It is my hope that even our harshest critics can serve a vital role in our “becoming.” Look at the shaping impact of the protestant church on the church of Rome; could there have been a Vatican 2, without the reformation? Overly simplistic – of course – but so is any attempt to understand the impact of one on another. Many argue that interpersonal relationships are so intertwined or interpreting that its nearly impossible to tell where one ends and another begins.
I am certainly not saying we should buy everything our critics are selling. Often our critics call to us from our place of argon. So is the case of my last post – D. A. Carson represents conservative evangelicalism, which was the birth place much of the emerging church movement. The emerging church was birthed (in part) out of a passion to reach marginalized people in the UK, down under and North America for Christ – a very evangelical goal. As the avant-church world continued to develop in reaction to the faux-stability of the presumed-institutionalized church our deconstructive task moved us into both praxis and theology, aka Christian ethics. As our ethic(s) continues to morph our critics speak louder.
One of the reasons why I so enjoy reading Andrew Jones and Brian McLaren (and others) is that they consistently choose to engage the critics; they rarely write critics off discounting them as flaming fundi’s nor do they swallow the critique whole. See Mills response to Carson.
It is my sense that God is using the avant-church world as a type of church renewal movement. If this belief is valid, than it might be worthwhile for those of us in the “emerging” conversation to be aware of the how church renewal/reform has been received through church history. What kinds of problems and issues are associated with renewal/reform? Many great books have explored the history of church renewal, I would recommend William J. Abraham’s The Logic of Renewal (2003 Eerdmans).
No renewal movement has been without flaw. Our oozing, emerging, post-ing movement is also seriously flawed – but it also has glorious signs of life.
As best as I am able, I pursue engagement with my critics. As an act of the will, in concert with the Spirit of God, I choose not to to see critics as “close minded-legalists” but as brothers and sisters who share deep love for God and who live with a different and valid calling God.
I am too young, and too inexperienced to assume that I can help lead Christ’s church without “sitting with” the challenging questions raised my/our critics. May I be known for loving, not disagreeing – even when I disagree.
Peace, dwight
