Powerless Discourse

One of the important aspects of recent, Modern theology has been apologetics. In How (Not) to Speak of God, Peter Rollins calls apologetics "power discourses." (35)

These power discourses...attempt to present faith in such a way that rejection, if not impossible, is utterly irrational. In this way, the acceptance or rejection of the system is based, not upon a love for the system or a feeling of overwhelming seduction by it, but rather upon the accumulation of evidence that stands secure, regardless of the motive or desires of the individual. (35)

Do we accept Christ because we love Christ? Or do we accept him out of fear? Or do we accept him because we want the blessings he promises?

...if someone is convinced that there is a place where they will be tormented after death, and that the only way to avoid this terror is by affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord, they will no doubt make that affirmation, regardless of whether they are genuinely moved by Christ or not. (35-36)

I was just struck, as I typed the above quote, by how often evangelism presents the cross of Christ, but leaves out who Christ was (and is). Think about it...besides mentioning that he lived a sinless life, how many "invitations" talk about the ethics that Christ taught or the parables he spoke? How often are we inviting people to follow a person they haven't the first clue about? Rollins suggests that we are offering "God thousands of 'converts' with no heart." (36)

As a contrast, Rollins discusses the "powerless discourse" of Jesus, who says "radically different things to different people, relating in a singular manner to what each individual requires rather than extrapolating upon some universal abstract system." (36) Our method of dealing with people is to memorize the "Romans Road" or the "Four Spiritual Laws." We want a formula that's going to solve everyone's spiritual needs, but we fall short in spreading the "good news."

Jesus displayed his powerless discourse in the parables that he spoke. These, he said, could "only be truly heard by those 'with ears to hear.'" (37)

...Jesus made his teaching salty, evoking thirst. Instead of offering a scientific explanation that would convince, or publicizing the miracles so as to compel his listeners, Jesus engaged in a poetic discourse that spoke to the heart of those who would listen." (37)

This thought helps me to understand why Jesus would tell people not to talk about the miracles he performed. Perhaps it's because he wanted to heal people for the sake of healing people! Too often, evangelicals only want to help people so that they can make the "sale." They are more concerned with "converting" the "heathen" than feeding them. Rollins says, "In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food that we cannot provide." (37)

*********************************
Links to the rest if this series: Heretical Orthodoxy, Conceptual Idolatry, Defining God, 21st Century Pharisees?, Powerless Discourse, Answers & Questions, The Search for God, Doxorthy

Comments

[ken]

Wow! What a way to look at it. I have to agree with him. I have often felt like Christianity is being turned into a math problem.
sin + denial of God=eternal damnation.
sin + prayer of salvation= heaven
Heaven > eternal damnation
therefore, prayer of salvation.
There isn't much warmth or love in a math problem.

The other one that has always bothered me is:
problems + salvation = no more problems

What a false, deceptive salespitch that one is.

[george]

I gotta be honest here guys. If this is what you really think maybe you should come hang out with some "real" Christians. I don't mean to sound snotty and I'm sure this will be taken wrong but come on... I know the church that I go to is full of love and Peter has not concept of apologetics. Apologetics, explain the reasons or the reasoning behind our faith but no apologist thinks that he is going to "reason" someone into faith. We are told, however to give an answer for the reason for the hope that we have. Apologists examine the evidence for faith.

In the 1960's the hippies said "If it feels good, do it". Today, too many people say "If it feels good, believe it" with no regard for logic, evidence or reason. They are guided by their "feelings". We need an understanding of apologetics now more than ever to counter the foolishness of "feel goodiness". (nice word huh? wonder if it's on wikipedia yet)

[george]

The sentence that says...
I know the church that I go to is full of love and Peter has not concept of apologetics.
Should have said "... and Peter Rollins has NO concept of apologetics." Not "not concept". Sorry

[george]

Here is some background on Peter Rollins. Notice he is a philosopher, not a theologian. As were the founders of Liberal (atheistic, anti-God) theology. Why would you want to learn about God from someone who starts off with an atheistic or anti-Christian world view?

And what does he want the ec to change the theological architecture of the Christian Community to? Some "warm fuzzy" where there is no judgement, no sin (except of course the hated sin of fundamentalism) and no absolute truth (except the "absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, I always love that one)

what can you possibly expect to learn from this person. You would have a better chance of learning theology from Liam.

Peter Rollins has a B.A. in Scholastic philosophy, an M.A. in political theory and criticism, and a Ph.D. in postmodern theory. He is the founder of the Ikon community in Northern Ireland (a group which describes itself as iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging and failing) and a working philosopher who has come to believe that the emerging church presents a singular, unprecedented opportunity to transform the theological and moral architecture of the Christian community.

[ken]

If you have to write "I don't mean to sound snotty and I'm sure this will be taken wrong" maybe you should rethink what you have typed (or the way you have presented it). That aside, how do you expect us to feel when you basically say that we aren't hanging out with "real Christians"? The implication is that none of us are "real Christians". This is exactly what has been mentioned in other posts about how the fundamentalists think they are the ONLY ones who have it right.

I don't think any of us are saying that belief in God is all about "if it feels good". That does not mean that we should only address the reasoning side of Christianity. There needs to be a love of God above all else. I didn't become saved because it was proved to me in great scientific detail. I became saved because of God's love for me and my acceptance of that love.

In addition to the above, it should be noted that not all churches/Christians are guilty of what PR (and I) said above. But just because you are doing it right doesn't mean that we can't have a conversation about this. The point is to rethink the way each of us is seeing God, our beliefs, etc. and adjust our methods, processes, beliefs accordingly. Not all of us have it all figured out the way you do. Some of us are still working towards that complete understanding of God, salvation, etc.

[Bill]

George,

I find the apologetics of modernity to be unconvincing. No matter what "evidence" I am given, there is always another question. I think I am much more compelled by love and good works. Here's what I mean: I would be more "convinced" of my need for Christ if I saw more people living a transformed life that enabled them to love their neighbors better. I guess I'm saying that to me, the "proof is in the pudding." I suspect this may be true for a great many postmodern-minded people as well.

This is nothing against you or your church. Ironically, both Ken and myself have both attended that same church and we are both aware that there is love in the midst of that community. I also know that the people there fall prey to some of the ways of thinking that Rollins is criticizing.

You said that a problem with people today is that they "are guided by their 'feelings'." I would venture to say that the problem with many thoroughly Modernized Christians is that they have learned to igore their "feelings." That is to say that they believe they can be totally objective and place a much higher priority on the "truth" they think they possess than on the relationship they are called to have with the world around them. I am, of course, speaking in generalities.

[Bill]

George,

You wrote: "Here is some background on Peter Rollins. Notice he is a philosopher, not a theologian. As were the founders of Liberal (atheistic, anti-God) theology. Why would you want to learn about God from someone who starts off with an atheistic or anti-Christian world view?"

Are you trying to say that all trained philosophers are atheistic and anti-Christian? Are you denouncing any Christian school that awards degrees in philosophy? No offense, but I don't think your comment makes any sense. In any case, you can't dismiss someone just based on their educational background.

What I find refreshing about Peter's book is that it argues against some of the basic, philosophical premises that (some) Christian theologians work with. And I think a theologian is someone who talks about theology. I think Rollins does this well and it has been a pleasure to reflect on his thoughts.

[george]

Ken said "Not all of us have it all figured out the way you do. Some of us are still working towards that complete understanding of God, salvation, etc."

I have not figured it all out. I'm not even close, but my pursuit is through the Bible, through reading and praying, not through reading books by guys who don't believe and who are philosophers. That would be like trying to get a law degree by spending the day with your landscaper. He may know some law but he ain't gonna help you pass the bar exam.

As for "real Christians", I would say that if you are not experiencing love and fellowship with the "christians" that you hang out with, than they are not "true Christians". I don't want that to sound judgemental because it is not but since Jesus commands us to "love one another" how can you be a Christian and not love.

I don't have a problem with having the "conversation" but at what point does this become either useful because it teaches you to love God more, to love other people more and to actually be useful for the kingdom and at what point does it become simply theological "spilling of seed" which serves no purpose?

[ken]

Using your example of the law and a landscaper, I think you are missing the point. We are all Christians here. We have passed the bar exam. But if I am going to represent a landscaper, I better have a good idea what he does.

We are not looking to get our salvation from PR. We are simply having a discussion based on something he said. How it may or may not affect our understanding and beliefs. You seem to be hung up on the idea that if the person isn't a perfect Christian that we can't reference them or learn from them. Sometimes you can learn a lot from someone you don't agree with (even if it is that you really don't agree with them). The Germans did a lot of dispicable things during WWII to the jews. They also had a lot of medical breakthroughs (many due to the abuses). Do we throw out everything they say because they were racist? That would just be silly.

With regards to your comment on "real Christians" I will only say that the Christians I hang out with show me love. I can't say that about many of the Christians I have gone to church with. Based on your definition they apparently weren't "true Christians".

Finally, come on George. Just say it. You are afraid that this is all just theological masturbation. If you are going to say it, just say it. You won't be struck by lighting for saying it.
(was that thunder I just heard....) ;-)

[deborah]

George, you said :Peter Rollins has a B.A. in Scholastic philosophy, an M.A. in political theory and criticism, and a Ph.D. in postmodern theory. He is the founder of the Ikon community in Northern Ireland (a group which describes itself as iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging and failing) and a working philosopher who has come to believe that the emerging church presents a singular, unprecedented opportunity to transform the theological and moral architecture of the Christian community."

Do you have a problem with anything in that description?

[Tom]

"Theological masturbation" 8-O My eyes!!

On a serious note, if you aren't looking to explore different perspectives (meaning you feel you've worked out all or most of the questions about your faith) then that's pretty much what this might look like. A whole bunch of people who may not even call themselves Christian trying to deconstruct your belief system, sometimes using methods and logic systems that you reject. If that's the case it could be pretty confounding. I think some of us are still trying to figure things out, and it's interesting and helpful to read and discuss these differing attempts at understanding our faith. It doesn't mean we don't HAVE faith, just that there's a lot of mystery left.

I hope that made at least a little sense!

(Can you be struck by lightning inside a building?)

[Bill]

Ken,

ew...that's a gross phrase.

[george]

Ken said, "With regards to your comment on "real Christians" I will only say that the Christians I hang out with show me love. I can't say that about many of the Christians I have gone to church with. Based on your definition they apparently weren't "true Christians"."

I suppose we have to examine their lives. I suppose the fact that an individual may not "show" love to you personally or to me personally, but shows love to others then he could be a true Christian (according to Jesus definition).

But let me ask you this...
If a guy says the "sinners prayer", reads his Bible every morning but goes to work and cheats on his wife daily is he a "True Christian"? In your (or anyone else's) opinion is that guy really "saved"?

Is it fair to say that we will "know them by their fruits"?

[Bill]

George,

I don't know where your prejudice against philosophy came from, but I think it's completely unfounded. I have a book called "Philosophers Who Believe." You can borrow it if you want. Perhaps it will help you to understand that being a philosopher is not antithetical to being a Christian. You "resented" how I linked anti-intellectualism to fundamentalism in this post, and yet you are now displaying that very characteristic.

Putting all that aside, WHY IN THE WORLD are you assuming that Peter Rollins is not a believer? That makes no sense. I'm really having trouble understanding where you're coming from!

[Bill]

Ken,

Whoops, I just got what you were saying as I re-read George's comment. My bad.

[Bill]

I probably should have described what "Philosophers Who Believe" is. The subtitle is "The Spiritual Journeys of 11 Leading Thinkers." Each chapter is an essay by a different Christian philosopher. The following is a blurb from Publishers Weekly that appears on the back of the book:

"Writing from diverse Christian traditions,...[these philosophers] explode the stereotype that intellectuals cannot believe."

[ken]

Geore,

The answer to your question is: I don't know. What if someone constantly lied, made false accusations, and manipulated people at the church. Would he be a Christian? I don't know. He could be a Christian. We all have sin in our lives (at least I do). Some people struggle with one or two sins all the time. Going back to that sin even though they try not to. Look at Paul. He talked about "that which I don't want to do, I keep doing..." (paraphrased). I would be concerned about his salvation but only he and God know for sure. It would be judgemental of me to assume that I know the answer. Opinions are only worth the paper their written on.
Instead, I would (if I had a relationship with him) try to find out what the deal was and offer my support to him. (to resist the sin, not continue to practice it, lest I be misunderstood here)

I think your use of the word opinion is important. Most of the issues we are discussing here are NOT salvational. They are more opinion than fact. We do the best we can to understand God's word based on our individual experiences, biases, educations. This leads to differences of 'opinion' on topics that do not affect one's salvation.

[ken]

Tom,

It made perfect sense to me.

Bill,

No problem. I wouldn't normally use that turn of phrase on your blog. Although I do agree with the sentiment that we need to be careful not to spin our wheels endlessly on the same topic. At some point it becomes wasteful and counter-productive.

[Bill]

I agree that some conversations can become counter-productive. Hopefully my original posts aren't just "spinning wheels." (I'm not saying you're saying that, by the way.)

Technically, if I'm not mistaken, theology is a branch of philosophy. What I have appreciated about this book is that it deals with the overall mindset behind a lot of what's said by theologians (including amateur theologians like us). This is the thing I like most about the EC as well--the desire to change the WAY people think (not just WHAT they think).

[george]

Tom, your explanation makes the most sense to me and helps me understand a little better what is being "sought".

Also just to clarify, I am not accusing anyone here of not "having faith" or not being "real Christians".

However, (and again I am not accusing anyone here of doing this) when you provide all the evidence for one side of an argument and suppress the evidence for the other side, you are no longer educating people you are brainwashing them. When I see what seems like all the EC blogs and websites all reading the same book and no one questioning any of the statements, but just accepting them, that sends up red flags to me.

I also don't understand why at least on the surface it appears that the EC folks go back to "mysticism" but do not go back to Jesus, or back to Acts but instead embrace writings other than those of God Himself. And call into question the Divine authorship of God to embrace the "inspiring" writings of non-Christians.

[ken]

George,

You need to be careful of statements such as:"when you provide all the evidence for one side of an argument and suppress the evidence for the other side, you are no longer educating people you are brainwashing them."
You have referenced blogs in defense of your beliefs that are farrrrrrrr more guilty of this than anyone on this blog. Bill doesn't delete/deny postings simply because you disagree (otherwise your posts wouldn't be here... ;-) jkg.). Ken Silva's blog is notorious for this type of behavior (looking over shoulder for the blow from KS).

What Tom said in his post has been said numerous times on this blog...to you (sorry Tom, it was still well-said). I am not sure why we have to keep revisiting this point.

Of course the ec's all read the same books. If I was studying astronomy, I would read the same books all the other astronomers are reading.

I think the intention of the ec's is to use the 'mysticism' to get back to Jesus, not in place of Him. Unfortunately, as soon as someone says mysticism, many mainstream Christians stop listening/reading and miss the whole point of the use of 'mysticism'.

[Bill]

George,

Would you please respond to my comments about your view of philosophy?

I don't leave everything I read unquestioned. It's true that a lot of what I post about is stuff that I agree with, but that doesn't mean I'm supressing "the evidence for the other side."

[deborah]

Okay folks, in defense of Ken Silva (ducking as she types), he personally doesn't ban commenters from one side on his blog, he just doens't allow commenting from anyone. The blog that he contributes to only allows one-sided comments, but Ken doesn't run that blog, he just associates and helps those who run that blog. Which, if you are being nit-picky, is different. (I did not say it absolved him).

[ken]

Umm...that's what I meant. ;-)

[Lauraconk]

Ken,
Been trying to rework your earlier math equation... but math is not my strongest subject. I just get a whole lot of equals... but hopefully you'll get my gist. I have of course observed the angle you described, but this is what I've presented (not in this fashion) when ministering:

God = Creator, intimate Knower of all persons and profound Lover of them anyway, yet a Just God bound to His word lest He be a liar.

Heaven = where one can come to truly know God in all of His vastness, see Jesus face-to-face!, and too perfect a place for a sinner to enter

sinner = me (us)

Jesus' death and resurrection = an amazing act of love; a provision of a way for me (us) to become clean enough to enter Heaven

accepting Jesus' gift = life, abundant life, freedom and love (note: not freedom from troubles...but freedom from trouble's ability to rule me or destroy me)

ergo...
prayer of salvation to spend my life with Jesus, with God in a perfect Heaven (and yes, escaping eternal damnation is always a REALLY good thing! :) )
Just felt the need to pass it on, for whatever reason.

Bill,
As for "philosophy"... another weak subject of mine. My philosophy teacher in college was so bizarre and my view of the entire subject was shaped by her ramblings..ie: "What would you think if you came into the room and I was a rabbit that floated to the ceiling?" La la la... I'd think you're pretty nutty. I think it's safe to say I'm fairly unsure how philosophy would be important in my need to know Jesus better...admittedly not a clue!

[deborah]

Wow Laura, I had the exact opposite reaction to college philosophy. I came out of that class with a whole new understanding of perspective and a much stronger faith. My pursuit of belief because of that class has led me to try to know Jesus better.

But the prof was looney! (Actually, he and I have corresponded via e-mail, and he is a nice guy, more normal than the image he projected in class.)

[ken]

Laura,

My math analogy was simplistic intentionally. All that you said is true and I agree with. But sometimes we get hung up on it being this regimented, cookie-cutter path to salvation and we miss opportunities. Or, worse, the person says the words but either doesn't get it, or doesn't really believe it. I heard an interview with Drew Carey the other day and he was talking about how he used to be Presbyterian (I think that was the denomination). He said that he came to be saved and all that. He followed that up with, "well, I was 13". Implying that it was an immature kiddy thing to have done and that he had escaped that belief system. Is he saved? I don't know, maybe.

Philosophy isn't about literally being a rabbit floating from the ceiling. The point is for you to approach a topic or idea from a completely different point of view than you normally would (or that society, your peer group would). It is about the WAY that you think, not WHAT you think. It also is about disecting what you think you believe to figure out why you believe it.

This is something that a Christian such as you or me, who grew up in a Christian home and were saturated with God, would benefit from. You would take those suppositions that you grew up with and examine why they are until you understood and believed them. In this way your beliefs become YOUR BELIEFS, not just what you were always taught.

[Bill]

We all have philosophies, whether we realize it or not. Your philosophy is going to affect how you view theology. The opposite is probably true as well.

Whatever you want to call it, I think the topics I've been discussing are important and I don't think we can dismiss them based on the educational background of the person who brought them up.

Laura wrote: "I think it's safe to say I'm fairly unsure how philosophy would be important in my need to know Jesus better...admittedly not a clue!"

Here are the main areas of philosophy:

1. logic--principles of reasoning
2. ethics--principles of right conduct
3. aesthetics--principles of beauty
4. metaphysics--understanding reality
5. epistemology--understanding knowledge

I think all of these can easily be related to our desire to follow Christ. We need logic to think properly. Modern Christians may have overemphasized this point in some ways, but God does want our brains along with the rest of us! Our need for pondering ethics should be obvious, but some people seem to miss this part of Jesus--that he was among other things, a controversial ethicist during his ministry on earth. Aesthetics is possibly less obvious in its application, but I believe beauty is something to be valued by those who follow the creator of the universe. Metaphysics deals with questions that science cannot answer by observing something. It deals with the nature of being (ontology). Are we merely physical beings as some would have us believe? What do we mean when we say we have a soul? Epistemology is one of the hotly debated subjects in these postmodern times. What is the nature of "truth?" How do we "know" things?

I hope that little ramble serves to show why these subjects would be important to the person who desires to follow Christ. It's unfortunate that your teacher made it seem so wacky, Laura, and I do believe that philosophy can easily become to difficult to follow at times. I think it's important, though. :-)

[Bill]

Deb,

I could be wrong, but I gather that Ken Silva was the one deciding whether or not to post comments I made on posts that he had written. He probably has certain author privileges as a member of the blog (Slice of Laodicea), but I wouldn't be able to say anything for certain on the subject.

[Bill]

Ken and Deb,

Well said. I appreciate your responses.

Laura,

I hope it doesn't seem like we're ganging up on you. I didn't see Ken and Deb's responses until I posted my rather long one!

[Lauraconk]

nah... I don't feel at all ganged up on... I was sincerely asking a question and I got a few answers :)

I did just want to state for the record that interestingly, I made the personal decision to accept Christ at about 8 years old on my own volition. It has always felt like a decision I've solely owned and never different from that...
You may find it hard to believe that my parents never pushed things on me. My father has often said, "It's more important what you say to Christ about your kids than what you say to your kids about Christ." something like that.. in other words, they kept my salvation and my walk in faithful prayer and never-to-rarely harass me about it :)
All of the Bible teachers I have had the privilege to grow up listening to and all of the experiences of my life have always seemed to point me in the same direction...Jesus holds my life in His hands and I don't want it any other place. It is fairly simplistic to me.
That is NOT to say that my persuit of who He really is and my desire to serve Him with my whole heart (rather than just parts of it) have been immature or stagnant. I do not want to be billed as some simpleton Evangelical who has a small God, a narrow view of "who is Christian", despises mysticism, and loves her own idea of who Jesus is more than who He may actually be. I also do not see it fitting to ascribe such a high level of mystery that God is so far from my grasp that I can't really ever know Him no matter how deep I dig or high high I reach. We are His sheep, we know His voice... He intends for us to know Him, He isn't going to make it that difficult. He doesn't want the children to be kept away as they possess the necessary faith to know Him. He's a good shepherd and reveals Himself to those who seek Him.
As we all seek to know Him more...we can count on Him keeping that promise!!

[george]

okay, let me try and do this quickly. I spend way too much work time blogging here..

Ken my comment on supressing one side of an argument = brainwashing was not meant to accuse anyone here of doing that, it was simply to point out a fact. When I ran a youth group in Bishop Spong's Church I always taught what I believed to be true. I also taught them what their "official church position" was and why and frankly I knew it better than anyone on the vespry (sp?). So much so that they had me teach to every senior high youth group in MOntclair. They knew my integrity would not allow me to only present one side.

As for philosophy Bill. What I object to is not philosophy in and of itself but the following:

They don't take into consideration the consequences of their actions. (ie God is dead, left us with erotomania and eglomania, the fist or the phallus)

I also don't appreciate them pretending that they are theologians. Too many of them start with an atheistic, anti-miracle, man-centered world view. How can you learn about God from someone who does not believe in God and whose goal is to disprove God?

I would not go to my mechanic if I broke my leg. Sorry, I'm just weird like that. (well, I"m weird in a lot of ways, that's just one of them, grin)

Love ya

[Bill]

Laura wrote: "I also do not see it fitting to ascribe such a high level of mystery that God is so far from my grasp that I can't really ever know Him no matter how deep I dig or high high I reach. We are His sheep, we know His voice..."

True 'dat. I think we can know God and should strive to do so. I also think there is a sense in which he is unknowable, however, because he's so "big," if you will. That doesn't mean we can't say anything about him. I can say, "I know God is loving." The problem is in deciding what a loving God will or will not do. What does it mean that "God is love?" Rollins actually mentions this example:

"...if we were to ask a dozen Christians from around the world to write an essay on what this means, there would be a wide diversity of thought." (33)

[deborah]

Laura, I really agree with what you wrote in your last post. But the time I have spent in fundamental/evanglical churches where the focus is just getting people saved has left me longing for something more. The service (kingdom building) is something that has been lacking in my spiritual upbringing.

Rather than running around completely trying to discredit or dismiss the ec, I wish fundamentalists/evangelicals would see that there is something that a lot of them could learn. I wish they could understand the need to recognize the mystery of God and wonder of Jesus without berating people with that crap about "itching ears". Because when I listen to people in the ec (and there are things I disagree with), the biggest thing I hear is that I have a responsiblity, there are things I need to to, and I need to work harder, and believe me, that isn't something I WANT to hear, but it is something I NEED to hear.

By the way George, I told my mom that she wasn't a "real" Christian and that just cracked her up.

[Bill]

Here's a little quiz for everyone.

1. If someone has studied philosophy or is called a philosopher they are:

a. an atheist
b. anti-Christian
c. a liberal theologian
d. not a theologian
e. all of the above
f. possibly one or more of the above, but not necessarily any of the above

2. If someone suggests any answer other than "f" above they are:

a. atheistic
b. polytheistic
c. pantheistic
d. anti-Christian
e. anti-Spong
f. on crack
g. George

I'm playin' with you, George, but I am trying to make a point. You can't dismiss Peter Rollins' thoughts just because he was trained as a philosopher. It's not fair to all of the Christians who pursue that worthy field of study. We need philosophers for the reasons that I listed in my response to Laura.

[deborah]

ROFLOL!!!!!

[Ken]

"I can't breathe. I can't breathe."

[Just Me]

To go WAY back to the original post: While I understand BJ's point, and would agree that Evangelicals have often seemed to be more concerned with salvation than service, I would disagree that this is the thrust of most of their ministries; in fact, I believe that we all grew up in churches where following Christ - especially in service - was emphasized. When I thought of an "invitation only" message, I immediately thought of the Billy "Just As I Am" Graham Association. However, out of that association grew "Samaritan's Purse" - a $200 million dollar a year relief organization for which I have inestimable respect. That made me think of another relief organization that I truly respect for its efforts: World Vision - another "Evangelical" outreach. And then there's the fact that my mom - a true "servant" of the Lord - was saved at a Billy Graham rally, or was it at that other "terribly" evangelical Word Of Life rally? The problem is in labeling and grouping and stereotyping. You can't really talk about a "philosophy" or movement without doing so, but along the way you malign so many people. Evangelicalism was a response to a need; EC seems to also be a response to a need. I'm happy to state that I think I can be an evangelical member of the emergent conversation.

[Tom]

"I'm happy to state that I think I can be an evangelical member of the emergent conversation."

A perfect summation of my own feelings on the matter. Well said, Just Me!

[deborah]

Just Me: I so agree with the second part of your comment. I would like to see a movement that embraced the best parts of evanglicalism and the ec. Just because you don't agree with a group doesn't mean they have nothing to teach you.

Regarding the first part of your post, in the reformed tradition I was raised, service was a meaningless obligation done by a few (there are exceptions of course).

In the fundamentalist church I went to next, service was something that wasn't done, in fact, it was discouraged as ecumenicalism - if any other group supported the cause we wanted to help, it was forbidden. You have no idea what we went through (me and r) when we tried to take a collection for the Red Cross after Sept 11.

The evanglical church we went to next didn't really do anything other donating to a food pantry, a penny drive and fasting for 30 hours. Since we have left, they came up with what looks like a good plan on paper for small acts of service in the community.

The quasi-ec "service" we now attend has had several mission trips-both local and international in the few months that we've been there. They haven't been very active in the community.

The actual ec church I would love to go to (45 min south) has had a major community service project every few months or so, including passing out water from a booth they sponsered at a gay pride event and a free community fair they put on. The other ec church I would love to go to (45 min east) does a major service project each month, including a homeless banquet they put on.

So for me, the idea of kingdom building as part of holistic ministry is new.

While Christians should always show love to each other, it is the love shown to non-Christians that makes us more Christ-like.

[Bill]

I think that evangelicals have tended to set up a false dichotomy between serving people physically and "saving their souls." What should we be seeking to convey when we "witness" to people or share the "good news," etc.?

It's sort of the same old question about converting people vs. making disciples out of them. We might even question whether people need to be converted first and then discipled or if it could be the other way around in many cases. Better yet, perhaps salvation is the whole process. Perhaps we can't point to one point where a person used to be "out," but now they're "in."

When Jesus healed people, was he just trying to meet their "felt" needs? Or was he "saving" them in a sense? We might say that he was bringing the kingdom of God to them, if you will.

The last quote in my post seems to sidestep this whole issue of serving vs. saving:

"In a world where people believe they are not hungry, we must not offer food but rather an aroma that helps them desire the food that we cannot provide." (37)

What do you all think about that concept?

[george]

Oh, where to start...?
First Deb, I don't know your mom so I don't know how I could have said she's "not saved". I'm guessing that was an attempt at humor?

Second, I thought James taught us that service is part of our Christianity. Not that we're saved by works but that because of our salvation we will want to work.

Third, I didn't know it was the responsibility of the church that I attend to come up with ideas and places for me to serve. I thought I was a grownup and could serve as the Lord leads me.

I agree that churches should do things like VBS, Harvest Festival, visit nursing homes, and things that provide service to the community. The church I go to will allow anyone who wants to serve, serve. When I wanted to put a program together for dads, they allowed me to do it. The men who actually showed up said they were very blessed. We also had a softball team and Nerf and texas Hold 'em, not sure if the Ec that's 45 minutes this way or that way would allow that. What do you think?

Also if memory serves a few weeks ago there was a post from Deb criticizing your former church for hosting "movie" nights all summer instead of having youth group. But wasn't movie night supposed to be a free outreach to the community and just a nice way to share with those around us? So is it okay to do something that is not "Jesus" focused, like show a movie, share refreshments, or hand out water bottles, or not?

I do like the Rollins quote about "aroma". That seems very wise to me, so I guess I can learn something from this guy. (grin)

[Bill]

George,

In your response to your third comment, I think that churches with a missional mindset can do a lot more, a community of believers, than individuals can. That does not, of course, mean that people cannot or should not serve the kingdom on an individual basis.

The big question is what is a church for? I don't think there's any one biblical answer to that question except for a very general "to glorify God." A lot of church communities are trying to focus more on gathering for the sake of the world around them as opposed to any number of other things that churches focus on.

[george]

I thought that the church (I mean the Sunday morning services etc) were to equip the saints and as we learn more, we love more and we do more.

[Bill]

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with having that focus, but here are some other options:

1. corporate worship
2. serving the community
3. providing a space where people can seek God (and I don't necessarily equate that to having a "seeker-sensitive" service)

[deborah]

All those things (VBS, harvest fest, raising money, etc) are good and things we may want to do. But I never really felt stretched by the church sponsered service I encountered. We do the things that are comfortable and relatively safe, but I'm learning that Christians are called to do the uncomfortable things, the not-fiscally responsible things, the dangerous things. Unfortunately, no church I ever went to equiped me for that.

The church should be a place where people feel safe enough to fail, the place where we ask the really hard questions, the group with which we do the messy work of Christ.

[deborah]

And regarding the movie night, my problem wasn't with that, I think that was a good idea. My problem was that they cancelled youth group to do it.

[ken]

The other thing is that those activities all require outsiders to come TO the church. Jesus said GO. If the church's outreach doesn't go out into the community I think that they are falling short of what God wants/expects of them. This is a problem at MANY churches of all denominations and slants. We have this mindset that if we plan it, they will come. Yes, some do. But what about the ones that don't, won't, or can't? Are they lost to God because they didn't come to our church's open house?

Your church has Texas hold'em? I never heard anything about that. I might have gone to that one.

The point of the movie night comment was that the movie night was done at the expense and in place of the youth group (what little there was left of it). But once again, it is a 'come to us' activity. It is, to a point self-serving. There is very little service of the community being done (again a generalization).

[george]

Ok, but Bill we do those other things. (ie corporate worship, serve the community (although we are looking for ways to do more), and I'm not sure how #3 would be done because I"m not sure what you mean, sorry to be dense).

And Deb, here again, since I attend the church you left, I'm not sure what you'd have us do that we don't do and/or why you did not encourage the youth group to those things while you were here.

As for cancelling youth group for movie night, my understanding was that it was 6 nights out of 12 to try and do more outreach. Wouldn't it have been great to have the kids there "serving"?

I would suggest if you want a real opportunity to be stretched and challenged that you come to the Wednesday night services that we have now. 7pm downstairs. We are getting really, really deep into the word, (but we do it from the perspective that it's true and inerrant) and we are growing both in the love and knowledge of Christ. I hope you come. (all of you that are local)

[deborah]

Sorry George, my church is already stretching and challenging me and going deep in the word, and we think it is true and inerrant, so yours doesn't have any more draw than where I am now and at least no one will try to pay my kids to convert their friends.

And I would rather spend my Wednesdays out serving my community than locked in a basement;)

I think that it would have been a great idea to have kids serving at the movie night. Some questions I would have would be why they weren't? and why the kids would have thought that group was cancelled?

George: What I think is really interesting is that in your last comment you seem to hit on some of the questions that founded the ec. How can we provide a place where people can seek God? How can we encourage people to be more kingdom-building minded? Wouldn't it be great to have kids serving? How do we get out of the basement and into the world? (sorry, had to add that last one!)

Welcome to the conversation.

[deborah]

Bill, I was wondering why Rollin's called the one on one that Jesus did with people "Powerless"?

[Bill]

I was talking about other things you can place your emphasis on. Your church, like many, emphasizes teaching. That teaching is done by means of a persuasive speech with no interaction and no real regard for the narratives structures, but that's a whole other subject.

I think what Deb is talking about is a whole change in mindset...getting away from thinking that church is about singing some songs together and then listening to a lecture.

[deborah]

And another question George, why not cancel the Sunday night or Sunday morning service, do the movie then, and have the whole congregation serve?

[Bill]

Deb,

He's contrasting Jesus' approach to those who want a single, abstract way to "reach" people. He resisted giving people what they wanted. He healed people, but then told them not to tell anyone about it.

Rollins talks about the difference between a hint and an order:

"Take the example of two people in a room. If one has authority over the other and commands the other to close the door, the other will of course it, regardless of whether or not he or she likes the authority figure....the powerless discourse is analogous to one person saying to their equal that they are a little cold....The hint speaks to the heart and will only be heard by those with a sensitive and open ear. This powerless discourse of the hint can be seen at work in Jesus' parables, which can only truly be heard by those with 'ears to hear.'" (37)

Contrast this with the Modern church. We offer scientific explanations that "demand" the belief of the hearer. We try to use fear tactics to get them to believe. If healings occur, you'd better believe we'd be publicizing it to try to get more people to believe.

I don't think Rollins is saying that Jesus didn't display God's power. That much is obvious. I guess it's more a matter of how that power was displayed.

[Bill]

"...why not cancel the Sunday night or Sunday morning service, do the movie then, and have the whole congregation serve?"

Can I guess why? Is it because the church really never cared about the youth program?

[george]

Ken said "Your church has Texas hold'em? I never heard anything about that. I might have gone to that one."

Yes Ken, my son learned to play Texas Hold 'em in youth group at the church. They don't have that anymore but they did. I personally did not approve, however, the youth pastor believed (I guess) that by making it fun the kids would bring their friends and it was a way to "reach out" but by the rest of your comments I guess you do not approve since it meant people had to "come to" the church instead of the church coming to the kids.

Here's something I've always wanted to do, maybe you'd do it with me one day. There is a park right around the corner from my office. Teenagers hang out there everyday after school. I always wanted to buy a bunch of soda's and chips and just walk over, sit down with them, pass out the chips and soda and ask them questions about what they believe and why. (I just don't have the guts to "pull the trigger", wanna keep me company?)

[deborah]

Since Bill is now going to throw this into a different direction, my point was that churches think it is okay to cancel the youth group, expect the kids to serve at a church planned outreach, and then act all upset that the kids didn't show. The same church would never consider cancelling their own service to serve as a group in outreach.

In refusing to do that, the church fails to see that outreach and/or service is just as much worship as singing "Jesus is on the mainline...tell him what you want". (actually, there isn't much in that song that is worshipful.) There is this great ec church I've heard about that each month: meets in houses 2 sunday mornings, as a whole group once and goes into the community on the 4th.

While the church moans about the fact that the kids won't serve, the adults aren't showing them how it is done.

But you are right Bill, cancelling the youth group first shows not only how little the church values the youth program, but also the youth in general.

[george]

Deb said "George: What I think is really interesting is that in your last comment you seem to hit on some of the questions that founded the ec. How can we provide a place where people can seek God? How can we encourage people to be more kingdom-building minded? Wouldn't it be great to have kids serving? How do we get out of the basement and into the world? (sorry, had to add that last one!)

Welcome to the conversation."

Cool, If I can believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then I'm in!! Whooo Hooo!

Bill said ""...why not cancel the Sunday night or Sunday morning service, do the movie then, and have the whole congregation serve?"

Can I guess why? Is it because the church really never cared about the youth program?"

Bill that is totally unfair and way out of line. You of all people should know better. I'm really disappointed that you would go there when you were the one hired to run the youth program.

I'm not angry but I gotta tell you as one of the people who pushed so hard for you to be hired it hurts me that you would accuse us of not caring about the youth.

[Bill]

George,

I'm actually not that utilitarian. I didn't generally make things fun in order to "reach out." I like having fun, think that fun is "of God," and wanted to model that to the kids. Besides, I enjoyed their company.

Is there some biblical mandate against playing card games that I'm not aware of? ;-)

[deborah]

George, that is a great idea. If the church has equiped you as a saint, why don't you have the guts to pull the trigger? My point earlier is that the church should be producing people for whom that wouldn't be a problem.

[Tom]

??Bill was not employed as Youth Pastor when group was ended. He had nothing to do with it. More on topic would be, what does the CURRENT administration feel about youth ministry?

[Tom]

EDIT: I mean on topic to the off-topic topic we've been on.

[Bill]

I have to be honest, George...well, no I don't HAVE to, but I do want to...

I think the church wants to THINK they care about teenagers. They have demonstrated, by their actions, that this is not a priority. I said it before I left the church and nothing has changed except for the fact that sure enough, the youth group has gone down the toilet.

[ken]

I also agree that that is a great idea George. I would just add that I think you should take your wife with you instead of another man so that you aren't mistook for a perv (not implying ANYTHING there).

As for the activities that draw people to the church... they have their place and can be effective. I just think that they shouldn't be the only thing the church is doing.

Tom, I like your edit. ;=)

[deborah]

Bill, I totally agree with you that the church wants to think they care about teens. I would take that a step further in that they want to think they care about a lot of things.

[george]

Listen. I respectfully disagree. I don't know that a public forum is the place to discuss it though. Maybe Deb, Ken, Bill, Val and Tom and I should sit down together...

You were all part of the youth ministry and you have your version which of course you are entitled to but I'm a parent of one of those kids and I know what else went on.

I can tell you this, not only do we care deeply about the youth and we care deeply about and love you all. There were disagreements about what is best for the kids. No youth program is perfect, just as no church is perfect.

If you want to air it out here we can do that, but I'm afraid that it would be hurtful and unproductive. The goal is reconciliation and rehashing what was or wasn't or what is or isn't right about the youth group may only lead to pain and anger.

[ken]

I have no desire to revisit it. It is counter productive and my opinion won't change anything anyway. Let's just move back on topic and keep it vague and non-specific.

[Lauraconk]

Do I dare enter into this one???

Hmmm...having a 20 year history at above-mentioned church and being a realist... maybe I should. Problem being is I'm not certain this conversation is edifying to anyone and therefore will go nowhere good.

Aw... I've tried 3 times to write something that won't sound the way it's sounding... never mind!

[ken]

Again, not the place/time for this conversation to continue (in my humble opinion).

[Lauraconk]

Sorry... while I was working on my 3 rough drafts.. your comment came in & escaped my notice. I agree!

[Bill]

George,

I would be willing to talk to you about it in private. Shoot me an e-mail or call me when you get a chance.

[Bill]

Laura,

I hate it when that happens. These people post comments to fast for me! I was just wishing that I had the power to re-order comments because sometimes it's hard to tell who's responding to what.

[Tom]

Sorry Bill Some topics are hotter than others and get people in a posting frenzy!

[Lauraconk]

Bill,
Maybe that could be your super power... the robots seem to be gone, so maybe you'll be "BLOGBOY" after all someday :))
I think you should get at least another superpower, too... like maybe the ability to spot a bad e-profile before paying for it! :))

[deborah]

George, I would daresay that you and I have very different views on what went on with the youth group (not the point of this comment - no tangents!). We also have very different views on what churches do or should be doing. This thread, and I think the one before it, have involved a lot of church bashing - your church. And you defended it. That is how it feels with the ec. People are attacking us (does that mean I'm in?) and we defend ourselves.

You said that no church is perfect, or something like that. Exactly. Your church isn't perfect, our church isn't, your umbrella theology isn't perfect and neither is ours.

I don't doubt that you have good intentions, ideas and beliefs, and I honestly believe you when you say you love/care about the youth and us. I would hope that you don't doubt that about us.

The bottom line is that we have different ideas about what youth ministry is and what Christianity comprises, and we need to be respectful of each other's hearts. While we are taking potshots at the "failed" youth ministry and Texas Holdum, you are doing the same when you say we need to go to "your" church for truly edifying messages and spend more time around "real" christians.

That seems to be an ongoing pattern. We are trying to educate you, and your are trying to correct us. One of the problems there is that implies that you need educating and we need correction. Perhaps we could be more accepting of each other's viewpoints.

[george]

Deb, first I appreciate the "tone" of your post so thank you.

I have a small disagreement with this comment "This thread, and I think the one before it, have involved a lot of church bashing - your church. And you defended it. That is how it feels with the ec. People are attacking us (does that mean I'm in?) and we defend ourselves."

I do defend "my" church when I feel you guys attack it. But I also feel like EC attacks the "church at large". We are not "emerging" from you, it is EC that chooses to separate from and criticize us. I feel like generally I'm playing defense here and it's only when I feel like Bill crosses that line into liberal theology that I attack that theology.

I sent Bill a private email on my thoughts on the youth group. He is free to send it to you guys. If your brother has something against you go to him. So, I'm attempting to do that.

[deborah]

Yeah, but you seem to think everything Bill does is over the line into liberal.