Hi Anna,

Just to give you a bit of context, I attend a church in Colorado that is certainly evangelical, but seeks to do many things that emerging folks are talking about, such as working with the city and school system on cleanup projects and that sort of thing to be "in the world" and helping our neighbors with no strings attached. We call ourselves a "transformissional" church. My brother is Eastern Orthodox, so I'm quite familiar with that as well.

As someone with a science and computer background, along with years of interest in philosophy and theology, I have no trouble accepting that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. That has a major influence on how I view spirituality, but if I have to boil it all down, I'll go with Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:14: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." A factual, historical physical resurrection is the bottom line for validating my faith.

I don't know too much about the emerging movement in the UK, but I have read Tomlinson's The Post Evangelical. I didn't like it, and you won't like my review, but if you do read it, read the comments as well (only three). I'm always willing to own up to factual errors, but not vague assertions of distaste as expressed by the Tomlinson fan who commented.

My concerns with the emerging church scene primarily include epistemology (that's where the whole anti-foundationalist/postmodern
ism/what is truth? stuff comes into play) and soteriology (what is salvation, and how is it acquired?). I think the greatest benefits to the emerging mindset are the sense of community, self-sacrifice, seeking a cultural impact in the arts, etc. However, none of those require one to be part of the emerging conversation.

I thought Ryan & Eddie's book was wonderful, perhaps the best book I have read on the subject of what is happening within the church. I felt it was clear about the fact that there are common ideas which tie together all these different groups and communities under the rather loose heading of the 'emerging church'. However, I guess the problem with having any kind of heading is that people who are used to a kind of denominational idea of church (myself, and probably most of the 'ermeging church' types included) see this whole thing as a denomination, another church group, who have a common theology.

I think most have broad theological elements in common, and those who don't, like Mark Driscoll, end up being excluded. However, to me it's more about a dislike for evangelicalism combined with a postmodern distrust for absolute truth. At least that's what I saw in the quotes.

I identify with a movement, or 'conversation' as it's put, which takes away the focus from meetings and gives it to relationships, that looks at jesus life, that encourages people to live as servants 24/7, that says being pious is not enough, that looks everywhere for God, that doesn't restrict it's thinking.

I can go along with that as a conservative evangelical, provided the last phrase doesn't reject Jesus' words: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." If He was wrong about that, can we believe Him about anything else?

I haven't signed up to join a denomination, there's no shared statement of faith.
I suspect McClaren, from what I have read, is more evangelical than me, and less evangelical than some of the other people in my church community. that's the variation we have.

So what I have to say in the book is what the 'emerging church' is all about- because i'm part of the 'conversation' that is changing the church, as much as anyone else is.

I suspect my views on the bible may not be to your liking. But i don't think it's helpful to get caught up debating it. I will simply say, I love the bible, i've read it and studied it, and still refer to it. i don't wish to magle or discard it, but i do have a different approach to it than i used to- something a little like this: the bible is full of stories about God, written by people over time who have known God well, who were wise, and who had good stories to tell. in that way it is ready and willing and waiting to reveal God to me- i can see God in what people have experienced of Him, I can see how people interacted with Him, and the gospels how He interacted with us. However I have no issue with the fact that human authors, like me, have the potential of being biased, of getting thigns wrong, of passing on stories and myths, of speaking rhetorically and metaphorically, of being influenced by their culture. None of that lessens the impact of hearing about God. Still that's just my view, and not shared by all people involved in 'emerging church'.

I won't try to debate, either, but I will raise two points. First, if there truly is a God who wished to communicate with us, He'd be more than capable of preserving His Word and conveying His desired message accurately as He breathed it out (2 Timothy 3:16).

Secondly, if the authors got some things wrong, how do you know when they are revealing God to you, and when they are simply mistaken?

i do know that i have core beliefs in things, things that are my foundation. i do know i'm not in anyone's club!

Where do you build your foundation? Early church tradition? I can't think of anywhere else once the Bible is removed as foundational.

i know plenty of evangelicals who have been kept young and immature by leaders who wish to exert influence and power over them, by people afraid of them thinking for themselves.

That's certainly tragic, but has much more to do with human nature and sin than one's theological position. As I recall from the book, some cutting edge UK churches had problems with that as well.

many people ended up outside of the evangelical church because they were hurt or let down, or becasue they were angry and rebellious. it takes a long time to get over stuff like that, a lot of grace adn a lot of healing.

I agree 100%.

many of us have behaved very badly, like spoilt children, and i am sorry for the hurt it has caused those who remain in the evangelical church.

I appreciate that honesty, but of course, many evangelicals have behaved badly as well, so again, it's more of a human nature/sin thing than a church affiliation issue.

it took me a few years to get past being defined as 'post evangelical', rather than being about what we are NOT you start to realise what you ARE. i got over the things that hurt me, and i can see the good in where i have come from

As I mentioned before, I'm interested in what you found positive about evangelicalism, and what you found to be most troublesome.

well i write a blog, www.annadod.blogspot.com which reflects some of my thinking. it's best to go back to the beginning of the blog to read about my thinking on church, as it goes on it gets more into thinking about life in general- there's only so long you can talk about 'what is church' when yuo're just getting on with doing it!

I've read some of it, as well as the faithspace stuff. Annakaffuffle, right? Liked "the bish had a cool hat" post.

i'm probably pretty far away from evangelicalism, i know most of my church community are somewhere closer to orthadox evangelicalism.

I'm still curious what you see as the key departures. Maybe I'll learn more as I browse your site more.

sorry about the HUGE email, and the fact i gave up with correct punctuation and capital letters halfway through. thank you for taking the time to read this, and i look forward to continuing the conversation. understanding (and making time to understand without dismissal) is vital to the church being one body, the bride of christ. fear or arrogance towards others in the church is harmful. conversation is wonderful.

Indeed. Thank you for making the effort. I rather enjoyed the creative punctuation and so on. Have a wonderful day!

from Anna Dodridge
Jan 19, 2007 5:54 PM

Hello Randy-

It's pretty late here, we've just got back from the cinema (errr- is that 'the movies' for you?) and now watching NYPD Blue! I'll try to make sure I make sense, despite the tiredness and distraction on the TV.

It's good to hear your 'context'. My family are part of a similar set up I think. It's the church community I grew up in, we started as a house church and developed into our own building. It's the church community that I deeply love, but that has also caused me sadness and frustration at times too! Still it's a 'free/charismatic evangelical' church, which has become more of a conservative evangelical across the years. They also work with the homeless, and refugees, and young mother's groups. Which is great. However, I believe they miss out on relationships a lot because they focus too much on the 'task' or 'doing' church (setting up meetings, organising the building, having meetings, meeting to make decisions etc.)

My context- I am part of a 'church community'. Basically we are a group of christians who hang out together on a day to day basis, sometimes as a whole group, sometimes as two or threes. We sometimes pray, sometimes talk, sometimes look at the bible. Our focus is on our relationships with each other, and how we can help each other know God more. I guess most of this sort of information is in the Bolger & Gibbs book.

As for Tomlinson's book- I first read it at the beginning of my journey out of the evangelical church. My Gosh, I was shocked and dismayed. I found myself tutting and shaking my head all the way through. And yet, there were many things I recognised. The feeling of alienation from the mainstream christian culture, not feeling people really understood me, feeling that the church was out of touch with the culture I found myself in, being disappointed by the way my friends were treated...so I read on, and when I was able to put aside my feelings of discomfort with these ideas Tomlinson was putting across it made more sense.

I recently re-read the book, and found that now the ideas Tomlinson presented were far from shocking, in fact, perhaps they did not go far enough. I think the important thing for me is that I continue to question and challenge that which is presented to me. Not to take for granted that what I am taught, according to the evangelical tradition and culture, is not simply accepted at face value. When I begin to read about the discovery of non-canonical gospels, or hearing about other faiths experiences of the spiritual, it reveals to me that God could be more than that which I, in my very narrow and small experience and understanding, have heard. I guess that moves me on to what I still find in common with evangelicalism. It is not that I, or many others involved in the grass roots church \'conversation\' simply reject everything from evangelicalism. It\'s just that I have to allow it to be open to challenge, and if I feel it is found wanting, not to be afraid to question it. Evangelicalism is simply one approach to christianity, and it has helped me a lot to realise that. It means that when I don't agree with something from the evangelical approach I no longer feel like I am rejecting Christianity and God, just that I don't have the same approach. I don't feel that I have to reject the whole of the bible simply because some of it may be reflective of an authors POV. God uses the bible to speak to us, He is not bound within it's pages. I rely on my spiritual experience of a personal God, a realtionship (something I know evangelicalism understands) as much as the bible. For a start, without even considering all the translations we are relying on, I have to work through my own understanding of it too. still, perhaps this is going to far into the \'bible debate\' and could be unhelpful. the point is, my view on the bible is not the centre of all i believe, merely a part of it. The focus of my faith is on seeking God. I seek Him desperately and ernestly, everywhere I look. That is what God asks of me, and that is what I do. Everything else is merely a sideline. I recently re-read the book, and found that now the ideas Tomlinson presented were far from shocking, in fact, perhaps they did not go far enough. I think the important thing for me is that I continue to question and challenge that which is presented to me. Not to take for granted that what I am taught, according to the evangelical tradition and culture, is not simply accepted at face value.

When I begin to read about the discovery of non-canonical gospels, or hearing about other faiths experiences of the spiritual, it reveals to me that God could be more than that which I, in my very narrow and small experience and understanding, have heard.

I guess that moves me on to what I still find in common with evangelicalism. It is not that I, or many others involved in the grass roots church 'conversation' simply reject everything from evangelicalism. It's just that I have to allow it to be open to challenge, and if I feel it is found wanting, not to be afraid to question it.

Evangelicalism is simply one approach to christianity, and it has helped me a lot to realise that. It means that when I don't agree with something from the evangelical approach I no longer feel like I am rejecting Christianity and God, just that I don't have the same approach.

I don't feel that I have to reject the whole of the bible simply because some of it may be reflective of an authors POV. God uses the bible to speak to us, He is not bound within it's pages. I rely on my spiritual experience of a personal God, a realtionship (something I know evangelicalism understands) as much as the bible. For a start, without even considering all the translations we are relying on, I have to work through my own understanding of it too. still, perhaps this is going to far into the 'bible debate' and could be unhelpful. the point is, my view on the bible is not the centre of all i believe, merely a part of it. The focus of my faith is on seeking God. I seek Him desperately and ernestly, everywhere I look. That is what God asks of me, and that is what I do. Everything else is merely a sideline.

So I don't know about whether God is interventionalist. I believe that Jesus was the most perfect, accurate, pure representation of God this world has ever known. I believe God is the lifesource and creator of all things, however He chose to do that creation.
I have an issue with penal substitutionary atonement, and who the heck knows about the virgin birth!
but whereas my fear used to be that this took me outside God's grace...now I know God is very much here, and very much revealing Himself when I seek- knock and you shall find...

ummm, I think I have gone on a bit now. Thanks again for the reply.

Anna

It's pretty late here, we've just got back from the cinema (errr- is that 'the movies' for you?)

That's right. That, or "a show," as in "picture show."

However, I believe they miss out on relationships a lot because they focus too much on the 'task' or 'doing' church (setting up meetings, organising the building, having meetings, meeting to make decisions etc.)

That can certainly be a danger.

My context- I am part of a 'church community'. Basically we are a group of christians who hang out together on a day to day basis, sometimes as a whole group, sometimes as two or threes. We sometimes pray, sometimes talk, sometimes look at the bible. Our focus is on our relationships with each other, and how we can help each other know God more. I guess most of this sort of information is in the Bolger & Gibbs book.

Yes, it seems that approach would be easiest for singles or couples without kids. Once you have kids it seems like daily interaction would be almost impossible. Kids get sick, everyone gets tired, etc. I think your community approach is a beautiful way of life, though.

I recently re-read the book, and found that now the ideas Tomlinson presented were far from shocking, in fact, perhaps they did not go far enough. I think the important thing for me is that I continue to question and challenge that which is presented to me. Not to take for granted that what I am taught, according to the evangelical tradition and culture, is not simply accepted at face value.

Yes, I would encourage you to do just that. Just because something sounds cutting edge and relational, missional or whateveral doesn't mean that it shouldn't be questioned.

When I begin to read about the discovery of non-canonical gospels, or hearing about other faiths experiences of the spiritual, it reveals to me that God could be more than that which I, in my very narrow and small experience and understanding, have heard.

Of course, one must not take much for granted in those areas, either. For example, most of the so-called non-canonical gospels have no more credibility or authenticity than Monty Python's Life of Brian depiction of the time of Christ. We must also be wary of the dark side of the spiritual world. Many false religions can produce spiritual experiences that are demonic imitations of the truth. Satan comes as an angel of light, after all. That's why the Bible is important as a standard to measure teaching and experience. How do you discern in these areas if the Bible isn't your standard? Group consensus? I'm curious how that plays out.

I guess that moves me on to what I still find in common with evangelicalism. It is not that I, or many others involved in the grass roots church 'conversation' simply reject everything from evangelicalism. It's just that I have to allow it to be open to challenge, and if I feel it is found wanting, not to be afraid to question it.

I agree completely with that.

Evangelicalism is simply one approach to christianity, and it has helped me a lot to realise that. It means that when I don't agree with something from the evangelical approach I no longer feel like I am rejecting Christianity and God, just that I don't have the same approach.

Evangelicals have plenty of flaws, so I can't argue that. The key, however, is not what comes from evangelical tradition, but from the Word of God. Then rejection is problematic.

I don't feel that I have to reject the whole of the bible simply because some of it may be reflective of an authors POV. God uses the bible to speak to us, He is not bound within it's pages. I rely on my spiritual experience of a personal God, a realtionship (something I know evangelicalism understands) as much as the bible.

It would be helpful for my understanding if you'd answer the following questions:
Doesn't that reduce the Bible to just another good book?

Can't God speak to you on that level through a great novel or song?

If we, as fallen humans, have the capacity for self-deception, isn't it dangerous to set our experiences as the highest authority?

How do you pick and choose what you'll accept and what you'll reject in the Bible?

For a start, without even considering all the translations we are relying on, I have to work through my own understanding of it too. still, perhaps this is going to far into the 'bible debate' and could be unhelpful. the point is, my view on the bible is not the centre of all i believe, merely a part of it. The focus of my faith is on seeking God. I seek Him desperately and ernestly, everywhere I look. That is what God asks of me, and that is what I do. Everything else is merely a sideline.

I appreciate that focus, but how do you know that's what God asks of you?

So I don't know about whether God is interventionalist.

Do you mean you're wondering whether He intervenes in this world and our lives? If not, it would seem pointless to seek Him desperately and earnestly.

I believe that Jesus was the most perfect, accurate, pure representation of God this world has ever known.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "representation." Do you believe Titus 2:13 is correct in speaking of "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ"? In other words, was Jesus Christ someone who represented God, or God come to earth in the flesh?

I believe God is the lifesource and creator of all things, however He chose to do that creation.

We agree there.

I have an issue with penal substitutionary atonement

Why? Hebrews and Romans seem pretty strong in teaching it. I consider it a core belief of evangelicalism, so yes, if you reject that, you're definitely no longer evangelical. Do you favor Steve Chalke's approach (or isn't the Oasis Trust known to everyone in the UK)?

who the heck knows about the virgin birth!

God would know, and I think He made it clear in Scripture, so I accept that teaching. It makes sense that God would do something outrageous if He decided to crash into our world.

but whereas my fear used to be that this took me outside God's grace...now I know God is very much here, and very much revealing Himself when I seek- knock and you shall find...

I encourage you to keep knocking on His Word. There's much to find there.

Rather unrelated, but would your peer group reject musicians like Delirious? and Matt Redman as being too evangelical?

Thanks so much for writing. I am truly enjoying this dialogue. Too bad I don't have time to head over to the UK in March when my wife and I go visit our nanny daughter in Switzerland, but we only have a short time there. I'd enjoy meeting in person!

Blessings,

Randy