Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism & The Emerging Church
6 Jun 2008
Andrew Tooley (Ph.D. candidate, University of Stirling, UK) wrote to me a couple of weeks ago.
Andrew is the administrator for a project which seeks to “…bring together theologians, sociologists and historians to consider one central question: to what extent have Evangelicals in Britain been Fundamentalist?’
He’s looking for you thoughts on this project which you can read a summary of here, and you can leave comments on this related blog.
He’s written a fascinating paper, that explores whether the Emerging Church can be part of the evangelical church umbrella, or if by nature it is post-evangelical.
There is also a related journal he is involved with here.
Tagged: Emerging-Church, Evangelicalism, Resources
8 comments
Trackback
Comment by Noel Heather
1.56 pm on 8 Jun 2008
Andrew’s paper is an excellent summary of a useful take on EC issues. I’m wondering — from my own research, including in central Scotland — whether other images (which always bring concealed baggage) besides ‘umbrella’ and ‘kaleidoscope’ may also help to shed light on the situation. I tend to go for Evangelicalism as a galaxy, with some perspectives being a little more towards the edge. (Acts suggests that the church was likely always to be a bit messy?) In my lifetime (starting at ABC Southampton, later Westminster Chapel etc etc) what has struck me is the gradual decline of the idea of the ‘**fellow** believer’ (Galations: ‘…esp. the household of faith’, as well as Acts), and the rise of the ‘worshipper consumer’. The latter seems typically closer to EC than the former. This I take to indicate a move within EC more towards the edge of the Evangelical galaxy. May there be a place for this (perhaps temporarily, like the 1000-years-as-one-day temporarity of Medievalism??). Perhaps we should also compare this with Christ’s take on divorce as not ideal but allowed because of our frailties? By the way, I must admit to enjoying my local Breakfast Church in Egham (Surrey) this a.m. — of course nothing like chewing toast during the sermon to help remind me that things are different (for) now…
Comment by Adrian Roberts
12.19 am on 9 Jun 2008
I thought Andrew’s summary was a very succint overview of the relationship of the Emerging Church with Evangelicalism.
As he says, the EC is not the same as Liberalism. In my own journey, finding Evangelicalism too narrow, and not relating to the real world, (and not as scriptural as it likes to think), a move toward Liberalism (or even Atheism) was very tempting at one stage. But I realised that men such as McClaren and Campolo and Boyd remain devoted to Jesus and to a very large extent subscribe to the four principles of evangelicalism listed in the article. I’m not easy with label of “Evangelical” because of its connotations but I don’t have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I suspect non-Christians would label EC members as evangelical whether we like it or not.
As for “Viewing Christianity as a narrative-shaped experience rather than adherence to strict doctrinal terms”, this reflects my journey, and, I believe, God’s. The only way that I would feel comfortable worshipping the God who ordered the genocide in Joshua’s day, is if I think of Him as having moved on from there, which given the revelation through Jesus Christ, I believe is justifiable. The Calvinists wouldn’t accept that God can change in that respect, but its the only way I can make sense of it.
I’m interested that he says: “The EC believe this re-evaluation is necessary, given, they say, Evangelicalism’s love affair with the philosophical methods of modernity and its captivity to a Western version of the Christian faith…”. During the 1990’s I was intrigued by the way evangelicals were totally paranoid about New Age thinking, so much so that they were prepared to align themselves with the scientific humanists, at least in terms of their way of thinking. (This despite the subjectivity of much Charismatic experience – they failed to see, or didn’t want to see, how close they were to New Age experience). Humanism and Conservative Evangelicalism may be totally at loggerheads over issues such as abortion, creationism etc, but they both subscribe to absolutist thinking “there is absolute truth”. Everything was black-and-white, we knew exactly what to believe. I’m not saying there are no absolutes for the Christian, even the EC. But, as soon as you apply the concept of Grace, a lot of things become grey rather than black and white.
Comment by Jason Reid
9.14 am on 9 Jun 2008
In a true post modern sense could Andrew define what he means by fundamentalist? I say this as someone who could be put into this catergory by mistake. I enjoyed his paper but smirked when I thought of post modern techniques being used to strip cultural influences in our doctrine. It seems to me that the only people doing this sort of thing are white middle class academics. Hence they work within their own culture to strip out culture. All rather ridiculous don’t you think?
Comment by Charlie Boyd
1.57 pm on 14 Jun 2008
The emerging church is certainly on a very scary kind of journey as it leaves ‘fortress Fundamentalism’ and travels away from the town of Conservative Evangelical.Do we embrace doubt or repress it under the ‘Fundamentals’ of our belief system?It seems like there are two or more forces at work here:
1)The ‘orthodox’ conservative evangelicals are in danger of becoming totally irrelevant in our secular society.
2)Charismatic/Pentecostal evangelicals are being fragmented into 2 camps -those who hold to scriptural authority to discern their experiences and those who are jumping into a form of gnosticism a la Lakeland revival etc.The crazies are out of the lamp like the genie’s of old.
3)Emerging church is tryiny to decide if it wants to remain ‘orthadox’ in it’s belief system or whether to go for a form of gnostic leap of faith community driven religious experience.
It is certainly an interesting time to be a follower of Yeshua – perhaps God is deconstructing the old ‘certainties’ that held His children captive in a stifled inwardlooking subculture for the last couple of hundred years in the Western world.
Time will tell – perhaps the New Age is coming???!!!
Charlie Boyd
Comment by Adrian Roberts
1.07 am on 15 Jun 2008
Charlie
Can you enlarge on why you think the Lakeland Revival is “a form of gnosticism”? I’m not being negative or defensive here; its just that I’m still not sure what to think about it, and gnosticism is a dirty word among evangelicals, so I’d be interested to know why you think this.
Why do I feel a bit of a party-pooper for even questioning Lakeland?
Adrian
Comment by Charlie Boyd
2.19 pm on 15 Jun 2008
Adrian
Let me first assure you that I am a charismatic myself but very emerging in my whole theology and outlook.
I returned only 4 years ago to a charismatic faith after having 16 years out of christianity due to burn out from authoritarian shepherding churches etc.God seemed to come down and grab me by vision – very charismatic of Him – even though I was fairly happy sailing along without Him.I was shocked to find that charismatic Christianity had become a product to market and that the old fashioned (1970’s) type of Charismatic fellowships meting in homes had become property developers with shiney ‘church’s’ more like Tesco’s or Asda’s.Bums on seats had become the issue to keep the bandwagon rolling and the spontaneous nature of charismatic experience had been replaced by structured use of ‘the gifts’ etc.I missed the Toronto thing during the 90’s but it caught up with me 3 years ago in a little Elim church in Northern Ireland – I have done carpet time as the Toronto devotees say.
Gnosticism is generally an obtaining of secret knowledge through religious or spiritual experience which splits people into 2 camps -those who have it and those who don’t.Can you see the similarity with the charismatic doctrines?Those who have the baptism in the Spirit and those who don’t – this experience is seen as the key to a whole new variety of spiritual experiences etc.Since Toronto a new (old?) influence has broken in on the charismatic scene and seems to be gaining many followers – the old resurected Latter Rains theology of the 1940’s and 1950’s.Hence the obsession with ‘angelic appearences’ ‘trips to the Third Heaven’ – talking to Jesus there or dead saints e.g. St Paul etc.This extra stuff is a higher form of knowledge/experience splitting believers again into 2 camps -those who have had these experiences and those who haven’t.Mix this with American Christian consumerism and we have a heavy product that has people buying tickets to Florida at the drop of a hat.
I recently attended a Belfast conference where ‘prophet’ Chuck Pearce was speaking – I wasted my time taking my Greek New Testament as the evening comprised of Hebrew numerology (the year 2008 is special),making a spiritual sound over Belfast (shouting and humming of sorts) and shaking demons off ones body by shaking one’s uplifted hands.I came away gob smacked and wondering if this was what Jesus had come to earth for – a gnostic experience!Most of the 400-500 attending were really into ‘it’.
It looks that Christian tradition and some level of Biblical checks and balances have been thrown out in the rush of the charismatic lemmings for the supernatural (gnostic?)highs one can get.The leaders of the charismatic churches either buy into this new movement (in order to keep bums on seats?) or say very little about it hoping their flock don’t leave and join up elsewhere.
I certainly believe in ‘other’ experiences as a believer but am wondering if what we may be seeing is a revived gnostic movement as old as time itself.
Charlie
Comment by Adrian Roberts
1.03 am on 16 Jun 2008
Thanks Charlie for this.
I was also in a charismatic fellowship and experienced some “heavy shepherding” in the 1980’s. During the 90’s and until about two years ago I was in a less extreme fellowship, so didn’t feel the need to drop out during that decade. But recently I felt it was time to leave, and now go to an Anglican church. Given that part of “Emerging” Christianity is about returning to old ways of worshipping in a post-modern environment, I don’t see that being an Anglican is incompatible with being drawn to EC.
Many of the charismatic fellowship leaders used to go on about the evils of gnosticism, and still do; now I can see why there is an element of pot-kettle-black in this. Even before I joined the charismatic fellowship, the conservative evangelicals (ok, the Brethren) with whom I grew up in the 70s would criticise the charismatic experience on the grounds that it implied a two-tier christianity; those who “had the spirit” and those who didn’t. So perhaps they were right, but I would have certainly left christianity if I hadn’t met the charismatics. In the 1970’s, British Christianity needed the Charismatic movement to give it a kick up the backside, but after a while the latter became part of the problem.
I don’t want to write off Todd Bentley and Lakeland; I don’t want to be one of the foolish virgins if it really is the next big thing that God is doing (bit late for the virgin bit, but not for being foolish :-) ) He has been criticised for not preaching the gospel- but Jesus didn’t “preach the gospel” as evangelicals understand it; he did miracles. But even laying aside anti-American prejudice, there is a lot about it that is highly subjective.
And the “Latter Rain” connection is highly suspect. I’ve heard Todd mention William Branham approvingly, the original Latter Rain prophet. That man not only did not believe in the Trinity, he believed he was the prophet Elijah, he believed that the women should have no public ministry, and he made pronouncements that opened him to charges of sympathy with white supremacism. Both he and Paul Kane talked of seeing visions of angels from an early age. Personally I suspect this can be explained as schizophrenia as much as by religious mysticism.
Adrian
Comment by Charlie Boyd
2.42 pm on 16 Jun 2008
Good to hear your journey Adrian!
Yes if it hadn’t been for the charismatic thing I too would probably not have become a Christian as the conservative thing didn’t really appeal to me.I thought we were radical but eventually saw that we weren’t – just a newer form of fundamentalism with some clever add ons.
I do think that there may be a lot of mental health issues around a lot of what is presently going on in charismania!Don’t let any psychiatrists around Lakeland!Surely there is a thesis out there for someone to try!I believe that there is a genuine spiritual empowerment that comes from God but that we can’t organise it and sell it as a product (anointing oil for $20!).My friend has said that he used to be hooked on rollercoaster christianity always looking for the next high(new move of God) and then falling into near despair when the initial high wore off (things stayed the same).The contemplative spiritual life of say the medieval mystics offer I think a much more God focused sense of spirituality.Charismatics are loud – I now feel God approaches me in silence most of the time.
As an Anglican you might be interested in the writings of theologian Margaret Barker – Temple theology is her big thing – her thesis being that Jesus may have plugged into a more ancient form of Judaism that was more experience orientated and less Tora driven.She places this originally in the Holy of Holies within the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple and bases Atonement around the High priest’s role rather than the more evangelically accepted Exodus experience.She claims that Hezekiah’s reforms were a clamp down on the original way of understanding God experiences – it includes lots of Angel worship etc that she claims Lord of Hosts implies.I find it very interesting and wonder if the Spirit orientated religious movements are inheritors are the religious descendents of this ancient form of Judaism.Was Judaism a form of gnosticism in its original incarnation?
Maybe Todd and his followers are in this ancient stream???
Who knows although I think American folk religion and frontiersman revivalism may be in there too.
Good to hear yours and others views!
Charlie
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comments are now closed.