scientists are famous for using the phrase “we now know…” when spieling off new facts just uncovered. That’s what’s great about science, it’s always improving itself. What people tend to do is try and put some kind of sacred alter under scientific facts when those facts are always reforming themselves into new and better science.
I would rather put my trust in more concrete ideas. Creation takes less faith than believing life spontaneously forming all by its own little self and somehow eons later we are privileged enough to be the stewards of this magnificent planet.
You feel the world and the human race is evolving and will move onto better, newer brighter things. I say, look around you, watch the news, there is nothing new under sun, our only hope is God.
Elizabeth--
There's no "hierarchy of sin"? In your heart of hearts, don't you wonder about that? Don't you wonder how feeling tempted to cheat on an exam but not doing it could be as sinful as raping and murdering a child?
Jesus is the one and only arbiter of sin, and the only way that one can be purged of sin and avoid the everlasting torments of hell is to accept Jesus? So, all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and so forth are going to hell? You believe that ANYONE deserves hell for ANY reason whatsoever, much less for not accepting Jesus as their savior? You don't see this as a stupendously monstrous idea?
So those to whom the Bible doesn't make the "sense" that it does to you are to be eternally condemned for it? We are to believe that a supremely loving, just, and merciful God carries on this way, and we are to embrace a faith that paints this picture of God?
Elizabeth,
The reason we are resistant to understand "evil" for what it really is is because, as you say, "we are so afraid to see the flaws within ourselves."
We project "evil" onto others by seeing the exaggerated mote in their eye and never the beam in our own.
In his book, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruely, Roy Baumeister, PhD, examines the evidence and concludes that the idea of pure evil is a myth.
We polarize events to create a bad guy and a victim, even in the more-horrendous of scenerios.
Baumeister identifies four major root causes of so-called "evil."
(1) Desire for material gain -- usually money or power.
(2) Egoism. Bullies have high self esteme. Violence results when a person's favorable image of self is questioned or impugned.
(3) Idealism. When people are fixed on the idea that they are on the side of good, truth and right, their victims get no mercy. [Ironically, people like this often operate in direct contrast to the fixed, immovable ideals they espouse so grandly.]
& (4) Pursuit of sadistic pleasure. Far the more rare of the four. This can emerge in the personality of a person "compensating for unpleasant emotional reactions."
A perfect/non-lacking God wouldn't need anything at all let alone stupid humans let alone help from them to spread his so-called "Word." :-)
Yes, that would also mean "He" wouldn't need a Jesus, wouldn't need a Mary, wouldn't need a Church or churches, wouldn't need a Mohammad, wouldn't need popes or preachers, "He" wouldn't need zilch.
To pretend a perfect, has-everything God would want or need humans is silly and to be frank, stupid.
Nagarjuna,
I’m sorry that this idea of no sin being greater than another somehow offends you. But the truth of the matter is that it actually appeals to most people, especially those guilty of more heinous crimes who are seeking absolution. I suspect you are a Buddhist and while I greatly respect your advocacy of peace, kindness, and love, your scoffing at the forgiveness offered in the Bible is somewhat surprising.
I feel I am no more deserving of heaven than anyone else; it’s just that I’ve accepted Christ thusly assuring me a place there. God has standards, as demonstrated throughout the Old Testament. We, none of us, can meet these standards. That is why Jesus and the cross were necessary.
The fact that followers of other religions will go to hell, is not strictly because of these religions, but because of the rejection of Jesus as their redeemer. That’s what the Bible states. Jesus was either a mad man or the son of God. To say “he was just a good man”, or “a great teacher”, is to never have really read what the eye whiteness accounts in the Gospels put forth.
God is a loving God. But he is also much more than that. He is infinite and His ways are far above our own. How can I put my trust in anything less? I know some believe the Christian God is cruel and mean, but remember He gave his son, what else can we possibly want? He offers this sacrifice to you and in return requires only that you trust Him. We see through a glass darkly now, here, where we are, but soon we shall see and comprehend and know the fullness of His truth, face to face.
Tom,
I don’t think people are inherently evil necessarily, but the things we tend to do to one another can be. I have heard things from people who have been in situations of such horror that it can only be described as evil. And yes I believe Satan has something to do with it. An example would be an actor in the movie “The killing Fields”. He was actually a prisoner of the Khmer Rouge and saw such atrocities as to leave one speechless. For example a pregnant woman was brought out and restrained. Her baby was cut from her body and was repeatedly stabbed as its dying mother and the other prisoners watched. What could inspire such depravity on the part of the perpetrators? Was this act devised all on their own? Were they influenced by a kind of outside supernatural force? I’ don’t really know but I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Things like this make me believe in the existence of Satan as much as God.
Evil cannot be explained in a tangible way. One theologian put it this way. Evil is like a hole in the ground. You can’t physically touch the hole but you know it is there because of the absence of dirt. Evil cannot be touched but it exists because of the absence of God.
Truth Teller,
Let me say something I believe is true to you. God doesn’t need us you’re right. But he wants us and that’s good enough for me. He wants us to love Him freely, not some sort of forced worship based on fear. I love Him for what He did for me. If that is stupid, so be it. I guess I’m stupid then.
I am under no illusion that I can convert any of you to Christianity. That is not really my goal. My purpose is to discuss intelligently, and to clear misconceptions, the Christian worldview.
Elizabeth,
The Khmer Rouge is mentioned many times in Baumeister's book.
The cause of the attrocities is fanatical idealism. We've seen similar attrocities, but not on such a broad scale, in My Lai, by the Nazi SS, in our own Civil War, by Stalin in the Ukraine and in the Crusades by all-too-human soldiers, doing what they are told is their job, for "a cause" they believe to be above themselves, that they are told is beyond their meager ability to understand.
Elizabeth--
I'm not "offended" by the idea that all sins are equally sinful, just puzzled by it and by how a seemingly intelligent and clearly articulate individual such as yourself could accept it as true.
I don't "scoff" at the idea of redemption. In fact, I embrace it with all my heart. But I believe that the road to redemption is harder for some than it is for others because of the magnitude of their "sin" and of the disorder or pathology that produced it.
I am not Buddhist, but I find it fascinating that you credit Buddhism with ideals of "peace, kindness, and love" and are 'surprised' if someone you perceive to be Buddhist fails to live up to these laudable ideals, and, yet, you believe that Buddhists and people of all faiths other than Christianity, whether or not they live up to their worthy ideals, DESERVE to suffer unspeakable torment in hell forever and ever just because they do not embrace YOUR faith. After all, if God is supremely loving, just, and merciful, and he consigns people to hell, they MUST deserve it.
You say you're "no more deserving of heaven than anyone else," yet you seem not to realize that you would be far less likely to accept Jesus as your savior and go to heaven if you were raised in a culture, of which there are many, where Christianity doesn't predominate. What accounts for this prodigious advantage if not for the fact that you must somehow deserve it. Either that, or God capriciously doles out this tremendous advantage to a select minority while denying it to the majority of the world's population.
How can you say God "is a loving God" who nevertheless has legitimate "standards" that he justly enforces when the consequence of violating those standards is infinitely out of proportion to the magnitude of the violation? In other words, how can finite misdeeds EVER justify infinite punishment? Would you consider a human parent loving or monstrously sadistic if he promised his children boundless rewards for obedience and unspeakable torture for ANY measure of unforgiven disobedience?
You say to Truth Teller that you aren't out to covert us to Christianity but simply to "discuss intelligently" and "clear misconceptions" of the "Christian worldview," but where is the reasonable intelligence in the worldview you espouse, much less the persuasiveness of it?
What you, sadly, do not appear to understand is that the worldview you espouse does NOT speak for all Christians but reflects a memetic center of gravity far below the the leading edge of Christianity today and, presumably, in the days to come.
Nagarjuna,
I was raised in a Christian home, being from the south, the likelyhood is rather hard to avoid. You assume ,though, that I have never questioned my faith. You are wrong. I've been through a difficult deppression in my life and my faith in Jesus was greatly tested. But through this trial I became stronger, as did my faith.
There are many people in the area in which I live who are merely religious. This is so in most cultures. People go through the motions without questioning anything. I say, question everything.
You're still getting hung up on the sin thing, I'm telling you it's more about rejecting Jesus than anything else, in my opinion. The problem of sin was defeated at the cross.
Tom,
You say these aforementioned atrocities were commited only through following orders. Well where did the orders come from?
Other men. These men you say were acting on an idealism that was higher than themselves, and they will do anything, no matter how horrible, to achieve their ideal. Is this not in itself evil? Idealism with out the guidence of God, will often result in a blood bath, even on the part of so called "Christians", who, especially in the crusades, were nothing more than greedy thugs, or ignorant fools mislead into thinking they were doing something for a greater good. It's all one in the same. Evil.
Elizabeth,
Not just following orders, but believing the orders, having faith in that the orders and ideals outstrip commonsense and mere-man's ethos.
This Terrible blind Idealism often/usually comes from "God," as it did when so-called terrorists smashed jumbo jets into the Twin Towers.
Sure. All this is "evil" in one sense -- in that it is spectacularly horrible. But to place responsiblity outside the sphere of man into a shadowy Satan is a madness that allows horrible events to continue to recur.
It is sadly a part of human nature for Cain to kill Abel. We overcome the obstreperous aspects of our nature by developing our compassion, not by finding someone else [the Soviets! the Klingons! the Arabs! Satan! the Americans!]to blame.
Elizabeth:
With all due respect, isn't wanting a "needing" to want? Of course it is.
So then we've figured out that a has-everything God would not "need" OR "want" anything at all including humans.
Don't you agree?
TT
Elizabeth--
I didn't "assume" that you haven't questioned your faith, but I did wonder and still do wonder how you could have questioned it deeply and still believe that most of the world's population deserve to go to hell to be tortured forever and ever. And I still wonder how anyone who has questioned their faith deeply could believe in a "loving God" who condemns ANYONE to everlasting torture for ANY reason.
I surmise, although I don't claim to know for sure, that the difficult circumstances to which you allude caused doubts to arise in your mind, but that, instead of striving to find out whether those doubts might have merit, you focused on trying to prove them groundless. In other words, rather than looking for truth, whatever it might be, you looked to restore and strengthen your faith in fundamentalist Christianity.
You say that I'm "getting hung up on the sin thing" and that "it's more about rejecting Jesus than anything else." I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. For what, in your understanding, is "rejecting Jesus" if not a sin, and what, in your understanding, are the "wages of sin" if not everlasting agony in Satan's torture chamber?
Post a Comment