iCritics
I read through the archives of some popular blog sites. Something struck me.
I think I have met hundreds over my twenty years in the ministry who seem to have the following characteristics in common with some bloggers. They are career critics. They have an overzealous attitude of wanting people to be brutally honest, and I mean brutal. They hate when people are judgmental and will, ironically, judge them harshly for it. They have a longing for peace and answers but have given up on finding either.
Unfortunately, many of these guys seem to have let that proverbial pendulum swing too far. At first they became disillusioned by their church setting or Christian journey. Of course, that is a common aspect of nearly every Christian’s life. The difference between them and everyone else (and they do tout being different) is they decided to rebel against it all. Once they got out of their perceived "box" they felt "enlightened" but were actually guilty of a kind of neo-Gnosticism. In their minds they have it right and everybody else has drunk the cool-aid. To gain credibility they claim that they are like some theologian who lived years ago – but who is conveniently dead and cannot disavow himself from such attitudes.
Surprising to some, underneath the new-found crusader image is usually an individual who has decided to question everything including himself... AND finds that "never finding the answers" is the virtue of their journey. Just keep asking questions! Weakness is their strength. Doubt is their absolute. Criticism is their answer.
And guys like this make life fun. They challenge, they test, and they are usually relentless. They only leave you alone only when they are having bouts of depression. They can cause you to tire and feel like you are getting nowhere. But really they are serving a purpose – there is someone who is on the fringe of becoming a career critic, of getting that bad attitude, but while watching our beloved antagonist brother they realize that the “old way” isn’t broke – its just filled with broken people.
Posts
9 Spoke Up:
Jason I see this didn't generate many comments, but it was very well written. I liked it a lot.
I especially liked this statement: "...the “old way” isn’t broke – its just filled with broken people."
That really sums up my view of PDL and the EC and every new fad that says we need new methods for new times.
Jason,
Career critics = the narcissistic.
Brad
Good thoughts Jason -
EC'ers talk a great deal about "cultural sensitivity", and about relating Jesus with a culture-savvy approach...yet, conspicuously absent from their "mission" is a plan to "reach" back into the traditional church-culture they have deemed so weak. I mean, if we're being culturally sensitive and all...
In fact, the EC has admitted that traditional Christianity has a culture all its own. Why are there no EC'ers with a savvy and sensitive attempt to conform to traditional Church culture in order to "reach" them? Why is it that the only culture considered worthy of speaking to is the radical fringe and those disillusioned with traditions?Their claim is that their cultural-sensitivity gives them the inroad to speak to the disillusioned masses. But if the traditional church is so far gone that it can't be salvaged, how are they not included in the missional efforts of the EC? To be consistent, you would think that the EC mission would be broad enough to include adopting some traditional church characteristics in an effort to attract that subculture. If I were convinced that "traditional" Christianity had missed Jesus' point and was awash in a sea of unbiblical, ineffective ministry, and if I truly grieved over evangelicalism's cultural detachment, wouldn't I make some "sensitive" attempt to be like traditional Christianity in order to "help them see the way more clearly"? C'mon, "all things to all people"...
Seriously, I think the inconsistency here is telling. The EC wants to be perceived as "missional" in its primary motivations (and I believe that many are sincere), but in practice they are better known by what they are fleeing (e.g. all things conventional). A purely missional approach would send them in all directions, including and especially back into the "misguided" church culture they disdain. What we're witnessing instead is an Egypt-like exodus, complete with a speedy "shaking-the-dust-off-the-feet" finality usually reserved only for those who blaspheme the gospel. Unless they're prepared to declare the traditional church no church at all, the EC has a biblical obligation to be as culturally sensitive to the "weak and irrelevant" traditional church as it promises toward all other subcultures.
Great post, Jason -- save the neo-Gnosticism thing.
As for the EC thing, I think it'd be a wonderful thing for those most critical of the movement to actually spend some time posting on their blogs and fostering discussion. Jerry, why don't you head over to Scot McKnight's blog or the generous orthodoxy thinktank and do some posting? I think it'd be an illuminating thing for me to follow.
Sharad -
Thanks for the suggestion. I always hesitate because I'm never sure whether I can give enough time to an interchange. Not that I desire to be a "hit-and-run" commenter, but that if I initially engage can I offer enough thorough interaction to honor Christ.
Be that as it may, I did respond to Scot's post today...
Good subject to discuss.
Thanks again,
Jery
Can't even spell my own name!!! (comment above)
That's great, Jerry! I know how time consuming it can be to engage in dia-blog; it's like adding four email accounts to your already overflowing stack of electronic mail. I think it'd be valuable for you to respond where you can though - it's a practical way to build up (and be built up by) those influences in the family you may be wary about.
I'm not sure if you've read his response, but he's posted one. It's interesting to see that he's "zealously opposed to a subjective foundation for Christian theology". It seems like Scot's motivated by seeing Scripture as a story that believers are to enter by virtue of the Spirit (i.e. Wright's "living out the 5th act" kind of thing). That retains the idea of authority, but with a tweaked significance.
I'm all for living in the Spirit, but I don't quite understand why we must embrace a "tweaked" significance. It seems that many are clamoring for a more "sensory" life in Christ, meaning that obeying scripture just doesn't "personalize" my relationship with God enough. My problem with this is that the scriptures themselves reveal what it means to relate to Christ (a fact even emergents must begin with) and how He is experienced. Paul taught the Philippians that experiencing God in a visible and tangible way comes through submission of the will in obedience to Christ (Phil. 2:12-13). As the flesh is brought under the control of the Spirit by obeying truth, Christlikeness emerges (no pun intended). If I'm becoming like Christ in thought, word, and deed I don't see how I would ever need more of a "tweaked" significance in my relationship with God.
I believe that too little emphasis upon real freedom from sin in one's life is where EC'ers tend to be confused. They seem to want to define the Christian life as distinct from the propositional truth found in scripture, the result being a paradigm with gobs of "relating to God" and almost no striving against sin.
Anyway, it was a good discussion...and yes, I did offer a response to Scot's response.
Post a Comment