An Open Letter to Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus and Scot McKnight
September 24, 2008
Mr. Dan Kimball
Mr. Erwin McManus
Mr. Scot McKnight
Organization Yet to be Named
(Post-Emerging Church?)
RE: The Planned Resurrection of "Emerging Church"
Gentlemen,
It has recently come to my attention, via a post at out of Ur, that you are in the process of forming and naming a new network, based on the same principals as "Emerging Church" but incorporating a more firmly-defined statement of faith. Specifically, the post reports:
"The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake—define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked."
If that report is accurate, I am writing to urge you to reconsider. I have one fundamental basis for my appeal.
I, and many of like mind, are convinced that the principles of "Emerging Church" (in its original, unadulterated form; and all further references to EC will imply that form) are contrary to its reduction to a "statement of faith," no matter how inclusive-yet-orthodox that statement is. It was my understanding that the "statement of faith" of the EC was contained in Genesis 1 to Rev. 22. I was under the impression that one of the central stimuli for the EC was the injury caused by the attempted reduction of God's narrative into bite-sized nuggets, no matter how "true" those nuggets.
The EC was never about having true beliefs with less certainty, leaving room for others.
The EC was never about replacing terms like "true" with less in-your-face terms like "coherent" or "sound."
The EC was never about finding a new, radical paradigm and then developing a new system which fit within it.
The EC, as I understood it, was about Jesus.
Jesus. A person. A person as complex and irreducible to true statements as you and I, except a thousand times more. A person who made the radical claim, "I am the Truth."
And if I am right, and this movement was always about this Jesus, some questions naturally arise.
Did Jesus communicate the Truth? Of course He did.
Did He do so using propositional statements of faith? Of course He didn't.
He utilized propositional statements, yes. But to communicate the Truth, i.e., Himself, He used stories. He used symbols. He used a life. He used a death.
"The Kingdom of God is like...."
"This is my body...."
"This is my blood..."
Temples cleansed. Crosses died upon.
The people wanted answers. He gave them riddles.
The people wanted proof. He gave them life.
The people wanted a king. They got one.
Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Are we going to use statements of faith, propositions, value judgment, truth claims? Of course we are. Those are all part of God's good creation, His gifts to us.
But should we consider those things foundational for the task? Should we give up the ghost when the mustard-seed method is not understood by all, within half a generation (at most)? If the people demand something more concrete, as they have for at least 2,000 years, should the mob prevail?
I would humbly say, in Paul's words, "Certainly not."
Change the name, if you must. Call it something else (see to it, though, that the new name captures its fluidity, as did the verb "emerge").
But please, I implore you, do not seek to define the movement with words, a formula, a statement. I truly fear that if you do, that will indeed be the death of the EC.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
Mr. Dan Kimball
Mr. Erwin McManus
Mr. Scot McKnight
Organization Yet to be Named
(Post-Emerging Church?)
RE: The Planned Resurrection of "Emerging Church"
Gentlemen,
It has recently come to my attention, via a post at out of Ur, that you are in the process of forming and naming a new network, based on the same principals as "Emerging Church" but incorporating a more firmly-defined statement of faith. Specifically, the post reports:
"The still unnamed network has agreed to start with the inclusive but orthodox theological foundation of the Lausanne Covenant, and they intend to emphasize mission and evangelism. They appear to have learned from the emerging church’s mistake—define purpose and doctrine early so your identity doesn’t get hijacked."
If that report is accurate, I am writing to urge you to reconsider. I have one fundamental basis for my appeal.
I, and many of like mind, are convinced that the principles of "Emerging Church" (in its original, unadulterated form; and all further references to EC will imply that form) are contrary to its reduction to a "statement of faith," no matter how inclusive-yet-orthodox that statement is. It was my understanding that the "statement of faith" of the EC was contained in Genesis 1 to Rev. 22. I was under the impression that one of the central stimuli for the EC was the injury caused by the attempted reduction of God's narrative into bite-sized nuggets, no matter how "true" those nuggets.
The EC was never about having true beliefs with less certainty, leaving room for others.
The EC was never about replacing terms like "true" with less in-your-face terms like "coherent" or "sound."
The EC was never about finding a new, radical paradigm and then developing a new system which fit within it.
The EC, as I understood it, was about Jesus.
Jesus. A person. A person as complex and irreducible to true statements as you and I, except a thousand times more. A person who made the radical claim, "I am the Truth."
And if I am right, and this movement was always about this Jesus, some questions naturally arise.
Did Jesus communicate the Truth? Of course He did.
Did He do so using propositional statements of faith? Of course He didn't.
He utilized propositional statements, yes. But to communicate the Truth, i.e., Himself, He used stories. He used symbols. He used a life. He used a death.
"The Kingdom of God is like...."
"This is my body...."
"This is my blood..."
Temples cleansed. Crosses died upon.
The people wanted answers. He gave them riddles.
The people wanted proof. He gave them life.
The people wanted a king. They got one.
Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Are we going to use statements of faith, propositions, value judgment, truth claims? Of course we are. Those are all part of God's good creation, His gifts to us.
But should we consider those things foundational for the task? Should we give up the ghost when the mustard-seed method is not understood by all, within half a generation (at most)? If the people demand something more concrete, as they have for at least 2,000 years, should the mob prevail?
I would humbly say, in Paul's words, "Certainly not."
Change the name, if you must. Call it something else (see to it, though, that the new name captures its fluidity, as did the verb "emerge").
But please, I implore you, do not seek to define the movement with words, a formula, a statement. I truly fear that if you do, that will indeed be the death of the EC.
Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
great post bro!
Nicely stated!
I'm sort of a late comer to the EC. But I completly agree with your open letter.
It seems the EC has come full circle, and is just the latest in a string of re3form groups. Why is it that as humans we always take something good and try to put it in a neat little box thereby turning it into something less than good.
This makes me sad.
I'm glad finally tat leaders like dan and scott realised that EC has gone too far off the edge... even leonard sweet thinks it's gone social gospel and coming back to an inclusive/orthodox model of Lausanne is fantastic move
propositional + personal