Does God need to die again?

In 1957, Gabriel Vahanian's book The Death of God came out. Vahanian was one of a number of the Death of God Movement's theologians, and perhaps the most conservative among them.

The prime focus of his book was that our culture had moved beyond the discussion of the existence of God, and now had no concern to even deny His existence. In essence, God had died to our culture, and even where He existed in the belief systems of traditional churches, the image was so marred with a modern "religiosity," as he called it, that it did not look like the God of the scriptures.

Of course, Vahanian did not suggest that God had really died (and neither am I), but he did suggest that God (in an accurate image) had died to us, and that the image modern religiosity carried needed to die, in order to resurrect a correct, and living picture of the God of scriptures. His approach was far more conservative in its theology than that of his fellow death of God theologians in the 50's and 60's.

Looking back now over the course of these 60+ years since the release of Vahanian's The Death of God three things capture my attention:


1) It seems that the death was not complete enough. 

Churches, as many of us have experienced, still appear to hold views of God and the Christian faith which have harmed generations of people. Either the praxis of religion, or the combination of bad actions and sad theology have driven people away from church, and God has died in them (both in the harmed individuals and often in the theologies of the church).

False views of God, which have marred His public image still need to die more completely (of course, they never will completely until He returns.) Theologies of self-directed or self-serving power have merged the power of a transcendent God with the aggressive immanence of a God Who is out to bless you and crush what stands in the way of your blessing. In other cases our God of awesome power is presented as a self-service God Who appears ready to grant everyone who asks all their wishes. One image pits human against human in a falsely represented spiritual battle, and the other image has left the unblessed feeling left out of the circle of faith. These are just two examples - which come primarily from evangelical and pentecostal circles of theologies, which have re-crucified the Lord, and still need to die in order to allow for a resurrection of a true theology.

Apparently the death of God was not complete enough.

2) There was enough of a resurrection in evangelical circles over that time to foster the need for a recent counter movement of aggressive evangelistic atheism.

Vahanian's critiques and prophetic insights should have evidenced a continuing disinterest in God in the last half of the 20th century, but the wild growth of Pentecostalism worldwide, and the American revivals of the Charismatic Movement, The Jesus People Movement, the Religious Right and religion in American politics, the New Calvinists, Emergent Theology, and a number of other wildly growing Christian movements give evidence to the re-emergence of God in every sector of *American life, and even around the world to a great degree. 

As reactionary as the point 1 appears, I do not think that any of the above religious movements are entirely unhealthy. Each carry some sense of true revival of religion as it ought to be, and each carry elements in need of correction of the death of certain perspectives. As such, the rising and falling of religious concern in our culture over the last 50 years has been dramatic enough that it has spawned a reactionary movement - an aggressive evangelistic atheism. This may well be evidence for and against Vahanian's position: on the one hand the new atheism argues against the God Who ought to die (those theologies which are indeed false images presented by Christian leaders over the last 50 years), on the other hand the reactionary felt-need of the new atheists to battle fundamentalism, and the growth of faith movements is evidence of the power of religion in current culture and society.


3) His solutions would not be my own.

Vahanian called for the death of what he called "radical immanence" - a God so present as to be integrated with all the actions of humanity. I do not disagree with a critique of theologies which justify the sorry actions of humanity through radical immanence. Yet, his answer is the death of such theology in favor of a reformed theology.

The positive elements of revival which emphasized the growth of Pentecostalism in the third world, Charismatic movements in the US, evangelical church growth, the Religious Right, New Calvinism (yes, even new Calvinism), and Emergent theology often emphasize the immanence of God. The movements have come and gone, or continue to grow with a sense of God's activity in my own life, in miracles for the needy, in politics, or social justice.

Though I recognize the dramatic differences in many of the above movements, and I do not personally identify with them all, I still see the emphasis of a radical immanence being a driving focus of their growth and revival. Like Vahanian I believe that this immanence should be balanced with a sense of transcendence and the holiness of God, but for me it is not a de-emphasis of immanence, nor even a gentle balance. What is needed is a radical balance. God is both radically immanent and radically transcendent: holy and active in our lives.

This may call us to consider whether our views of God need to die and be replaced with a more radical Theology Proper.


* Of course, since the re-emergence of God has been most prominent in the US, and many "second and third world countries" it begs a certain consideration of the place of American influence over the folk religious thought, and vice-verse.

Spiritual Phenomenon and Religious Bias (Part 3 - seeing in lock-step)

Most of us know that there are forms of madness*, which cause the senses to feel, see, or hear things that appear to be religious phenomena. While I believe that mental disabilities and mental hyper-activities may cause some of these occurrences, I also believe there are legitimate spiritual phenomena, and that these phenomena are more common than much of Western civilization acknowledges.

Yet, I also believe that many otherwise sane people are experiencing things they believe are spiritual phenomena, and are not. These are intuitions, and sensations of "hearing" the voice of God, which are incorrect, and the reasons for these experiences can be many. Two broad and overly sweeping categories are listed here:


Individual thinking, bias and chemical responses

Some years ago I wrote a a short series of articles I entitled "Is it Adrenaline or is it God?" Our excitement over our own creativity, future plans, and personal preferences have the potential for giving us positive physical and emotional feelings which can be mistaken for the move of the Spirit of God. Similarly, negative responses rising from fears, strong dislike, or something as benign as personal preference creates measurable responses, and Christians have the propensity for taking these feelings (both physical and emotional) as evidence of an interaction with the Spirit of God.

During the First "Great Awakening" of religious revival in America (1734 - c. 1750) Jonathan Edwards who is credited for initiating the revival wrote a treatise on the subject of Religious Affections in which he outlined the nature of spiritual experiences and religious emotional states. Part 2 of the book highlights at length that religious affections in and of themselves are not a sign for good or for bad concerning the validity, the holiness, or the interaction of God in the process of spiritual experiences.

So it was, that long before the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements Christian leaders were concerned about the capacity for individuals to experience emotional states they believed were the evidence of God, and for these conditions to be either personally or perhaps even devilishly initiated.

This kind of deception, whether personally achieved by self satisfying biases or by demonic subtlety may be either minor and inconsequential to communal faith and peace, or deleterious and robust in its effects.

This is obviously a category of human experience highly subject to bouts of "madness." Having seen the news with tragic stories of people moved by voices in their heads, and/or confidence of God's will being behind their actions, society at large often wholly rejects all expressions of divine experience. Yet as Jonathan Edwards reminded us almost 300 years ago, religious affections do not give us evidence of the truth or the goodness of an experience.

The simple point is this: Individuals do mistake personal preference for spiritual phenomena. Yet, this fact does not negate all spiritual experiences.


Group think and bias

Based upon the same assumptions I hold (that God is able and willing to speak to humanity, and is actively doing so today), combined with the Biblical injunction that every word should be accepted at the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses Charismatic and Pentecostal Christians are regularly verifying each other's spiritual experiences.

For years I have heard pastors talk about a coming great religious revival. People I know have set dates for this great revival, which was supposed to begin in Fill-in-the-blank-ville and eventually spread to fill the whole earth. Those dates have come and gone with greater frequency than dates set for the Rapture, or a daily change of underwear.

Strangely, those who challenged the dates were treated with disdain as though their lack of faith might somehow hinder God's will. Yet, when the dates have come and gone, no one held the leaders who declared these dates to any accountability. The same leaders have gone on to declare other dates, and the same people who followed their false declarations followed them into new and exciting promises of glory.

Jeremiah dealt with this same problem. He was a prophet of gloom, bearing sad tidings of coming trouble. He lived among people who relished hearing words of promise as we all tend to do. It appears that he was one of only a few declaring the words of impending war and trouble. The prophets around him declared good news and victory for Israel. (see Jeremiah 14)

Jeremiah's day was an example of group think driving the experience of the supernatural. False prophets had visions and dreams, and declared those experiences to be the voice of God.

Today, Christians follow leaders who pack together and agree with one another. They listen to the same teachings, and follow people with whom they agree the most. The leaders gather in similar groups of like minded thinkers. Some of them hold high-powered meetings, and others gather in special conclaves to discuss their theology. These gatherings carry some of the same dynamics of adrenaline surging excitement that comes with personal bias - only now it appears verified by a large group of people.

Is it any surprise that Christians have often had similar spiritual phenomena, come to similar conclusions, and then go on to set dates and make predictions which turn out to be false?

People who agree with one another, and are afraid to challenge the veracity of spiritual experiences are not good gauges of that which is true and that which is false. Their common hopes, their common fears, their common biases lead to a common group think, and common group satisfying validations of perceived spiritual phenomena.

The verification of 2 or 3 witnesses is meant to cover witnesses to a crime, or an issue before court, or accusations against an elder in the church. It is not meant to be an automatic verification of prophecy or any other spiritual phenomena. To allow it to become the high water benchmark of the validity of spiritual experience is to place followers into the precarious position of feeling compelled to jump on the bandwagon and shout, "Amen!" Once this occurs, unscrupulous individuals step forward to generate excitement, influence, and often money among those who faithfully, and sometimes stupidly are stumbling towards glory in search of a glimmer of hope.

All the while church groups appear to walk in lock-step validating the words of their leaders who declare they have experienced God in supernatural ways, and the world looks on in disbelief. Unfortunately, this is more common than we might imagine. Yet on the hopeful note: such false examples of group think driving and validating spiritual phenomena does not invalidate the possibility that God is still speaking today and that true spiritual phenomena are occurring. I am convinced they are occurring, but I am not convinced that we are capable interpreters of these experiences.


* as a fan (but to some degree an amateur critic) of Michel Foucault's book, The History of Madness I am using this rather outdated sounding and politically incorrect term purposely, but not derogatorily. I am not confident that all mental disabilities and mental hyper-activity fall under the medical model, which is eagerly attempting, and perhaps has fully succeeded in co-opting all forms of "madness" or "insanity" into categories of "mental illness."

Tonight: Tony Jones presents on Emergent and Pentecostals

Tony, who was Mr. Emergent Village is speaking at the Society for Pentecostal Studies annual meeting tonight.  I have personally been asking the question about how Pentecostals and Emergent fit together for about 4 years, because I am caught between the worlds, and I know a number of people who are.  Yet the merging of the two worlds has not been comfortable for many of the Pentecostals who have been involved.

The reason for those difficulties go both ways:

On one hand, many Pentecostals are uncomfortable with the more theologically, and morally liberal elements of the emergent conversation.  One the other hand, Evangelicals of the Pentecostal variety (and this is another whole topic in itself sometime) are often more seriously berated by non-Pentecostal evangelicals - most notably those from a more Reformed tradition.

I do not expect the issue to be addressed, nor any of the underlining dynamics of this issue, but dialogue on finding elements from which both tribes can learn from one another is a good start.  That appears to be direction Tony is looking at presenting tonight.  With the focus that both groups have a robust pneumatology.

I am sure that most Pentecostals will not see Emergent as having a "robust pneumatology."  So, I think this is just the beginning of that dialogue.  This more academic group at the Society's conference will probably understand what Tony means by declaring that Emergent has a robust pneumatology - but that does that mean he is also saying there is a growing theological agreement in Emergent?  Hmmmmmm...

Slightly off topic from the initial posts about "What is Emergent?", but post your thoughts if you've got some.

Eventism, Contemporary Christianity, Festival Life as a Means of Evangelism, and My Dilemma

I have been concerned about the state of Evangelical Christianity as an event based establishment for most of the 24 years I have been a pastor. I have written extensively about "Relational Christianity", as I have typically called it for the last 20 years, as a model of church life preferable to event based Christianity.

My thinking is this: As evangelicals we have understood that church is not a building. Most of us were smart enough to figure out that the frailties, banalities, and fallenness of humanity made it impossible for a corporate structure such as a denomination to be a definitive expression of "The Church," but somehow we still seem to describe church as an event.

Rather than something we are, church has become something we go to, and something we do. It is and event on a Sunday morning, or a series of events. It has become Eventism.

I still believe that this is true for much of Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal Christianity. I still believe that this is less than ideal, and sometimes detrimental to church life.

Despite viewing Eventism as detrimental to a holistic relationship with God, I am beginning to consider a new way of doing things - a way of doing things, which comes dangerously close to the very way of church life I have disliked for so long.

Here is my dilemma: I am looking at the nature of our culture, and the manner in which people gather. I see people running from event to event, and finding their source of fun, recreation, and renewal. This looks reminiscently like the fashion of spiritual gatherings in the Old Testament. There is no mention of church gatherings on Sunday mornings, and even the Sabbath was not set aside for sermons and worship singing, but rather for rest. Instead of church the people gathered in festivals throughout the year, and these festivals became the source of connection to the greater community of the faithful, and the center of Israel's religious life. Now the New Testament has a different spiritual feel. The people gathered daily at the temple in the first few chapters of Acts, and the first day of the week soon became a standard time of gathering for the followers of Christ.

The church I pastor is in the center of Salem, MA. 1 million people pass by our doors each year - most of them come in October during the Halloween based events. We have thousands who pass through our doors. They have a spiritual experience based upon a gracious attempt to relate to them caringly, and creatively, and then they head home to the various corners of the earth from which they came. We have crashed this festival Salem calls Haunted Happenings, and have created one of the best parties within the larger party in the whole city. This has allowed us to briefly pastor tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people, even if only for a moment, over the last ten years.

I have wondered if we are in a new season lately. We have learned to crash the festival and create life changing experiences people want to be a part of. Could it be that it is time for us to create festivals, which people want to be a part of?

I have been part of a hundreds of Christian festivals over the 30 years of my following Jesus, but typically no one but church goers want to be a part of those festivals. Is it time for me to learn how to develop a festival, which the world wants to be a part of? Is it time to learn how to create the life-changing type of festivals like those of the feasts of Israel?

I think the answer is yes, and our location, and our mission as a church seem to say yes, but I tremble at the thought. Even as I tremble, I am attempting a couple festival type events as a means of pastoring the greater community of Salem (and beyond actually).

How this will contrast with, and perhaps create a struggle with my desire to break the habit of Eventism in the church is yet to be seen, but it is part of the adventure we are on at this time.

May God smile.

Glossalalia and The Sacred Language of the Shaman: Christians as Pre-Mortem Psychopomps

Communication with the spirits beyond the curtain of our visible/audible/tangible world is a skill belonging to the most spiritual, and perhaps the most insane among us. Those who hear the voices of gods and goddesses, angels and demons, ancestors and ghosts have been revered, feared, and ridiculed through ages and cultures of human history.

These holy men and women appear to see and hear things the average person does not. Sometimes with the senses, sometimes beyond their senses they experience a tie to a realm invisible to human eyes, and inaudible to human ears.

What distinguished these holy people from the common public was not only having ears and eyes, which perceive things most people do not, but even their speech hearkened the unseen realm. These mystics of the other world spoke the language of the spirits, and their communication traveled in both directions. They heard the secrets of the heaven and hell, and somehow spoke the secrets in languages unknown to the uninitiated.

During the initiation of a Shaman, he/she often must learn a new language. It is a language of the spirits - sometimes a language of the earth's creatures. Especially common among the Northern Asian, and Arctic Shamans this secret language was also found among Shamans of Sumatra, Borneo, South America, North America, and Guiana.

The ability to communicate with spirits and animals set the Shaman apart from others, and gave evidence to the ecstatic, and supernatural component of his or her healing and blessing activities.

The Shaman is a psychopomp. Lost postmortem souls are supposed to be led by the Shaman to their place of rest. The fact that the shamans communicate with the unseen realm is evidence to the uninitiated that they truly walk in the unseen world - the place to which our souls travel after death, and therefore know the paths of death which the uninitiated are forced to someday travel alone.

I am a Pentecostal/Charismatic Christian, and I find that there is a connection to these shamanic languages within my own faith. I speak the languages of angels, and men - languages which I have not learned through education, but which have spontaneously flowed from my tongue in times of worship and prayer.

Could it be that Charismatic Christians have become secret speakers who like the shaman speak the languages of men and angels, and declare divine mysteries hidden in the dark recesses of human history?

The shaman was required to communicate in the secret language of the spirits, and as such it was evidence that he held special communication with the realm of the Spirit.

Could it be that the Pentecostal languages of men and angels are God's way of giving evidence to the mystical, other-worldly travels of the souls of His followers? Could it be that it is evidence to a dying world that there are people who have mapped the way to a place of peace beyond the grave? Is this a portion of what Paul meant when he said that, "tongues are sign to the unbeliever?"

If Moses had been the leader of a Siberian tribe, he might have cried out "Oh, that all the Lord's people were [shamans] and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!" (Numbers 11:29) But as a leader among the Hebrews he called for us to be "prophets."

God's heart is the same toward shamanic cultures as it is toward the culture of the prophets, and He as such is developing leaders after His own heart who speak the languages of heaven, and know how to communicate the messages of heaven here on earth

This newly paganized, urban western culture requires people who hear the voice of the Spirit. Although every person will be forced to travel the path of death alone, those who have discovered the mysteries of the unseen world are called to become the pre-mortem psychopomps to those who fear that day of death. We are called to map the way to eternal peace for the uninitiated soul. The ecstatic languages rising from my innermost being declare that I have walked on the winds of the Spirit, and know the paths of life and death.

This gift is not limited to a few initiates of a special class, but to the common follower of Christ, and as such it demands of us that we take on the role of the shaman, and map the way toward eternal peace.

Peter Berger, Pentecostals and Neener, Neener, Neener...

I've been giving some lite (yes, spelled like a diet product) credence to the faith movement, and its mother - the massive Pentecostal movement for some time. Of course I am one, or was one, or am a post-pente kinda guy, or something like that. But, more specifically I have suggested to friends that the sociological benefits of the movement, and the sense of social concern are deeper within these movements than we realize.

So now I want to say in fine deep, proud words of theological self-justification, "Neener, neener, neener I told you so."

Peter Berger's sociological thumbs-up to the benefits of the Pentecostal movement, and even a note of reproof for those who look down upon them as "dupes and victims" are something I have been saying for awhile.

So, I've only blogged about it a couple times, but I've just got to say, "Neener, neener, neener...." So, here I am considering the power of the Pentecostal movement among the poor well over a year ago on my other Blog, and more recently on a post about social activism.

Maybe Peter can help get Emergents and Pentecostals to seriously talk. But, quite frankly, it's about more than talk when one deals with a highly experiential movement like Pentecostalism.

A Response to Pagan Pride

I thought it would be nice to post a response to the Pagan Pride event. The letter below came by e-mail the day after I taught at Pagan Pride Day. As evidenced by the quality of writing, George Popham is an articulate man, and he was both funny, and challenging with his thoughts during the discussion times. He is finishing his doctoral work in religious anthropology. (I think that was the category of study - something religio-brainy like that.) So, here's George's thoughts:

Pastor Phil,

I just wanted to thank you again for the kind and thoughtful discussion you moderated at pagan pride yesterday. I was so impressed that you managed to neither soft pedal or market away the true differences of belief involved or make those differences excessively confrontational. Usually interfaith dialog between any of the, let's say, 'Abrahamic' faiths and other religions is either so diplomatic that it is dishonest about the true nature of their basic differences, or so focused on the differences that they appear as you aptly put it 'mean and judgmental' Somehow you managed to find a middle course between these extremes and I have seldom seen this done with such grace.

But but you also avoided two other mistakes (I believe) Christians commonly make in witnessing their faith. 1. You did not speak as if we non-christians had never heard this message before and 2. You did not speak to us non-christians as if we were in need of rescue. I know you likely believe we *are* in need of rescue, but that you were respectful enough to not explicitly condescend shows a good heartedness and sensitivity I am not used to encountering among evangelicals. This is important because this attitude conveys that you are aware that many non-christians are just as comfortable and assured of their beliefs as you are, and just as contented in their lives and full of spiritual hope as well. That is, we are as committed to our stuff as you are to yours. Too many Christians fail to recognize this and this tends to shut down discussion right from the start.

The sort of discussion we had yesterday is also encouraging in so far as the discourse between Christians and non-christians has become increasingly and dangerously polarized, toxic and political. That you have drawn such fire for even speaking with neo-pagans is yet another perplexing proof of it. It just seems so un-Christ-like to condemn you for ministering to neo-pagans, after all, that is exactly what Christ would have done. If there is to be any peace at all and if the political fiber of our Country and Constitution is to hold together we need to continually remind each other that whatever we may believe we are NOT enemies.

Christian Day was speaking with my wife after the discussion yesterday and told her how kind, generous and basically samaritan-like you and your people have been in the Salem community. And in this respect I think we have at least one common belief: argument and discussion is worthwhile and even fun, but it is far more important to persuade by one's example of loving kindness.

The whole thing made Debbie and I feel great. We've been talking about it quite a lot. We will likely never share your congregation's religious beliefs, but we hope you will consider us allies all the same.

Peace,

George Popham and Debbie Fields Popham

Wow,

George's words were encouraging, and of course I can think of them as allies in a common cause. What do you think?

Social Action and Pentecost: non-verbal expressions of our faith

And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

The Franciscan call says, "Preach the Gospel. When necessary use words." The heart of Christian social action is found in this dictum. God's care for the world should be expressed by His people in acts of mercy and giving. The poor should be cared for, and the oppressed relieved. These actions often speak louder than words, and carry the seed of the Gospel in them.

In comparison evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity sometimes look (and sound) shallow, and pompous next to taking serious social action. Of course Christians should be involved with caring for the impoverished and oppressed of the world, but I wonder if the above words of the Apostle Paul are the connecting dots between social action and Pentecostal faith.

His Gospel, perhaps like that of Francis of Asissi, was not simply spoken, but illustrated. Paul healed the sick and cast out demons. He demonstrated God's power through his prayers and blessings to the impoverished and the oppressed, and he did so in such a way as to emphasize his own weakness. By this he more perfectly illustrated the Gospel - He clearly modeled salvation as an act of God's power moving upon humans despite their incapacity to save themselves.

Healing and deliverance through the miraculous acts of the Spirit of God are still the greatest social action moments of the Biblical narrative. They do not by any means give Christians the right to ignore caring for the poor and oppressed in practical ways, but our knowledge of God's power should cause us to desire the spiritual gifts and move into a wholly new realm of social action.

Power to Bless?

“James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?"
But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village.”
(Luke 9:54-56)

It seems to me that the power of Pentecost (that fire and wind event, which stands out as the prime example of God's power working in and through Jesus' followers, and becomes both a model we look back to, and an experience we hope to discover for ourselves) has a central motivating factor which is so simple that we overlook it.

The power of Pentecost seems to be that of granting blessing.

Jesus was none too happy with the "sons of thunder" who wanted to call fire down upon those who rejected the message of Christ. Though Peter had to call the young men to carry Ananias' and wife's bodies out of the house, this was not the common power motif of the book of Acts. The few instances of power judgments appear to be the exception and not the rule. The stories of healing and deliverance far outstrip the stories of power judgments in the New Testament, and any general reference to power encounters in the New Testament do not mention judgments, but always blessing.

I have heard a great many prophecies of judgment during my 28 years as a Christian. I have not seen these judgment prophecies come true - at least not with any accuracy beyond that which monkeys playing the stock market would achieve. I would think that if we see judgment as a power play by God during these current days that we like James and John have misunderstood the "manner of spirit [we ] are of."

Tony Jones Honorable Mention? Holy Laughter!?

Tony Jones new book New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier includes a reference to our conference last May: "God for People Who Hate Church." In the forward of the book he says that he visited some extremes in respect to his Emergent church experiences while writing the book. We are listed as one extreme.

The fact that we practice dream interpretation believing that God still speaks to people in their dreams today like He did throughout the scriptures, and that we are from Pentecostal origins are the reason for this mention.

Here's the quote: ""As I was working on this manuscript, I was also on the road, speaking about this content to a variety of groups. In May 2007, I visited these five events in a whirlwind of travel..."

"A Pentecostal church in Massachusetts, where I participated in a conference titled 'God for People Who Hate Church' and shared the stage with witches and druids as they reflected on how they've been treated by Christians.

The National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., where I spoke about the challenge that emergent Christianity poses to the Episcopal Church at a conference called 'Church in the Twenty-First Century'"

"Within a week, I'd gone from sitting with Pentecostals who interpret one another's dreams and break out in 'Holy Spirit laughter' to addressing collared Episcopal priests in the second largest cathedral on the continent. That's theological whiplash."


So we get the honorable mention in the forward. Or was it honorable? Maybe it was just a mention, but here's my response: Holy Laughter!? What's up with that? There may have been a few people at the conference who were into that, but as a church The Gathering does not practice that, and never has.

I suppose on one hand we are considered to be on the Frontiers of church life. That's cool. I want to live on the front edge of Christian experience as it pertains to touching our needy world, but I'd like to be accurately defined. Laughter - good. Learning to laugh in a holy manner - even better. Holy Laughter as practiced and defined by some Pentecostal Revivalists - uhm, a bit weird for me.

So Tony - Thanks for the mention, but we'll be expecting a minor retraction in the second printing bro. ;-)

Some of you will remember that I specifically asked Tony how the Emergent Conversation could better embrace the Charismatics and Pentecostals who were identifying with its values. You may also remember that I thought his answer was fair, but insufficient. Does this Holy Laughter comment perhaps hint why? Perhaps there is an assumption that all Pentecostals are whacked, and practice Holy Laughter? Perhaps there is fear of embracing emotional forms of worship expression? But wouldn't Pentecostal emotional expression be a positive move away from the post-enlightenment reliance in a solely intellectual pursuit of God? Just a thought which quite frankly I owe to some of Jeff Gentry's thoughts in his sermon today at The Gathering.

Blood Ritual and TV Cameras

This last Saturday, I was asked to speak on camera about the subject of Salem's Witches for a show on Treasure HD, which is part of VOOM network. They came to Salem to do a show on Witchcraft highlighting Christian Day, Leanne Marrama, Sandra Power, and the rest of the gang.

I was not sure what the show was about, and did not have any talking points. I simply arrived at the shop Christian recently purchased, asked a few questions concerning context, and was placed in front of a camera.

Kevin, the director of the show "Magnificent Obsessions" asked a few questions: Who I was, and some basic info about the our church The Gathering. Our history of being excommunicated from our previous denomination, because they were afraid of Christians who were on friendly terms with Witches came up.

After a few questions Kevin mentioned that they just finished filming a ritual, and it included the use of blood. He wanted to know what "the church" thought of that.

Now I wasn't particularly prepared for that question, but I did a good job of hiding a moment of surprise. My eyebrows were raising on the inside, but on the outside I held a calm collected unsurprised expression.

You see, I was wondering how to respond to this one. I have many friends who are Witches, and many friends who are Christians. Typically they do not get along with one another, and so I figured this was a question which could leave me up a creek without a paddle with one camp or the other.

If I said that blood ritual is satanic I would alienate many of my Pagan friends. If I said it was acceptable to practice blood ritual I would alienate all my Christian friends. Yet most importantly I had to say what I believe is true, and not play some kind of popularity game.

So, what was I to do?

First of all I did condemn the practice of animal and human sacrifice, but quickly added that this was not what my Neo-Pagan friends were practicing.

Christianity, and its mother religion Judaism have their own connection to blood ritual. We are by our own admittance, and with great pride bloody religions. Sacrifices and war fill the scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. The sacrifice of Christ with an emphasis upon His blood becomes the central point of the Gospel in the New Testament. We sing hymns and choruses about the "Power in the Blood,"

Does the pricking of a finger and the drop of blood in chalice, or the more peculiar use of menstrual blood in spell casting post-figuratively speak to the power of the blood of which I have joyously sung in the comparatively tame church services of my Pentecostal tradition?

As I responded to this question from the producer of the show, and since then have pondered it further it causes to me consider the issue of blood in the religion I practice, and causes me to place it in a position which makes sense both of the power aspect, and of the lack of actual blood in today's Christian services.

Yes, blood has power. As Moses reminds us, "the life is in the blood." Christ's blood has the power of forgiveness, cleansing, and healing in it, and even though we celebrate the Lord's Cup regularly, we look back to the sacrifice which was "once and for all."

As Christians we primarily look back to the blood (even though Orthodox and Catholic Communions may beg to differ here). The blood of Christ was shed two millenia ago, and it has become the focal point of our religious experience. We pursue becoming "peacemakers" to evidence our identification with Christ, and reject the idea that the shedding of blood in war has any eternally effective power in the solving the problems of this world. In terms of identifying power in blood we look back.

As the Mosaic laws of sacrifice prefigured the power in Christ's blood, it may be that blood ritual of the Neo-Paganism post-figuratively speaks in the same manner - There is power in the blood.

Theology and Experience: Which Drives Which?

My life ought to be driven by my faith, and my understanding of truth. Or so my pentecostal/evangelical heritage tells me, but I wonder to what degree my understanding of theology has been driven by my experiences in life.

I have noted elsewhere in this blog that I began to read the Gospels differently after experiencing the backside of corruption in my previous denominational affiliation. Was there a significant theological change following my circumstances? I tend to think that there was not a significant change, but rather a deepened understanding of things previously only partially understood. Yet there are others who would see it as a theological veering off course.

So this causes me to wonder what degree off my own faith is driven by experience despite the fact that I think of myself as far too objective to allow it to be a large percentage.

Are my experiences the back seat driver of my theology, and have I been listening to them? And is this good, or bad, or a little of both?

The Children of Pentecostal Theology

I am Pentecostal by belief system - pretty much. This is not the case if the point of determination is tradition, and praxis. I don't look typically Pentecostal - perhasp I wold look Charismatic, but that's a distinction to be made by those who know the finer points and care.

I do believe in the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, and am convinced that all the gifts of the Spirit are active today, and are necessary for ministry - especially evangelism. Yet I do not hold altar calls, nor do I feel that the gift of "Tongues" is necessarily initial physical evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I believe that Pentecostalism (and her sister, the Charismatic revival) has given more to the world of Christianity in the last hundred years than any other movement. This point would be difficult to disprove considering the phenomenal growth of the movement. What is has given unfortunately falls into the categories of both good and evil.

Enter stage right: The witch children of the Congo.

Pentecostal theology, and its step sisters have filled the cities, the villages, and the slums of Africa. Faith teaching, and deliverance ministries with their emphasis on spiritual warfare, and faith as thing of power are common theological traditions.

In Kinshasa's slums children as young as 4 or 5 are being accused of witchcraft and sorcery, and people claiming to have spiritual power to cast out demons charge money to deliver these children from the power of witchcraft. Often it does not work, and more money may be required to finish the task, or the parents may be encouraged to cast the child out of the home. These children are being blamed for the ills of the household or even of the neighborhood. Sick animals, sick people, the lack of food and water are all blamed upon them.

Are these children the children of our Pentecostal doctrines of spiritual warfare? Have the superstitions of American Pentecostals bred itself into 3 and 4 generations to bring us "God-fearing" parents who throw their own children out on the street because they believe that they are witches?

Some people are estimating there are 20,000 to 40,000 witch children in the slums of Kinshasa alone.

I think these are the children of American Pentecostal superstition. We are responsible, and we should clean up our mess.

That's what I think. What do you think?

Want to read their story?

Interpreting By Day What God Speaks By Night

My friend Steve Maddox told me he was setting up outreach events at Borders Books. He arranged to offer free dream interpretation, and would spend the afternoon at Borders talking to people about their dreams.

I thought to myself, "I can do that."

Over the years people would share their dreams with me, and then ask what I thought they might mean. Often I would be rather dumbfounded that they asked, because any dream which had some sense of divine meaning (which certinaly is not all of them!) seemed so obvious to me. If dream interpretation was something which came natural to me, perhaps it was a gift - like Daniel who was able to interpret dreams better than all the kings magicians and astrologers.

Five years earlier I had been at a pastor's conference. Ed Silvoso was the main speaker, and I happened to sit with him at breakfast one morning of the conference. Ed and I talked. I told him my story: how I moved to Salem, Massachusetts from California to plant a church, how I had studied about Neo-Paganism, and how I had come to know some of the Witches in our city as friends. Ed remarked that Daniel was assigned the position as the chief of the occultists in Babylon by the king, because he did "the stuff" better than they did. Daniel was the head pastor of the Witches, he said.

After breakfast Ed spoke at the morning session. He retold my story to the conferencees, and told a room full of over 500 of my peers that I was a pastor to the Witches in Salem, like Daniel was a pastor to the Witches in Babylon. He spoke in a prophetic tone, the kind which only comes from Pentecostals.

Until recently I did not realize how much these two stories have merged into one long, wild tale.

I am convinced that my friends who are involved in the occult yearn as deeply for the graceful power which comes from God's good hand as I do. Healing, miracles, and prophetic utterances of promise and grace are things they want for their own lives just as much as I do. Of course, their pursuit of these things has taken a different path than my own, but perhaps like Daniel, there is power in my journey with Jesus, which can speak gracefully into their lives.

I thought about interpreting dreams like my friend Steve was doing at Borders Books as I was preparing for the month long Halloween season in Salem, and I decided it was time to give this a try.

We made up our signs. We put out our tents. People began to stand in line, just like they do every year we set out our ministry tents.

One evening close to Halloween itself, a young man in an elegant, long black ceremonial cape stood in line with his friends. I had trained a few people to interpret dreams that year, and was taking a break from the tent, and keeping the line outside the tent door happy. The caped man and I began to talk. He discovered I was a pastor, and we discussed the differences between his Pagan path, and my Christian worldview in friendly terms. For the most part I asked questions, and he answered them. He believed the spiritual realm was a helpful, friendly place. If he asked for guidance and help it would not lead him astray.

After talking for some time, he asked about the dream interpretation, and wondered if I interpreted dreams. I told him I did. He told me his dream.

He and his friends were in Red Rock, Colorado. It is a New Age "hot spot," a natural amphitheater, and beautiful concert venue. After some time of being there, black helicopters came racing over the hills, and began to shoot at he and his friends. Some of them died. Others were severly wounded. He and one other friend were able to escape into nearby caves, and hide from the helicopters. Then the dream ended.

"What do you think this means?" he asked.

I looked at him, and paused simply because my response was one of importance. Then I said, "The spiritual realm is not always benign, sometimes it is malignant and harmful."

The young man gasped out loud. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "You are so right!"

I had not thrown Bible verses at him to prove from a scriptural standpoint that demons existed, and spiritual deception was real. This was a young man who had studied religions, and understood many of the basics of Christianity. He had rejected the Christianity he was familiar with, and adopted another religious view, but his rejection of the Bible did not mean that he rejected all spiritual voices. He took stock in his own dreams, and that evening his dreams and my Christian worldview met.

Where he would not listen to the Bible, he would listen to his dreams, and the God Whom I believe wrote the words of scripture had visited his head by night.

Since that evening I have wondered how many non-Christians are visited by God in the night. After four seasons of interpreting dreams I have discovered that there are more people visited by God than I can possibly know. Perhaps He comes in dreams, perhaps in life experiences, or perhaps in words of power and grace. He visits them by night, and I believe that He waits for us to help interpret the wild variety of those visitations by day. I also believe that He is giving us the charisma to do so, and to speak prophetically into their lives.

I have had Witches call me late at night to ask my advice, and guidance in times of trouble, but I do not think that I am anything special. I believe that there are more Daniels out there. There are more pastors to the people who are not found in our churches, but are still looking for God's guiding voice to speak into their lives.

The Truth War - John MacArthur and the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle

It's late. I can't really sleep now, even though I've spent the day at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital, and my son was getting a kidney transplant. So after having sent out messages, and thanks for prayer, and updates, I thought I might respond to the book I read yesterday, since that is a goal over the next week anyway.

I read The Truth War in a day. It is easy reading. I do not recommend it to any undiscerning reader, and wouldn't have bought it except that I felt compelled to respond to it.

I did not come to this book unbiased. I am from a Pentecostal background, and have seen the writings of MacArthur, and heard his diatribes on my own variation of Christianity slammed by faulty logic before. Since I identify with the Emergent Movement to some degree currently - jokingly calling myself a PentEmergent, but really thinking of myself as some combination of Pentecostal, Anabaptist, and Emergent, I thought it would be best to respond in some way to his critiques of a movement I am beginning to find some identification with.

I will respond in a short series of posts, and try to keep each post a simple refutation of one of the many fallacies I have observed in his (what I view as) pontifications.

In MacArthur's attacks on Charismatic Christianity 20 years ago, I observed a solid Biblical teacher (excellent on some issues, and dreadful on other issues), commit a series of ad hominem attacks on Pentecostal Christianity. This is a fairly easy thing to do, since Pentecostals include a spectrum of wild to mild, and charlatan to honest characters. With some frequency in print, and on air he used examples of the most extreme, and sensational characters, and their behavior to make broad sweeping statements about the entirety of the movement. These attacks on individual behavior were even used as proof of the doctrinal error in teachings concerning the current usage of the gifts of the Spirit, and the doctrine of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. In Logic this is a fallacious argument called Argumentum Ad Hominem. The bad behavior of an individual, or even a group of individuals does not prove that a doctrinal position they hold is automatically false.

Having seen this otherwise decent Bible teacher utilize poor logic in the past against those with whom he disagreed, I assumed the same might be true in his attack on the Emergent Conversation. I was unfortunately more correct on this point than I had imagined, and will therefore take a short series of posts to cover these thoughts.

So, here's my first observation:

John MacArthur's lack of understanding, and shallowness of knowledge on the Emergent Conversation causes him to create a potentially false dichotomy. This is called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

"Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot."

For more examples of faulty logic see this list of Fallacious Arguments.

Even a reading of some basic material such as Scott McKnight's article in Christianity Today, (I posted on this sometime back here) would have shown MacArthur that the Eemrgent Conversation was far more divergent in thought than he assumes in his book. He might have understood that it included liberals and conservatives from most denominations of Christianity. That people were joining it for reasons doctrinal, and for reasons primarily evangelistic or missional. I fall into the latter category, and so the statements of apostasy and heresy are gross generalizations concerning someone like myself.

Here are a few examples of MacArthur's inability to see that the Emergent Church is more complex than he understands, and is not simply a truth evading, fad chasing, corrupt movement - as he tends to demonize it:

"As always, a war is being waged against the truth. We are on one side or the other. There is no middle ground." Introduction page xxiii By itself this is a fine statement. Placed in context of assaulting an entire movement without clarification of the complexity of the group this is a fallacy of the excluded middle.

"We will examine why defending the faith inevitably requires warfare, rather than the gullibly sanguine stance many Christians seem to favor today." Introduction page xxv Here we are given the opportunity to be a part of one of two responses, without consideration that there might be a third option. Otherwise we join John, or we are gullible.

...by suggesting that contemporary Christianity needs to reimagine, update, or simply jettison some supposedly obsolete doctrine...They are actually working toward the wholesale demolition of the entire structure." page 80 The context of this paragraph hints that something as innocuous as updating a service is on par with challenging fundamental doctrines, and is an assualt on the basics of the faith. This theme is repeated a number of times in the book.

MacArthur's faulty logic makes itself fully known early in the book with his own observation on the "excluded middle." On page 14 he says, "The reason behind postmodernism's contempt for propositional truth is not difficult to understand. A proposition is an idea framed as a logical statement that affirms or denies something, and it is expressed in such a way that it must be either true or false. There is no third option between true and false. (This is the "excluded middle" in logic.)" At this point MacArthur idenitifies the pattern of attack he will continue throughout the book. His insistance that the Emergent Conversation, and the Seeker Sensitive Churches (which he erroneously lumps together throughout the book - perhaps not purposely, but certainly by inference, and repetitious connection) are regularly on the wrong side of "The Truth War" establishes his use of the excluded middle as a logical argument. With his ignorance at best, or at worst his outright pretention that a more complex community of commited believers does not exist in the Emergent Church, he repeatedly makes the mistake of using the fallacy of the excluded middle, and even trumpets his pleasure in using it as a solid logical argument. With his use of the argument of the excluded middle MacArthur proudly displays his faulty logic as though it were sound intellectual supremacy, and allows this fallacy to rule the basic premises of his book.

I am amazed that an otherwise solid theologian can make such a basic error in logic, but this certainly is not the first time for John Boy.

Vampire Lynched?

Tell me it ain't so!

Is our world so superstitious that we lynch little old ladies, because they look and act strange. Do their peculiar behaviors become a reason for accusing them of unimaginable evils, simply because we can not understand them?

Of course Christians in a Christian nation would never become superstitious and do strange things would we?

Hmmm...what are these interesting items?

Guidance for Human Service Workers
A Free Guide to Get Rid of Those Demons Inside You

Could it be that there is superstition in Christianity? What do you think?

Christian Sexuality Part 6

Freedom, Love, and Pleasure

Christians have defined prayer, and worship as pleasant experiences. The concept of sensuality in worship is not new. It has formed the background behind the use of icons, meditation as a means of drawing near to God, charismatic worship, and Pentecostal prayer.

The writings and dialogues of the 17th century monk Brother Lawrence have become classic exhortations to pursue pleasurable moments of joy, satisfaction, and peace by "Practicing the Presence of God."

John Wesley spoke of an inner witness of our salvation as an assurance of the Spirit, and described his own experience as having his "heart strangely warmed."

Yet, there are still churches which would steal the pleasurable elements of sexuality, and give them the status of sinfulness. For those who have grown beyond the ascetic limitations of Christian sexuality, there is often simply a silence, because the influence of previous generations of sexual tension still reverberates in our hearts, and minds today.

How is it that we recognize pleasure, and sensuality in abstract moments such as meditation, prayer and praise, but ignore pleasure in the discussion of sex?

The Song of Songs which is Solomon's song to the Shulamite drips with the poetry of pleasure, and enraptured love. This is the love poetry of the scripture, and it is passionate - pulsing with speeded heartbeats, trembling fingers, and the lovers' sweat.

The way of a "man with a maid" is described one of those earthly things which is "too wonderful."

Even the unmarried Paul recognizes the marraige bed as something holy, and connected to service and duty - almost as though it were part of the worship ritual of life. Could it be that even the unmarried Paul saw sexuality in the context of ritual living?

Celtic Christianity: A Brief Look

Tomorrow night James and I will share some teaching on Church history. We will attempt to do the impossible, and the unenviable task of teaching the big picture - 2,000 years in an hour and a half.

I will cover two short items: Celtic Christianity, and post-reformation Christianity. In post-reformation Christianity I will basically cover the movements of missions, and revivalistic Christianity through Pentecostalism, and the Charismatic Renewal. My favorite part of church history is the little known times o the Celticc Church. Here is my brief outline of the 300 year period known as the Dark Ages in most European culture, but known as the Age of the Saints in Wales and Ireland.

The Age of the Saints and Celtic Christianity:

By the year 200 Tertullian mentions the presence of Christians in Britain.

First known Martyrs in Britain: St. Albans c.287, the first known Welsh saints (St. Julius and St. Arvan) were martyred at Caerleon in 305.

In 314 three British Bishops were present at the council of Arles, where the controversy of the Donatists was being decided.

After the fall of Rome as Continental Europe moved into the Dark Ages Christianity was spreading, and higher learning was expanding in Ireland and Wales. In Eastern Britain Christianity would be driven back by the Saxon invasion in the 6th and 7th century. Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Cornwall would remain unconquered by the Saxons as would its Christianity.

The Pelagian doctrines of freewill would remain strong throughout much of the Celtic Church, and for this reason it took a number of centuries for the Celtic Church to join with the Roman Church, with the Welsh and Cornish to be the last to come to agreement. Pelagius himself was a 4th century Briton, probably from Wales.

For further reading on early Celtic Christianity see "How the Irish Saved Civilization."

Celtic Nations, and the Spread of the Gospel:

The Celtic peoples are primarily defined by languages, more so than by nations. The primary language groups are six: Welsh, Breton, Cornish, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Manx.

The Spread of the Gospel is difficult to follow through the lands of these language groups, but it is evident that development of Celtic Christianity spread from the influence of the Irish and the Welsh saints.

Ireland: There was a Bishop present in Ireland by the time Patrick arrived in 432, but his arrival marks the beginning of the growth of the Celtic Church in Ireland. We know that through his ministry many were baptized, and many ministers ordained.

The Patron Saints of Ireland are Patrick, Brigid, and Columba.

Patrick was most likely born in West Wales to a Christian family. In his confession he states that his father was a deacon. He was taken as a slave to Ireland at the age of sixteen, and escaped 6 years later, only to return as a missionary to Ireland after he studied for the priesthood in France.

Brigid was born during the ministry of Patrick was converted under his preaching, and established communities of "nuns" all over Ireland in the 5th century.

Columba's work would take him to Scotland to evangelize the Picts.

Scotland: The first apostle to Scotland was the native born Ninian who died c.432. By the time Columba was to arrive churches had already been established all over Scotland.

Columba lived from 521 to 593. He became a monk and later a priest. Tradition tells that he exiled himself from Ireland in 563 after a dispute over a psalter he had copied and meant to keep. The dispute lead to a battle and many deaths. His exile was to work to convert as many souls in Scotland as had been lost in the battle. Columba established his ministry at the now famous pilgrimage center at the isle of Iona, which became launching spot for his mission to the Picts. Stories of miracles, and of the development of a learning center at Iona surround him.

Wales: A hundred years before Patrick Christianity was apparently well established in Britain. Wales' first known saints were martyred in 305.

The Patron Saint of Wales is Dewi Sant (Saint David) c.500-589. Monasticism was established strongly in Celtic Christianity by the year 420, and David is noted for establishing monasteries throughout Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany. The monastic tradition in Wales began with St. Dyfrig, and St. Illtud in the 5th century and David being taught under this order, evangelized the Celtic peoples in this manner.

Britanny: This western part of France still has a notable population speaking Breton today. There are seven notable founding saints of Brittany: St. Malo. St. Brieuc, St. Samson of Dol, St, Patern, St. Tugdual, St Pol Aurelian, and St. Corentin. Only St. Corentin is Cornish, and the the others are Welsh. This shows the movement, and the influence of Celtic Christianity. Although Christianity came to Britain from the East, the Celtic church turned and exerted its Gospel influence back East into Brittany.

Cornwall (Southwest England): During the 5th and 6th centuries Celtic missionaries arrived in numbers from Wales and Ireland. Their names are evident in names of over 200 churches still identifiable today, and numerous cities as well.

The Isle of Man: The isolated location of the Isle of Man makes the tracing of its Christian development difficult, but there are stories of a visit from St. Patrick, and from St. Germanus who traveled from Auxerre to refute Pelagian doctrine in the British Isles.

Brian McLaren, Arminius and What I'm Reading, and Why

I have not posted anything about my reading since beginning my blog, but I thought I'd go ahead and do so. I know boring, boring, boring, but then again people who read blogs are readers, and a glimpse into the reading records of another person is a glimpse into the workings of their mind.

So here is what I am reading at this moment, and why.

I am reading Brian McLaren's book "The Secret Message of Jesus." I am reading it, because I thought that since I am putting a book proposal together, I should keep up with the popular writings in the Emergent Church. That was the only reason I bought the book. Dang, that's real redemptive ain't it? I have read through to the end of the 8th chapter. It's been slow going - not because the book is a difficult read, but because I just couldn't get into it. I got to chapter 7, and 8. I read those last night, and got out the underlining pen. When I get out the underlining pen that's huge. I usually reserve the underlining for writers like Chesterton.

Brian McLaren presents some thoughts in chapter 7 and 8 which speak to my question to Tony Jones the other day about how Pentecostals and Emergent folk could fit together. Not that the answer is practically solved, but the theological considerations are in place through these chapters - well, I think they are. More reading to go. Maybe I'll say more later.

I am also slowly plucking my way through the writings of Arminius. Why? Because everyone reading theology reads Calvin. After reading Calvin, they feel that they have a lot to say about the Calvinist/Arminian debate, but I've never heard that they read Arminius. So I am at the 4th Oration of the first Volume of the Works of Arminius. I am reading them online at ccel.org - which if you do not know about, you do now, and you should go there to read classics for free at least once a month - so methinks.

I generally dislike reading passages of scripture strung together to create something like a Systematic Theology, but this is the first time I have ever been impressed by a theologian's ability to connect sciptures together in a readable and dynamic fashion. Whatever you think about Arminian doctrine as it is presented today, this guy is worth a read if you enjoy the dryness of theology.

I only read one thing I would disagree with, that would have to do with my view of the voice of God speaking to humanity today. I am more of a mystic than Arminius I suppose.

Okay, that's it for now. What are you reading? and why do you think I should I read it? or avoid reading it?

Tony Jones, Emergent, Republicans, and Pentecostals

So, last night I gathered with the Boston Emergent Cohort. Cohort is a cool word, but it has a sense of irony. Are we a unit of the Roman Legion? That doesn't quite feel Emergent to me. Perhaps we are fish spawning up stream. That might be a better analogy, but not exactly a picture I want to perpetuate. Maybe we are a study group of people going through the same experiences. Hmmmmmm...that's just too laboratory sounding. Anyway the Cohort gathered because Tony Jones was in town.

It was a discussion around a table with beer, and soda. There were 13 of us I believe. Cooooool - we could have used the other C word - Coven. We even discussed using that word for the Boston group, and nobody counted to see we had the perfect coven number at the group last night. But Cohort it is.

So we discussed a number of things like liberation theology (and Carlos was there, who is finishing up his doctoral thesis on Latin America, and he's darn smart about liberation theology, because of it, but he stayed pretty quiet on that point), and we talked about how Emergent started, which I didn't know, but it made sense that it was just a group of people who got together and had the similar thoughts about how evangelical Christianity seemed kinda messed up.

A few of us asked questions, so at some point I asked mine.

The first was how Emergent and Pentecostals fit together. I know a number of Emergent leaning Pente's, and they often have a difficult time in their denominations. We, like most of the Emergent gang make fun of TV evangelism, and guys like Benny Hinn, but often with less aggression. I have wondered why we can rip on Benny as Emergents, but not on John MacArthur and his criticisms of everybody under the sun, but himself. They seem to be the same in terms of bringing unhealthy elements of Christian behavior to the church. Personally I'd rather not rip on anyone though, but if we will be fair, we should rip on 'em all.

So back to the point of the question - is there a place for Emergent and Pentecostals to meet, and fellowship? Tony's answer: "I'd be open for being part of a dialogue concerning that issue." (rough translation of actual words.)

He compared it to the dialogue with Emergent and the Traditional churches. Fair comparison, but not nearly as challenging methinks. Tony mentioned his approach to the Traditional churches was to challenge them on their authoritarian governmental structures, and the need to move toward an egalitarian balance in the church. With Pentecostalism this same challenge would be presented, and compounded by the potentially more challenging difficulty of worshiping together with the far more demonstrative style of Pentecostals, whereas the Emergent church has adapted many ancient faith elements already found in some form in Traditional settings.

My second question was similar: Is the Emergent Tent large enough to include Republicans. Tony's answer was more affirmative in this question. (I don't mean to say that the question about Pentecostals was not positive, just that it did not appear to be somehting which has as much thought, and experience behind it as this political issue.) He apparently is one of the more moderate leaning guys in Emergent, as an Independent. Everyone else who helped kick this thing off apparently was registered Democrat. Tony saw a place for Conservatives in Emergent - so James and I rubbed our little gray goatees together in a symbol of solidarity between leftist commies, and republican nazis, and that sealed the felowship of the evening. Well, except for the fact the guys went out and smoked some Nat Sherman's afterward.

Now I've got a new question. Can you be Emergent if you don't smoke?