Blog

Jonathan, I'm having very ambivalent feelings about this. On the one hand I so agree regarding the baggage of labels, in-or-out thinking, battles over who's most orthodox etc. And considering what people HEAR is just as important in effective communication as what we're trying to say with the terms and language we use.

So far so good. Now here's where I'm having trouble following:

Is there any clear evidence that at the root of mainstream Christianity's deficiencies is a preference of Paul over Jesus himself? Or to take the argument a step further: did Paul misunderstand and misrepresent Jesus? I can't see that he did, particularly in the point that Kathy's friend John was trying to make: I think Jesus' kingdom message cannot be properly understood without seeing the the framing core elements of sin and salvation (rightly understood) which in its internalization and the dependence on grace represents the only way to move from brokenness towards wholeness. The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost. I'm included in that. Everyone is. I believe Paul got that from Jesus and he got it right.

Is it really important that the word “Christian” survives? I don't see why it should matter at all. Who cares how I choose to label myself or what labels others attach to me as long as I can find my identity in the fact that I am the Beloved of God (Henri Nouwen)?

But I would carefully examine my main motivation when it comes to the reason for intentionally shedding the label “Christian”. There may be more behind it than just removing obstacles in connecting with people because of their perception of the term. It may be possible that I also consciously or unconsciously just don't want to continue to identify with all those “others” who choose to remain in that institution and system that causes me so much aversion. This is a dangerous endeavor because it fails to recognize that I'm in no way better or somehow “beyond” the issues that are being played out there. If you're part of the body, you're part of the body – for better or for worse! If I'm not willing to be in it for worse than something is missing somewhere. When one part of the body suffers, we all suffer along with it; we don't cut ourselves off to eliminate the pain.

It feels and tastes a lot like just another attempt to be the “pure church” – just this time by not trying to be the church at all. I think it would be more honest to say: while I don't like many things that are going on here, I'm still part of it! End of rant.

May I suggest an alternative: IDENTIFY and CONFESS

Remember the confession booth in Don Miller's “Blue like Jazz”?

The understanding of the word 'Christian' in Tanzania is so other than what I want people to assume about me, that I don't respond with “yes” when asked if I am one.

Instead I say, “Well… it depends. What do you mean by 'Christian?'” They then explain what they mean by the word, which usually are extremely legalistic and probably hypocritical practices done by people they know, or their own church. Then I answer, “Oh, then no. I'm not one.”

At this point I have the opportunity to share what it is that I am, what I know to be true about God, what it means to be a part of his kingdom, and how God shapes and transforms my life. Every time I'm asked if I'm a Christian (which is nearly every day), I get to share the gospel with that individual. And I get to do that while distancing myself from their current (and often twisted) view of Christianity.

And what if I'd just answered “yes” in the beginning…?

Some more thoughts and questions:

1. If (hypothetically speaking) a definition of “Christian” existed that we would deem appropriate and accurate in its description of what we are, what we believe and value, and what we do and want to pursue, what would that definition look like?

2. How would that definition not just describe the opinion and the preference of an individual but be descriptive of the all encompassing nature of the body of Christ in the world and of what all members would agree and subscribe to?

3. If conflicting and contradicting definitions were the result of such a survey / conversation, who gets to decide what a Christian is and isn't?

4. Even if a very broad consensus on these issues were possible, how could we be confident that this result not only reflects what we are comfortable with on an inter-personal level but also reflects God's design, purpose and approval?

5. If labels themselves are the problem because of their inherent tendencies to create borders, divisions, exclusiveness etc. what label other than “human” could possibly avoid those very tendencies? Doesn't the label “emergent” in the end have the same drift?

6. If we were to emphasize our Christ-connection (doctrinally, relationally, pragmatically) in the word “Christian”, would there then also be an understanding of what it means to be “non-Christian” / “un-Christian”?

7. What would the implications of the answer to # 6 be regarding the understanding and definition of evangelism?

Josh I share a lot of your concerns. I think abandoning words ultimately doesn't work. We need language to express ourselves and what images are rumbling around our heads. Part of the problem I see happening is when we transpose our current understanding of the word over the original meaning. What we end up rejecting is both. And that cripples us in the process.

Thanks for using the word “language” here as it really clarifies the issue. “Label” on the other hand carries the connotation of a fixed description of content which promotes the illusion that we can somehow gain understanding and ultimately have a sense of control over where something or someone belongs. Labels do not have much flexibility. Language on the other hand calls for translation and interpretation.

Isn't that the whole point of dialogue? To make sure we truly understand what the other person is trying to say (as opposed to immediately classifying and judging based on our own concept of the words used)?

I just thought it was ironic to read this post as an apparent issue of emergents in general – at exactly the same time as others (who felt they were part of the movement for quite some time) express their desire and need to shed the label “emergent” now.

The way I read it, the parallel here is: a perceived fixation of content that does not describe people's values and passions. And I understand why some are baffled about the desire to leave the conversation when conversation implies that disagreement was and is a necessary and a welcome part of the process.

I guess the other side would respond that the diversity of voices and disagreement are welcome but not heard or ignored when it comes to a general image being cast to the general public (particularly through the printed media). In their opinion, a certain theology is being promoted that they just don't feel comfortable with (see Bill Kinnon's “crossless” comment on Brian's “A New Kind of Christianity”).

Which brings me to one final question for you (trying to incorporate the whole roundtable idea as well):

How can we possibly avoid continuing splintering in movements like Emergence when first of all it's logistically impossible to have all voices heard and involved, and when due to its inherent aversion to formulating contents of belief and to hierarchical leadership there seems to be no clear understanding of who is speaking for whom?

I forgot to say that I agree with you here. I felt the same way.