The one point I did want to make in response to your thoughts is that the Emergent church isn’t, typically anyway, rejecting what you are defining as the traditional model. I would say that the opposite is the case. The one thing that causes somebody who is wrestling with these issues to pull away is the closed mindedness that tends to accompany the model you are describing. I can say that I have the ability to minister along side of almost anyone at your church…except, perhaps, Brent Keilen . Again, I jest. The problem is that many people there (certainly NOT all or even most) could not, in clear conscience, minister along side of me. I have no point of reference for such division. It seems completely unbelievable to me that someone would divide over non-essential doctrinal issues.

The Emergent church often emphasizes traditional church concepts, throwing all the way back to the classical era of Christianity in some cases.

As you said so eloquently, we can pray for each other. I will even go further and affirm our ability to impact the greater community with the truth of the Gospel together. The important thing seems to be that we need to remember the famous quote by St. Augustine:”In essentials, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, love”!

I’m Phil, but if you want you can call me the grumpy young modernist, the eccentric evangelical, the Baptist Boy, the closed-minded Christian, or my personal favorite, “hey you.” I’ll tell you what I believe and why.

Like the “Grumpy Modernist” (are you still around?) I’m a strict presuppositionalist. However, I’m only 24 and only five years ago I was trying to reason people to Christ (after all, Christianity makes sense, so if you just look at it objectively, you’ll realize it’s true, right?). Then I realized that if we are saved by grace through faith, what good is reason?

Anyway, I’ve decided that I can base everything I know on the idea that the Bible is true, and it is possible to understand It. I recognize that my interpretation of the Bible influenced by my life experiences and there are things that I have held as Biblical that I later realized were simply church teachings or tradition, so it’s possible that some of the things that I now hold as Biblical (and therefore true) could be simply incorrect conclusions based on the fallible reason of man. Naturally, I will assume my interpretation is correct until I have reason to believe otherwise. So, feel free to bombard me with Biblical arguments for a different interpretation of Scripture.

I believe the Bible describes the Trinity, that Jesus was fully God and fully man and now sits at the right hand of the father as the only intercessor between God and man, that the Holy Spirit resides in and sometimes speaks to me and all other true Christians, TULIP, Satan and his demons exist, heaven and hell exist (and everyone will go to one or the other for eternity), a literal six day creation about 6000 years ago, angels exist (and are distinct from humans), I currently hold to a pre-trib pre-millennial view (I’m not so sure right now about where in the line of events the rapture will be), believer’s baptism by immersion, and a symbolic communion.

There, you know where I’m coming from. Feel free to disagree, and if so, I’d appreciate hearing why you disagree with any of that.

On to the current discussion. I’d like to start with asking what the purpose of the local church is. I believe the Bible defines the local church as a place for Christians to gather for corporate worship (different churches will do that different ways depending on their preference) and to disciple each other. If you have a different idea about what the local church should do, let me know.

Consequently, I don’t think it is the responsibility of “the church” to evangelize. That’s my job, and your job. Our goal isn’t to get someone to come to church, our goal is that God will use us to bring people to Him. Then, the new Christian will need to find a church where he (sorry Ann, I’m not an egalitarian) feels comfortable in corporate worship (meaning he’s not distracted by how the other people worship), and can grow.

I go to First Baptist Church in St Johns (feel free to check out the website, Jeremy made it stjohnsfbc.com), and I think many of the people at my church have the wrong idea about church. Many of them think that the church should evangelize; that we need to get people into the church and they need to like it so they’ll become a Christian. It’s a fortress mentality, and it’s flawed.

Another problem with my church is that it seems like many of the people don’t care about worship. I’m a music guy, and I’ve been given the task of leading the singing a few times. Let me tell you, it’s a pretty boring view from that vantage point.

Then I need to stop and think for a minute. Sure, there are people that don’t seem to be singing, but does that mean they’re not worshiping? For that matter, while I’m quick to notice the people who don’t seem to be participating, what about all of the people who ARE participating? Sometimes I think I see what I want to see.

Furthermore, what’s up with the fortress mentality? True, it seems that many people are like that, but why is it that in pretty much every membership service there are a few people who explain that they’re giving their testimony because of the witness of someone in my church. Seems like at least a few people are doing their jobs.

Then I think about the things the church does. How does it disciple? We have a lot of expository preaching that some of the people take a lot from, but then every other series seems to be a topical one: the four spiritual laws, the nine marks of a healthy church (that was based on the book) and the annual missions conference. There are also classes like the church history classes I’m taking (coincidentally, we’re talking about the emerging church now), the “share Jesus without fear” class, women’s bible study, basic doctrines, ect.

My point is that I don’t think the church should be a place that we bring people so they can get a good dose of Jesus and like it, it’s a place for believers to learn how to be effective evangelists, to learn how to be Jesus to the world, to get pumped up about the majesty of God, and to get us excited about going out and subduing the culture (Kuyper’s cultural mandate, I like it).

So, if someone feels like he can’t worship at my church, then he should go to a different church where he can. If someone doesn’t feel like my church is effective in discipleship, he can go to a church that is. That doesn’t mean that “our way” is better than the church down the street, it’s just the way this local body of believers has chosen to do things. Other bodies with people who have different ideas will do things differently.

Some people will say “but Phil, if someone has a bad experience at your church, it could turn them from Christ!” I say no because I believe in irresistible grace. While I don’t think we should purposely offend people, I also understand that we can’t please everyone. Conveniently, I don’t feel the need to.

One problem I DO have with my church is how it seems so many people (especially the people in my church history class) care so little about considering different ideas. They hear about some emergent churches who sacrifice doctrine in an effort to please people to Christ and they decide that the whole emerging and emergent group is the same and it’s all bad. Then I think about the people on the other side of the fence who, based on a handful of experiences with churches like mine, dismiss the whole “traditional” church model and I realize it’s just a human problem; a sin thing. Oh well, I guess I’ll pray for you and you can pray for me. Good thing God will forgive us.

To quote someone famous (and a layman)… “I want the truth.” and elsewhere another says “You can’t handle the truth.”

And where were the linguistic gymnastics? Funny, my fingers aren’t tired… so either I perform a lot of gymnastics and have built up stamina… or it wasn’t gymnastics at all.

Maybe its just that subtleties are my specialty. Maybe they are so subtle that I don’t even know they are subtle. Maybe my subtleties don’t even realize that they are subtle. Maybe my unrealizing subtleties are so subtle that they lose their subtleness. Maybe I am so subtle I have lost all knowledge of what I am saying… Maybe if I say the word subtle enough it will lose all meaning and I simply sound foolish. Then in my attempts to be subtle I have become a blunt fool? … okay my fingers are tired.

My only response to the above post is that I can’t answer a question that I can’t understand. Please restate your question in layman’s terms.

Quid est veritas?

The question of whether or not there is a natural law in everyone, that you ask of me, I would tend to agree with. And it appears that you also agree with this notion since you say that “efficacy” is a similar sense of morality, or a binding notion of justice in everyone. In my mind that would be a natural law. Now I would also say that the fall has tainted the ability of man to understand this law within, but nonetheless it is there to varying degrees. The Bible seems to point to this being the case (in my interpretation, which no doubt is tainted by my community and experience ).

The question of an over-arching meta narrative is difficult to answer. It would seem that indeed there is one, but yet, people smarter than I ask the question, how can we rise above our own meta narrative to know it if it does exist? Therefore if even if it does exist, we can’t know it, therefore it’s not important… almost as if it didn’t exist anyways. Is it possible that this is where the transformation of man by the infinite God comes into play? Does the experience of Jesus bring knowledge of an over-arching meta narrative into our finite world? When God speaks his word into our universe, is not that a totally other worldview bursting in upon ours? These are just raw thoughts here…

So I guess I’m still trying to understand where the idea of truth as being found in community and experience fits and how this informs our view of God, if this is indeed the basis for knowledge of God. Is this the way to find truth? Is there a truth that is knowable beyond community and experience, or is that the very definition of truth? Any thoughts?

Are you implying that this is the case, Kevin?

When I refer to “efficacy”, I am implying that some similar sense of morality exists within the psyche of all humans. The notion of justice, at the very least, seems to bind us together. In its simplest sense, every human seems to understand that he or she should not do something to someone that he or she doesn’t want done to themselves. Does this constitute natural law? Or is it simply the result of societal necessity? Do we learn the futility of violating this most basic rule because we all have to live together? Or are we born with an internal moral compass, whether it serves to the extent that I’ve just mentioned or to a much fuller idea (as Kevin seems to indicate)?

I understand that we can not have knowledge apart from our own context (community) and experience, because anything we learn comes through those means. What happens if the community in which someone is raised is wrong? Or what if they have experienced something that leads them to wrong belief? I believe in this regard that you brought up the idea of efficacy. You seek to challenge other communities on the basis of whether or not their view of the world produces restoration and justice. Does what you are saying mean that truth is determined by efficacy? Is a proper view of God then the one that is effective? Then by whose terms do we determine efficacy?

Just trying to clarify in my own mind what you are saying.

We also both believe in evangelism. I, because I believe that the truth I embrace requires complete allegiance and devotion. It is also efficacious…it produces real change for the restoration of the world to justice. So, I challenge other communities to meaningful dialog; really a comparison of efficacy.

So, I return to my previous statement relating to the belief heritage of my community. I believe what I believe because it is the faith story that I’ve attached myself to. Why did I choose this particular faith story? Because it resonated with who I am, the cultural mixture that I come from, and the relationships that I cling to. Can this be described as a knowledge of God being “born in” me? I suppose so, but the Mormons and Muslims claim the same kind of resonance, don’t they? If we all rely upon the same “burning in the bosom”, doesn’t that appear problematic?