I don't hate the IC
Well I have finally decided, pretty much, to move to San Francisco and possibly switch to an MA instead of an MDiv. Most of this is contingent with my aspirations to go to GTU (Berkeley) and pursue my PhD, specializing in Christian Spirituality. I realize that I am going to get a lot of strange looks and advice, but that's really ok. I'm not out to please anyone but God and I'm not looking for job security. It really doesn't make a difference if I am working at Starbucks with a Phd or teaching at Harvard, because I need to go where I can learn the most and make a contribution to the study of an area that God has called me into. I am wholly convinced at this point that spirituality (read: doctrine put into practice) is the core of Christianity, it's what makes a Christian and Christian, and it is sorely neglected in the academic community. So that's the what and the why.
I have been thinking a lot about the whole "emerging church" thing of late. My feelings are quite mixed -- although I really think the church is on the verge of another reformation and this movement may be the foreshocks. It could easily be termed just another trend, and I'll tell you why from my own POV. Having been raised in a mainline Protestant church and recommitted in a contemporary evangelical church, I have seen both sides of the coin. It seems that people keep attempting to remain relevant, or to "really reach" all of those "lost people" who could care less about the church. But at the same time, the one thing I noticed prevalently in mainline churches is the structure, particularly when it comes to doctrine and practice. Yes, postmodern friends, I realize this quickly becomes a shackle and even a prison that chokes the life out of spirituality. But I believe that spirituality needs a foundation, a set of universal truths, or at least universal truths as our limited minds can comprehend them. How long will the EC be able to remain a nebulous idea without parameters? I don't think it can remain that way indefinately. Social psychology simply proves otherwise. After groups form, they begin to establish their mores. Even if they are not writing creeds or catechisms, the unwritten laws then come into play. If the EC refuses to define any type of paradigm then the cohesion will soon fade. I don't think definitions necessarily have to be a bad thing; they don't have to be prescriptive. I look back at the early church and things like the Chalcedonian definition. While this is the defining statement for early Christology, it really doesn't prescribe anything -- it merely states what Christian's don't believe. Maybe this is the way we need to look at doctrinal issues: defining the parameters, the playing field. Of course all the deconstructionists out there will be calling me a heretic, but that's ok -- I think we've seen that deconstruction as a paradigm is a bit self-effacing anyway.
So in keeping with the title of this post, I can truly say that I don't "hate" the institutional church. Obviously our task is to remain vigilant, and as the EC start to resemble an institution, to keep checks on how it is developing. I agree with Karl Barth that the task of the theologian is to work from within the church, constantly scrutinizing the cultural situation and the proper way to respond. Barth didn't think he was closing the canon when he wrote his dogmatics, no matter what his critics say. We will continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling -- but remembering that it is God that works in us.
I have been thinking a lot about the whole "emerging church" thing of late. My feelings are quite mixed -- although I really think the church is on the verge of another reformation and this movement may be the foreshocks. It could easily be termed just another trend, and I'll tell you why from my own POV. Having been raised in a mainline Protestant church and recommitted in a contemporary evangelical church, I have seen both sides of the coin. It seems that people keep attempting to remain relevant, or to "really reach" all of those "lost people" who could care less about the church. But at the same time, the one thing I noticed prevalently in mainline churches is the structure, particularly when it comes to doctrine and practice. Yes, postmodern friends, I realize this quickly becomes a shackle and even a prison that chokes the life out of spirituality. But I believe that spirituality needs a foundation, a set of universal truths, or at least universal truths as our limited minds can comprehend them. How long will the EC be able to remain a nebulous idea without parameters? I don't think it can remain that way indefinately. Social psychology simply proves otherwise. After groups form, they begin to establish their mores. Even if they are not writing creeds or catechisms, the unwritten laws then come into play. If the EC refuses to define any type of paradigm then the cohesion will soon fade. I don't think definitions necessarily have to be a bad thing; they don't have to be prescriptive. I look back at the early church and things like the Chalcedonian definition. While this is the defining statement for early Christology, it really doesn't prescribe anything -- it merely states what Christian's don't believe. Maybe this is the way we need to look at doctrinal issues: defining the parameters, the playing field. Of course all the deconstructionists out there will be calling me a heretic, but that's ok -- I think we've seen that deconstruction as a paradigm is a bit self-effacing anyway.
So in keeping with the title of this post, I can truly say that I don't "hate" the institutional church. Obviously our task is to remain vigilant, and as the EC start to resemble an institution, to keep checks on how it is developing. I agree with Karl Barth that the task of the theologian is to work from within the church, constantly scrutinizing the cultural situation and the proper way to respond. Barth didn't think he was closing the canon when he wrote his dogmatics, no matter what his critics say. We will continue to work out our salvation with fear and trembling -- but remembering that it is God that works in us.