Reclaiming the Mission » 2011

davidfitch on March 29 2011

The Gospel Coalition: Reprise and In Retrospect

The last few years, as events have warranted, I’ve offered various comments/observations on the Neo-Reformed kinds of theology so prominent these days among the younger evangelicals (a.k.a. “the young restless and the reformed“). I admit some of my observations have been pointed and have not been received well by some in that world. Nonetheless, several pastors and/or thinkers within that stream of evangelical church have been excellent theological dialogue partners for me. They, like myself, have a commitment to mission in our time. At this point in the church’s history in the West, we do not do theology from a presumed posture of power and or singularity. We work within theological streams humbly allowing God to forge and work from within these places for a new faithfulness. So we critique and engage each other charitably (the Rob Bell episode notwithstanding). We do it not to exclude necessarily. We do it to prod a faithfulness for the church in the face of its new cultural challenges.

Speaking of good Neo-Reformed dialogue partners, I count Darryl Dash as one of these. He made note recently (here) of a post I wrote almost two years ago. It reminded me of some fears I had then concerning the burgeoning Gospel Coalition. I offer it here below. I offer it not to merely reprise it but to look back at it in retropsect. Almost two years later now, I ask all the readers of reclaimingthemission.com - were the fears articulated in this post justified? After all the events, video and frenzy surrounding various Neo-Reformed authors, bloggers, the Gospel Coalition, and its various conferences – have any of the tendencies talked about in this post indeed proven to be inherent in the theological trajectory that has been so characterized as the Neo-Reformed? Just asking. Here goes:

_____________________________________________________

There can be no doubt, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) has been galvanizing many younger evangelicals to re-think their theology and practice (especially if it is of the Reformed variety.) I applaud this new theological energy. My question nonetheless is (given its moniker) will TGC be a force for coalition or expedition? “Coalition” describes the coalescing of a group of people or nations to agree on some understandings in order to defend some boundary or prepare for war (think Pres. Bush’s “coalition of the willing”). “Expedition” on the other hand, is the organizing of a group to adequately prepare for an exploration/adventure into unknown territory. Will TGC be a coalition for the hardening of some doctrinal lines in order to defend boundaries and/or launch an attack of some kind (say against others who don’t agree with its take on Reformed theology)? Or will TGC be a force for the preparation of missionaries (in doctrine and practice) to engage the unknown territories of the new cultures of post Christendom? Will TGC be a coalition or an expedition?

Ever since the publishing of Collin Hansen’s The Young, Restless, Reformed, a lot of attention has been drawn towards the revival of a Neo-Reformed theology among the younger evangelicals. In distinction from the pragmatic and the emerging responses (remember this) to the challenges of post Christendom/post modernity and the decline of evangelicalism in N America, the Neo Reformed groups have pressed for a return and renewal of protestant orthodoxy as the means towards renewal of the church. Main figures in this new push for a purer or more missional Reformed theology include David Wells, Al Mohler, John Piper, Don Carson, Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer and Tim Keller. Let me be explicit that I value and have learned much from each of these writers/thinkers/ preachers. I especially value what I have learned from Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer. Let me also say explicitly, I do not disavow the Reformation. We can no more write off the past 500 years any more than we can write off the patristic age and return to a purer “primitive” Christianity. Nonetheless, for the current cultural challenge – post Christendom/post modernity in the West – I am concerned that the approach of the Gospel Coalition is ill-suited to engage the cultural challenges of post-Christendom. Let me offer five statements that encapsulate what I think TGC might be implying in their work so far, even though they may not say it explicitly. I think, if true, each of these positions will inhibit, if not prohibit, TGC from being a cause for Christ in the engagement of the new post Christendom cultures of the West. TGC will then become more of a coalition than an expedition. So I am asking (with genuine concern) whether these statements are accurate to the positions as navigated by TGC or just the misconstrual of my Anabaptist fear laden projections? Here are the statements:

1.) If We Purify Our Doctrine The Rest Will Follow. I have observed an impulse in the TGC that says if we just get our doctrine right (which means a certain version of Reformed orthodoxy), then mission and church renewal in post Christendom will follow. But at least in post Christendom (as it is in the N United States urban areas and Canada) this is not enough. This is not 16th century Europe where the majority Catholic population, under the influence of a corrupt Roman Catholicism, need doctrinal renewal. This is not the 1920′s N. America where the majority protestant mainline Christian population, under the influence of a modernist liberalism, need doctrinal renewal. This is post Christendom territory where there are very few Christians of any kind left who have no doctrine to be renewed. If TGC then thinks doctrinal purity is the single issue, and leave it at that, they will be a coalition for retrenchment as opposed to an expedition for mission. (As some have suggested, this is already proving true in the SBC).

2.) We Must Return to the Reformation. Is the TGC seeking a return to the Reformation? The Reformation cannot be discounted, but neither can it be returned to. The Reformation was built on the back of Christendom. It gave birth to the Sola’s, especially Sola Scripture and Sola Fide which in their time called people to a renewed purity and personal commitment to the gospel. Today however, those same impulses, aligned with the Enlightenment, have given birth to a modernist individualism, Christian relativism, Cartesian rationalism and experientialism that later became modernity, protestant liberalism and indeed the current manifestations of evangelicalism that the TGC appears to be in critique of. We therefore must go beyond the Reformation, not back to it. We must be sober about the doctrinal problems of the Reformation that elevate the individual, isolate Scripture (as an authority and conceptual document) away from the church and a way of life. If TGC is only a call to a purer Reformed orthodoxy, it will be a coalition for retrenchment as opposed to an expedition for the advancement of the gospel into post Christendom.

3.) Woman Cannot Be Pastors. Is TGC seeking to enforce a particular reading of the NT that opposes the role of women in authority within church ministry? I have observed the prominence of a particular view of women in ministry in the TGC. I would characterize this view as a.) based in an inerrancy view of the text, which b.) latches on to texts as if they were isolated units of universal teaching on women, which then c.) leads to a blindness to the NT’s overall elevation of women into ministerial authority in the church. To me, this robs the church of the new politic that was birthed in Jesus Christ. It robs our witness to the reconciled relationship born of Jesus Christ in the post-non-Christendom cultures. I personally have spoken against the egalitarian form of politics I believe has been adopted naively by some evangelical feminists at the expense of both women and Christian marriage. Nonetheless, I believe that the NT calls women into the full participation in the new authority of the Kingdom unleashed in the church (this means I affirm the full ordination of women). I believe the TGC will be impotent to engage the culture of post Christendom if it cannot give witness to the new new “politics of Jesus” in its gender politics. It will be a coalition for retrenchment versus an expedition for the advancement of Christ’s Mission in post Christendom.

4.) The New Perspective is Our Enemy. John Piper and Don Carson have energetically sought to dismantle the New Perspective on Paul (most notably here, here and here). I do not agree with everything written by Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn, Wright etc. Nonetheless, I believe it is a mistake to see the New Perspective as the enemy (it’s not even that new any more). I believe there is much to learn from it.(I recommend everyone start with ch. 11 of John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus and go from there). The Reformation tendency has been to separate the justification of the individual in Christ (due to developments extending from the Reformation) from the justice of God and the new social order God is inaugurating in the world thru Christ. As long as we keep doing this we will forever be conceptualizing the gospel and separating it from the life of the Triune God as worked out in His Mission. We then will be hindered from socially embodying the gospel in post-Christendom. Maybe even worse, emerging Christians will continue to make the error of separating social justice from the redemption of the individual in Christ. I think the New Perspective is not the enemy but a source of great insights for this much needed renewal of the gospel. If TGC makes the New Perspective the enemy, I believe this is another sign TGC is becoming a coalition for retrenchment not an expedition for Mission.

5.) The Mega Church Still Makes Sense. Because of the above mentioned Reformed tendencies (exacerbated by American pragmatic evangelicalism) to individualize the gospel, to individualize the reading of Scripture, to individualize salvation, to separate doctrine from “way of life,” the Neo-Reformed do not see the problem of mega church for the future of church engagement with post-Christendom. Mega churches have worked well within Christendom’s modernity. Here the individual reigned supreme and the remainder of Christian culture lingered long enough to provide a foundation for masses of individuals to become Christians within large servicing organizations. Now however, with the lingering remainder of Christian culture gone, the gospel must take root in a social communal embodiment. Here is where the gospel can be seen, heard, understood, experienced by those completely foreign to our faith in Christ. This kind of communal embodiment is nigh impossible in mega sized organizations (although I think I’ve seen it at least once). Still, I see the Neo-Reformed enamored that good solid preaching and culturally relative apologetics will gather post-non-Christendom into its churches. I fear TGC then becomes a force for coalescing mega size preaching churches that preach to the already initiated. We in essence become a church that preaches to ourselves and in the process retrench from being expedited for Mission into post Christendom. (P.S. I still strongly believe in preaching!! As my writings and “the college of preachers” at our church will attest to).

A Call to The Neo-Anabaptist Missional Vision

For the reasons stated above, and indeed some more reasons I have not posted, I suggest that the Neo-Anabaptist Missional impulse is a viable alternative to the Neo-Reformed groups including TGC. For both historical reasons and theological reasons, I believe the Anabaptist Missional impulse has much to offer the dwindling churches of N America in engaging the new post Christendom cultures of the West. I include in this camp Alan Hirsch, Alan Roxburgh, Shane Claiborne, Neil Cole, Scot McKnight. I myself have tried to write to contribute to the furtherance of this vision. Tim Keller has characterized the Neo Anabaptists on this blog as follows: “… As you know, I think that the neo-Anabaptist missionals are a bit too rigid in what they are putting forth for the future, but its emphasis on process over program, ecclesial liturgy over experientialism, deep community, concern for the poor and justice, and contextualization-are all quite right. and traditional mega churches don’t see this.” I agree with Tim Keller on his description, including the being “a bit too rigid” part. Such statements however encourage me to believe that Neo Reformed and Neo Anabaptist should be in dialogue together to further Christ’s Kingdom (some of my best friends are Neo-Reformed ). So I am open to dialoguing and even being proven wrong on the five positional statements above that I suspect the Gospel Coalition of advocating. Where am I right? Where am I wrong?

Filed under Acts 29,Neo-Reformed 16 Comments

davidfitch on March 23 2011

For All the Big Dreamers in the World – Start Small On The Ground and Let the Rest Take Care of Itself

“I’m astounded by people who want to ‘know’ the universe when it’s hard enough to find your way around Chinatown.” Woody Allen

I’d like to direct this post to the many people seeking advice these days on book writing and getting Ph D education and stuff like that.

————————-

I am a pastor, church planter, nurturer of missional communities and a full-time professor at a seminary. I regularly receive inquiries from people seeking advice on how they too can follow my path. It seems there are a lot of young men and women who find the dual task of teaching in a seminary and pastoring appealing.

I don’t exactly know what’s going on but I am always prompted to ask these good people why they would find my life appealing? I sometimes think people want to teach because they find the influence and admiration that comes with these dual jobs appealing. Perhaps they find speaking engagements enticing because of the acclaim that can give someone. I AM NOT SAYING I HAVE EITHER. But think about all that for a minute. I don’t think you should gain influence in the church apart from what God has being doing in, through and around you within a circle of community relationships in Christ. i.e. in the church. And you can’t plan that. Right? You should start therefore from wherever you are living in ministry and pursue faithfulness and take opportunities for influence ONLY with the greatest of care. Lest you be elevated falsely as part of a media campaign or some other untoward hype. (I recognize this can be read as arrogant – but I seriously am not assuming I have any of this influence or authority).

It seems at one time there was a path to influence within Christendom. Do well in your seminary studies. Practice and become a polished public speaker. Go get a Ph. D. at a premier school and write and think on the highest levels competing against the best. I did none of this BTW so maybe I’m not the one to ask. Yet from my perspective, that world is shrinking. The days of gaining influence from positional achievement in Christendom are (gladly) waning. Today this kind of (Christendom) influence is largely generated in large conference venues. For me, these venues try to sell too much. Again, because Christendom has its problems, I strongly suggest none of us go this route. The best thing for anyone is to put these temptations towards influence aside, and start with the ministry God has given you. Seek faithfulness and allow God to use you in the world. Seek additional education as it seems a natural extension of your life – the life God is working in and through you already. If influence comes, it comes from God and you should submit to it humbly and in service to His Kingdom.

The allure of fame seems to be everywhere these days. I talk to at least two or three people a month who want to write a book. Everybody wants to write a book, be a speaker at conferences, or affect the national conversation (what national conversation?). It seems like nothing matters unless you’re starting a new movement to end global poverty in our lifetime (or something like that). It seems everyone is starting a blog, a new church, a twitter account, all to gain a following so they can do something national or transnational. Why this chase for national significance? To me this is counterproductive to the Kingdom and works against one’s own personal development in Christ.

Notoriety has a way of screwing with your mind. I say if it happens to you keep your head down and be very intentional on your spiritual disciplines. I’ve seen it happen a hundred times. A pastor or a leader becomes nationally known, gets asked to speak at conferences, quits his/her day job and starts appearing on stage as the supposed “expert.” He/she becomes separated from his/her ministry that kept him grounded, that kept her work generative and in touch with actual life issues in church and ministry. Before you know it, he/she’s got to appear in Metro Somewhere to say something to help people he/she does not know about a problem he/she hasn’t dealt with in ten years. And yet we listen to people like this eh?

Worse, something happens to said person (I’ve experienced this personally) when this dynamic starts to shape one’s life. You start appearing as someone you’re not, someone people now expect you (and pay you) to be. And I’m sorry, at this point something huge has been lost by both the person speaking and the people listening. The only way this can work for either the speaker or audience is if the speaker pays attention to his/her spiritual formation in a live Christian community in Mission and is actually invested there, being shaped there, being called out of sin there, and participating in real life mission there.

In the end, I contend that every movement that changed the world started with relationships. It started on the ground. Most non-relational ways to change the world only end up either preserving the existing order or worse sustaining an injustice hidden beneath the ideology. Their effect might be big initially but almost always short lived. We raise huge sums of money that in the end do very little because the social redemptive reconciliation only happens painstakingly on the ground. And yet we are tempted to contribute to the big (it makes us feel more significant?).

I remember sitting around a church leadership meeting one night talking about a proposal to contribute to a national campaign by some famous musicians to stem the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I asked if anyone knew what percentages of the money would go to the cause, to whom and where. No one knew. Meanwhile we had a relationship with a missionary hospital in the rural area of Africa dealing with 100’s of AIDS patients a year, whom we knew well (my sister ministers there). The other more famous option was more appealing. Uh why do we do this? For me, revolutions work for change on the ground in the raising up of repentant and resistant communities (Read Ched Myers on this).

I admit I have a blog. I started to tweet a year ago. I speak at conferences. I admit I have an agenda. It’s driven by what I see as the way forward in post-Christendom in America. Call it Neo-Anabaptist Missional Christian life. I admit to trying to make my case, often in large settings.

I have discovered however that my blog, twitter feed, facebook and speaking must be part of my life, not a calculated strategy to make a wider case. Stangely, my blogging, tweeting etc. have become part of my personal spiritual disciplines. They have become part of me developing my theology from the ground up. And I go to conferences to get challenged and put forth ideas and contribute to/support grass roots organizations I feel committed to. But I need to take the warning, that the minute I try to architect all this into some national exposure, I find my material disqualified as something not real but manufactured. I must be grounded in the proving of God’s truth amidst vibrant missional communities living among the everyday rhythms of post Christendom. This is where any authority/gifting I have is recognized and authenticated. In real relationships. This is where I think true gospel/kingdom work begins because, in the words of Gil Scot Heron “the revolution will not be televised.”

So here is my very best advice to all of us who would be used by God in whatever context, yet have big dreams – to get a PhD, become a seminary professor, write a book and speak at conferences. Put aside your big plans, put aside your well devised managed future where you think if I get said degree, start a blog, write a book and plant a church, I can find my role in the church. No go the other way. Sell everything, abandon all personal ambition to the life of following Christ into the local mission of God. This will most likely mean inefficiency, getting down and dirty, getting a job and working alongside others in realm life community. It will demand that you devote energy and time to getting good at stuff which doesn’t seem immediately germane to becoming a national church leader. But that’s ok. Spend time in cultivating a community life, partnering with several others, learn your gifts and start cultivating the Kingdom in a neigbourhood. And then see what happens. See what God does. Listen for what God is saying and respond daily. Out of this place, when money – time affords, pursue a graduate theological education that will deepen your understanding of the Scriptures, theological trajectories and culture. If teaching opportunities come, book contracts and speaking opportunities come – praise God! Use them to further the gospel of His Kingdom. But always, I REPEAT ALWAYS, treat them carefully – submitting one’s ego to the Kingdom lest you too become a statistic on the scrapheap of fleeting fame.

____________________

To anyone attracted to this way of thought – I’d like to recommend this conference. EPIC Fail. Check it out here. I love this kind of meeting place to discern what God is doing among us instead of listening to people we’ve exalted as experts. Read what Bob Hyatt has to say about national conferences here. I agree with everything he says. And if I have offended anyone with this post – tell me what I need to hear. I’m always ready to repent from hubris or whatever … Blessings as we pursue on the ground ministry together!!

Filed under Incarnational,Missional,Missional Leadership,Uncategorized 27 Comments

davidfitch on March 18 2011

No SuperStars Here: Places I’ll Be in the Upcoming Months

On Fridays – I’ll be highlighting (occasionally) places where I’ll be participating and/or speaking at. I only travel once a month. For me it’s about commitment to the local organic Kingdom of God on the ground. I think many times good things happen at conferences. But when I become a conference speaker first, and pastor/nurturer of the Kingdom second, everything gets screwed up for me. I can’t live there. For me, therefore I need to choose wisely the conferences I speak at and/or attend. As Bob Hyatt says about many conferences( in one of the best posts on conference attending I’ve ever read – click here) – “because of the very nature of the big stage, the inaccessible superstars, the cutting-edge everything, the end result is often men and women who leave thinking “If only I could speak like that. If only MY church was like that.” So, on the occasional Friday, I hope you won’t mind if I report on some conferences I’m speaking at. I’d like to let people know because I’d like to hang out with friends, get to know new friends, hear what God’s doing whenever I travel. With that in mind here’s a churchplanter training I’ll be at in May. See below!

—————————————————

The Ecclesia Net Church Planter Training Week
A theological and practical trajectory for missional church planting

Called Aggelos this is a unique church planter training opportunity.
As Bob Hyatt says (here) there will not be hundreds of people here. More than likely, there will be somewhere between 20-30. This means plenty of room for dialog, conversation, and questions amidst all of the planned training.
Everyone stays, eats, and prays together for the week. Most people leave with better friendships, some of which will be life-long, because they started the church planting journey – in this way – together.
There will be a host of different equippers with unique planting stories that ARE NOT SUPERSTARS. This gathering is real life every day church planting. You’ll hear from a variety of planters, both seasoned and new, and learn from their experiences and approaches.
Finally, we hope to provide a good balance of theology, theory, and practicality. Each component is vital
This all happens May 9-13, 2011 in Richmond, VA at the Richmond Hill Urban Retreat Center (www.richmondhillva.org). Richmond Hill is a former monastery, located in the heart of the city of Richmond. Most people will be sharing a room with one other person throughout the week. All meals are all included as part of our stay and will take place on the grounds.
For registration info: check out here.

Filed under Church Planting,Missional Leadership 4 Comments

davidfitch on March 16 2011

The Rob Bell Fiasco: Why We Can’t Have This Conversation

This Rob Bell discussion on universalism is not a new conversation in the history of the church. This discussion has not only been going on for centuries in historic Christianity, it’s been going on within the academic halls of evangelical Christianity as well. The real question is, why such a big fuss? and why has this discussion polarized evangelicalism instead of carrying it further into the Kingdom – God’s Mission in the world?

I have always viewed the differences between Arminian evangelicals with a wider view of God’s mercy (someone like Clark Pinnock) and American Reformed evangelicals (someone like R C Sproul) as an issue of percentages (please read a dry tone of humor here). They believe basically the same things, the percentages are just different. In other words, R C Sproul sees God condemning about 97% of the world’s populations over its history. Clark Pinnock, I’d say would estimate it at about 3%. For me the latter provides more motivation for mission. But fundamentally they believe the same things (just different versions) in relation to hell, universalism, the exclusivity of Christ, and the post-mortem experience.

1.) They both believe in hell. They may disagree about the issue of whether hell is eternal torment versus annihilation, but both sides believe in hell. But let’s be clear that there has always been a legitimate theological discussion within historic Christianity over the nature of hell. In our current day, historic respected Christian pastors/leaders/theologians including evangelical icons like John Stott, Alasdair McGrath, C S Lewis among others have dared to assent to some version of annihilationism in regard to hell. Last I heard, they are still accepted within the family for evangelicals. As for my own life, I choose to avoid either option .

2.) They are both exclusivists. Both sides unequivocally say Jesus is the only way! But to say Jesus is the only way does not define what that way looks like, right? In the European medieval period of the church, including the Reformed/Lutheran churches you did not make “a decision.” The singular decision of faith was an American innovation (I would say a good one since I’m an Arminian ). In Medieval Europe faith in Christ looked differently. You were basically born a Christian, baptized as an infant and you were saved through a life of faith/discipleship in the church that centered around the Eucharist and liturgy. As opposed to the individualist cognitive receiving of forgiveness and renewal of the Spirit by a person’s individual personal faith, they received it regularly through the proclamation of the Word and receiving the Eucharist by faith. But everyone still believed in Christ as the exclusive way through faith.

Granted, there has always been a disagreement over whether those outside the church can receive faith in other ways that acquire the merits of Christ’s work for their lives. In this regard we evangelicals are the liberals because we believe a simple decision regardless of one’s communal practices initiate one into restored relationship with God in Christ. But there’s legitimate room for debate as to whether the Holy Spirit is working for all men and women’s salvation outside the church (even in other faiths?). But even for the most liberal inclusivist – he/she still maintains that Jesus Christ is the only way. And even for the most conservative exclusivist, most of us agree God is at work outside the church in non-believers bringing them to Himself.

3.) They Both Believe in Some Form of a Post-Mortem Experience. The idea of a postmortem (after death) opportunity to return to God has always been within the Christian conversation. At one time the post-mortem experience was Christian orthodoxy as Catholicism generally accepted the doctrine of purgatory. Does anyone remember Dante’s Divine Comedy, one of the greatest apologetics for Christian discipleship yet? But of course in Dante’s Divine Comedy pergatory after death is all the more reason to get one’s life in order in the present time. And Dante certainly did not skimp on hell. Today, even the most Reformed evangelical believes in the “age of accountability” where a baby dies before having the opportunity to respond to the claims of Christ. Here there is a postmortem encounter with Christ, right? Others, like Pinnock, want to extend this version of postmortem to all those who never had that opportunity. Whichever the case it is, it seems to me both sides of this debate in some way have accepted a version of postmortem in some way.

Then Why Are We Splintering Over Rob Bell?

Yet for some reason, it seems, we cannot have this conversation as the church emerging from evangelicalism in America without calling each other heretics. Frank Turk, in a well written open letter to me, suggests that I take sides in this debate in my blog post here. Not really Frank. For in my piece you refer to, I blame Rob Bell for this inflammatory mess (along with his publisher) because of the excessive bating and provoking all in an obvious attempt to attract attention to his book. This is no way to pastor I say. This is no way to lead. (but it does sell books). On the other hand, to be even handed, I blame people on the Neo-Reformed side as well, people like Kevin DeYoung. Sorry Kevin, I know you mean well but when you do a 20 page review that largely argues out of an incredibly narrow view of orthodoxy with little to no appreciation for history before the 1920′s, it comes off as defensive and parochial. For both sides, the tactics reveal a lack of a place to engage this issue productively for the furtherance of the Kingdom beyond our own personal enclaves (or ambitions). And yet discussing this issue is essential in order to be shaped for a posture for Mission that has been lacking amongst the traditional evangelicals, the church I am part of and remain committed to.

Evangelicalism is Cracking!

There is one thing that Kevin DeYoung has said that I find searing and I applaud. I quote:

“As younger generations come up against an increasingly hostile cultural environment, they are breaking in one of two directions—back to robust orthodoxy (often Reformed) or back to liberalism. The neo-evangelical consensus is cracking up. Love Wins is simply one of many tremors”

As I said previously, and as I have said in my new book The End of Evangelicalism?, evangelicalism is at a tipping point. We are cracking. The emergent conversation started by Brian McLaren et. al. has not produced theological leadership (it seems Love Wins is another case of this). The herds of disenchanted evangelicals are left to either wander or head for the newer coalitions of the Neo-Reformed. Yet as I’ve said here, this isn’t going to take us into Mission. Based in the impulses in both of these movements, we need an alternative place for the work of theology and mission. Without it – it is questionable whether these much needed conversations can place. Without an alternative coalition (that can bring certain parts of these existing factions together into conversation with the Holiness, Anabaptist Missionals), the aftermath of traditional evangelicalism is going to devolve into defensiveness and fail to produce a missional movement. There’s some of us working toward that end (of nurturing an alternative theological coalition). In the meantime, this for me, is the lesson of the Rob Bell fiasco.

Tell me, where have I got this wrong.

Blessings

_______________

Note For Clarification: To be fair to Kevin DeYoung, he does give a brief historical treatment of the above issues in his blog post. This treatment of history however appears to be a blanket disregard of the diversity within historic Christianity (unless you consider all Catholicism for all its history to be outside Christian orthodoxy). He seems to ignore the diversity on these issues even within the well established trajectory of historic evangelicalism. Am I off or did this seem dismissive seeing history through the narrow lens of post-1920′s evangelicalism?

Filed under End of Evangelicalism?,Neo-Reformed,Rob Bell 50 Comments

davidfitch on March 8 2011

When We Form Our Lives Around What We Are Against – Announcing “The End of Evangelicalism?”

The Idea of an Empty Politic and Evangelicalism

Most of us know the feeling of exhilaration when we are part of a large group united against a common enemy. There’s a certain energy elicited. This was evident for instance in United States after 9-11. All of a sudden, after the terrorist attacks on NY, all of America put aside our differences and united against our common enemy. It was exhilarating. There was a certain “high” we felt as we all had something to live for. It is always easier to unite a community around a common enemy than cultivate goals we will work together for through whatever the future may bring. I’m not saying this to criticize the country’s political reaction to 9-11. I’m just illustrating a fact of politics – it’s incredibly easy to organize a people against a common enemy.

This dynamic however has a shelf life. We cannot lead a community this way without constantly keeping the threat of the enemy preeminent. If we somehow don’t have enemies then we must invent them or else the community will fall apart. This kind of politic works off an antagonistic energy which eventually devours itself. The continual enmity is fatiguing. It does not give life. This way of organizing life together is what I call an “empty politic.” It has nothing at its core to hold us together. We are held together NOT by who we are or what we are for but by what we are against.

American politics is full of this dynamic. I fear in these last few decades that evangelicalism is showing signs of behaving in these same ways. I fear the church of my upbringing, the church that I love – evangelicalism – has become “an empty politic.” As a result our very way of life in Christ is threatened.

In my new book, the End of Evangelicalism?, I explore how evangelicalism has morphed into an “empty politic.” I try to show, through the work of a political cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek, how this is killing us. I propose that we need to return to a life together “in Christ” where He is at the center. Our life together (i.e. our politic) needs to return to a simple participation in the life of Christ and the Triune work of God in the world.

I believe that local churches are shaped by theology and practice. We are shaped by what we believe about the gospel, the kingdom and how God reveals Himself and the ways we practice these beliefs together. Yet often we have taught our beliefs and practiced them as the means to differentiate ourselves from those who don’t believe. We learn our theology by who(or what) we are against. And so strangely, we define ourselves over against “the liberals,” or “the gay or lesbian communities” or “those who seek to bring down our culture – the Christian Nation.” We end up separating ourselves from the world making enemies instead of living our lives together for the world in God’s Mission.

I contend we need to articulate these same beliefs and practices so that we are gathered into and out of our relationship with God through the Son. For in Him our life together becomes full and overflowing with His life for the world. We become a “politic of fullness.” We are created anew as a people “for the world” participating in His mission. This I call a politic of fullness after Ephesians 4:13. Here we gather seeking “the unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” This is what The End of Evangelicalism? is about.

Are you prepared to lead a community theologically into a way of life together that gives God’s life to the world?

In your hands is one of the sharpest and informed evaluations of the state of evangelicalism. Read it slowly. Ponder it. Plot a better evangelicalism.

Scot McKnight

I’m pleased to announce the early release of End of Evangelicalism

I hope my book The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission helps lay the groundwork for leading a church theologically into the life “in Christ” for the world: what I describe as “a politic of fullness.” Here’s the book’s webpage. You’ll find a free pdf download of the introduction. The book is not for the faint of heart. It is not a book written specifically for a popular audience. I worked at making the material accessible! Nonetheless there’s some intense political theory in this book alongside some intense theology. I’m just being honest!! So read the introduction before you buy the book. You’ll get an idea from the intro as to whether this book is for you. You’ll find on the webpage we’re offering it for the first 100 days here at a 40% discount. You’ll find updated reviews on the webpage as they come in. You’ll find blurbs like the one Scot McKnight offers above. If you’re interested in reviewing the book, and you have a blog that gets decent traffic, I have a limited number of free copies to be sent out by publisher for review. Let me know!

As always, I’m open for comments on what I’m putting forth here. Let me know if you connect with the issue of this book. In the meantime, I pray this book serves the Kingdom God is bringing in. Check out the page!! It will be updated often. and thanks for being a regular visitor to this blog!

Filed under End of Evangelicalism?,Evangelicalism,Missional Theology 8 Comments

davidfitch on March 4 2011

Me and Phyllis Tickle? On the Future of the Church?

Uh, this may seem odd, pairing myself with Phyllis Tickle to talk about the future of the church in N. America. But I actually think this works. Phyllis is an Anglican, written a book on the future of the church called The Great Emergence. I’m an evangelical who has just written a book about evangelicalism in a crisis and the way forward to a new faithfulness. In other words I’ve just written a book on the future of the church too. Phyllis is a writer, cultural observer, spiritual formation expert, wise woman. I’m a pastor/professor/church planter. Phyllis is a wonderful petite woman who speaks gently but always with gravitas. I’m a talk large white man. Nuf said. Do you get the contrast?

But I’m really looking forward to this. In a way this is a replay and a chance to flesh out more some of the ideas I talked about here just a few weeks ago. if you’re in the Toronto area, join us won’t you?? You can register here.

P.S. I’m finally launching the new book The End of Evangelicalism? next week with a new web page that will offer a free download and a significant discount to the first 200 purchases. The book goes into general distribution in about two weeks. Thanks for everybody’s interest out there and for being patient!

Filed under End of Evangelicalism?,Uncategorized 10 Comments

davidfitch on March 1 2011

Rob Bell’s Frenzy: Why We Need Other Ways to Do Theology and Some Other Off-The-Cuff Observations

By now everyone has heard about the frenzy over HarperOne’s announcement of Rob Bell’s forthcoming book. If you’re not up to date on this, read Christianity Today’s article here. It has all the dirty details. The media is flooded with reactions. Here’s just a few of my off the cuff observations/questions. Tell me where I’m wrong eh?

1.) Does this reveal the inherently defensive impulse of the Neo-Reformed movement? The Neo-Reformed bloggers, Gospel Coaltion, John Piper seem to be operating from an increasingly antagonistic and defensive position. How else do you explain this media frenzy? How else do you explain their lightning quick jump into condemning a book they haven’t read? How else do you explain how easily they took the bait from HarperOne and will now make this book a huge best seller. I am sure Rob Bell, and HarperOne are saying thanks to our Neo-Reformed brothers (and sisters-if there are any ). Meanwhile, the NeoReformed are being revealed more and more as predictably defensive and alarmist. What say you? Agree?

2.) Is this the best way to pastor/lead the church into the future? I understand that these kind of extreme statements (such as the one put out by HarperOne on Bell’s book) is how you get readers and attract attention. I actually believe that putting forth outrageous statements is a good teaching tool, as long as you’re there, present, and able to then flesh out what you mean. But to throw out “a bomb” like this that misleads by a publicist? That causes dislocation and unresolved antagonism in the church nation-wide? To me there are serious doubts as to whether this is edifying to the church of Jesus Christ. To me there’s something off about a pastor/leader allowing himself to be used for such hype? Am I wrong?

3.) Is this the best way to do theology for our times? We are doing theology more and more through the large publishing houses and their media empires. But really, if I’m looking to understand the issue of universalism, pluralism and the plight of the world’s lost, Rob Bell is not the first one I’d go to. Nothing against pastor Bell. But it seems a place to begin would be one of the numerous historical studies, Scriptural studies available in plenty at your local bookstore. Yet it seems this is the way we do theology these days. Popular pastors throwing grenades setting the agenda and the tone for the masses through the publishing empires. With the demise of the denominations (they’re just trying to survive and so they refuse to take up most of the theological issues of the day that would rock the boat and lose them old line financial supporters), and the demise of seminaries (more and more relegated to the work of trying to keep their schools afloat with skeleton staffing and faculties), where will the new places be nurtured where serious theological reflection can go on for the church? Or is this the way of doing theology we are stuck with?

The landscape of N. American theological reflection looks more and more like the following for the average Christian under the age of 35. He or she looks to the pubishing superstars, i..e Brian McLaren, Rob Bell etc etc.. They often (in the past ten years) come out of the Emergent world where they are daring to ask questions that have been avoided or shut down within evangelical church culture the past fifty years. These authors get a big stir. They offer some good thoughts and helps. But then they fail to deliver on their promise. And therefore, hundreds, even thousands of these twenty- thirty something’s end up delusioned or looking for something more. This wandering herd then heads for the monster wave of the Neo Reformed – Neo Calvinists composed of Justin Taylor, John Piper and the cast of characters that have played the reactionary role in this Rob Bell frenzy (notice people within this camp like Tim Keller and Francis Chan have largely stayed out of it – hmmmm). These people, to their credit offer theological substance sufficient for the formation of church life. And so we have thousands of young leaders at the gates of the Neo-Reformed. This is the new theological landscape and it speaks to the need for an alternative theological coalition. (for instance, the Neo-Anabaptist, Centrist-communal-wholistic-Baptist, Holiness/Charismatic oriented, Kingdom minded, evangelical Missionals).

In summary, the “Rob Bell HarperOne” episode speaks to the growing need for another place to do theology from whence the emerging church (the church emerging in this generation – not to be confused with the Emergent church) can find direction for the challenges of the new post Christendom landscape we find ourselves living in.

Filed under Uncategorized 79 Comments