Two Variations of One Approach

Worldview Church » November 2008

A fascinating connection between two streams of missional thought about how to engage relativists has taken shape. Rather than wash away the dam of postmodern thinking through evidential refutation, these two streams, each effecting an impressive following, take a different route toward reaching a largely disaffected segment of our culture. More readers of current trends are noticing these two unconventional streams that yet seem to share an over-arching distinctive, a gracious relational apologetic.

THE MISSIONAL CHALLENGE: CASTING OFF A SUPERIOR ATTITUDE
Describing these two streams is helped by asking what relativism is; why, in contrast to the Christian faith, are its implications important; and what shift in apologetic thinking recently has been emphasized? This perspective believes that what is knowable is in the eyes of the beholder. One’s common sense alone is the final arbitrator since no consensus on moral standards or cultural values can or will be reached. Therefore, each person is entitled to be left alone to enjoy his or her own beliefs.

While American culture’s warmth for individualism gives a home for this way of thinking, the Christian faith welcomes another voice of understanding, which is the Bible. Of necessity, its trustworthy words only speak when studied and reflected upon, and they persuade the heart to take heed as meaning is grasped. When compared, the divide between the postmodern, non-Christian relativists and those who adhere to a well-worded faith has effectively inoculated each from considering the other’s point of view. This stalemate is where the struggle has stood, that is until recently, when differing epistemological assumptions, specifically those that effect the degree of certitude in what the Bible instructs, offer two variations of one approach, that of evidencing a humble demeanor.

HUMILITY AND THE STREAM OF LESSER CERTITUDE
To catch a glimpse of how these two streams of thought approach postmodern relativists, a few sweeping statements sketch the geography. The first stream comes to a generous orthodoxy approach by revisioning Western Christianity, in both style and definition. It digs up overlying layers of church tradition hiding the ancient riverbed of a 4,000-year journey of God’s people. Adherents observe that retracing this course reveals a time where the church was defined by a Christo-centric communal life that engaged in face-to-face service to humanity. The biblical concept of the Kingdom of God, with its focus on realizing an ideal in the here and now, once gave a missional topography, but a later era of scholastic discourse buried over its features.

Adherents suggest that some, maybe much, of what describes evangelical Christianity is a product of schematic incursions, specifically propositional statements that submerged its essence. By dwelling on penal righteousness as a boat ticket for a future trip to another world, some adherents assert that the Protestant Reformation era is like the many theological eddies spinning off and away from the main river flow. However, since examples of missional churches seeking an authentic path have arisen from every tributary of Christianity, this feature alone does not make this stream unique. Then what does?

WELCOMING OPENNESS
This stream digs new channels over to those who are decidedly prejudice against “absolutist” thinking. Rather than demonize relativists, they promote a big-tent, quasi-pluralistic approach that opens channels to postmoderns who make diversity of thought the trump card over conformist thinking. Why is this not regarded as a surrender of biblical convictions? Because this stream identifies a greater problem—certitude that fails to acknowledge how little doctrine we can assign a fixed meaning. They reason that if history teaches anything, it teaches that what is biblically knowable often is qualified or even altered by later insights. From this basis of lesser certitude, most theological assertions (confessions, doctrinal statements) are inherently inadequate and leave a legacy of fossilized thinking not suitable to address today’s missional challenges. Therefore, certitude in biblical interpretations for the most part is acceptable when limited to one’s self; that is, what is true “for me” is not necessarily true for anyone else.

Ideologues in this stream, like Emergent spokesperson Brian McLaren, do more than respect postmodern’s educated questions, to occasionally affirming their validity. They would even speak of themselves as being postmodern Christians open to rethinking many long held beliefs and practices. They would assert that since dogmatism promotes division, then anything resembling it must be identified as a hindrance in allowing humility to flourish. This benefit is achieved if the function of the Bible is understood from a different perspective, as a narrative rather than as a source for polemics. The result is that defining what is orthodox, spurious, or even heretical is less important than to discern how to enact the Kingdom mission. This feature of less doctrinal certitude gives this first stream its unique defining feature. This is heady stuff.

LEARNING COMMUNITIES
What do local churches that flow in this first stream look and feel like? Like Mars Hills (Grand Rapids, Mich.), they include many hipster but doctrinally minimalist churches that define the faith more through its overarching biblical stories of redemption. At their main gatherings, one would experience a gracious relational atmosphere where who is or is not converted isn’t emphasized but visually illustrated in baptism. One would hear about cultural engagement on issues such as ecological stewardship and the plight of the poor but not as much about efforts to overturn legalized abortion and counter claims to evolution instruction. Presenters would draw parallels between biblical accounts of defending the powerless with popular values like egalitarianism as applied to gender roles and maybe even other issues of sexuality. In addition, they have set up Web-based learning communities to nurture new principles and methodologies. This way of thinking and living resonates with postmodernists who find relevance in activities that focus on saving this world as well as seeking to meet their own relational needs.

For those who would protest the above description, they are correct to challenge these simplifications for other distinct but not acknowledged streams flow nearby. Some streams intermingle with others as part of the Emergent Church watershed. Scot McKnight’s “Five Streams of the Emerging Church” nuances these streams by their various characteristics. On the one hand, some rivulets fully identify with postmodernity as they have even greater uncertainty about what can be known because, it is asserted, of the inadequacies of language, words being a step or two short of exact correspondence. On the other hand, other channels focus on reaching out to postmoderns through better-reasoned answers to their honest questions. They are part of a separate stream altogether.

HUMILITY AND THE STREAM OF GREATER CERTITUDE
The second stream under consideration brands its approach as humble orthodoxy, a name that contrasts nicely with the generous orthodoxy approach. Its leaders recognize both the same barriers that relativism erects as well as the need to interact with a respectful demeanor to postmodernists, even those identified with the faith. They are well aware that, when confronted with unambiguous statements about “Truth,” adherents experience philosophical angst leading to knee-jerk responses often reciprocated. Rather than hold back proclaiming the faith’s less affirmed tenets, this stream’s corps of engineers identifies places to drive down pylons and erect their Reformed orthodoxy to control its flow. They would acknowledge that Christianity today isn’t the faith of the first century, as does the first stream, and is in need of repair.

Rather than bulldoze doctrine that has little evangelical consensus in order to clear the way to the other side, they push back. Here, a few argue that the Spirit of God is shoring up the Church’s core beliefs in alignment with the apostolic foundation. They reason that, at numerous points in church history, asserting necessary assumptions that effected the Gospel’s contents were a response to rising heresy threatening to submerge the church’s identity. Clarifying position statements on doctrine, ethics, and morality continue to hold back threatening currents of spurious, even harmful, beliefs. This sandbagging approach continues today, but this feature alone does not make this second stream unique. Then what does?

WELCOMING CONFIDENCE
What is eye-popping is that this second stream takes the same approach—humility as a governing ethos to engaging postmodernists—as do the generous orthodoxy folk, but they do so with a twist. They, too, advocate respect for postmodernists’ probing questions arising from what is knowable even apart from the Bible. They acknowledge that arrogance over rightness wrongly alienates hearers. They would sadly agree with the first stream’s criticism that demonstrating either indifference or pride-laced comments reveals corruption of heart. The twist comes, by their greater certitude about how persuasion is accomplished, in how much spiritual truth finite beings can know. They do not cross over to postmodernists’ ambiguities, but rather invite them to come over to their certainties, confident of occasional success. Thus is the implication of the Geneva Reformation’s doctrine of irresistible grace, that it is God alone who enables the postmodernist to traverse over to doctrinal certitude.

Coupled with understanding human nature’s inability to even seek God, why would this highly controversial dogma aid humility? Supported by an apologetical premise that starts with “God is,” the postmodern relativist’s conscience, if it is to be turned at all, shall respond when confronted by righteous standards. They argue that since the ability to repent and believe is a gift, rightly applied, pride is negated, and humility, as an indicator of repentance, is a mark of conversion. Those who have been humbled can speak with convincing humility to the postmodernist. Their demeanor, in tandem with their articulated certitude, can deconstruct the epistemologically challenged postmodernist and be the Spirit’s means of individual awakening. This aspect of pressing for certitude on a narrowly defined Faith gives this second stream its defining feature. This, too, is heady stuff.

AN ENERGIZED NETWORK
What do local churches in this second stream look and feel like? They, too, include many hipster churches, like Sovereign Grace, that have a more robust doctrinal statement. Their version of the Kingdom of God overlaps much of what the first stream embraces and shares optimism for what God may yet bring through those who are “poor in spirit.” They press for more doctrinal specificity as well as for greater humility in engagement of postmoderns, be they Christian or not.

In his new book Young, Restless, and Reformed, Collin Hansen identifies a coalescing leadership forging a “movement” that crosses branches of evangelicalism. This movement includes theologians John Piper and Albert Mohler, who are committed to passionately embracing God’s sovereignty and would be apt to criticize spurious notions that diminish who God is as revealed. C. J. Mahaney, along with Josh Harris, specialize in fostering the movement’s values, even hosting the New Attitude yearly conference to equip attendees in how best to understand and convey the “Calvinized” Gospel with humility. Like cross-cultural missionaries that strive to teach in the context of an alien worldview, mega-church pastors Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill (Seattle) and Tim Keller of Redeemer (New York) fully engage postmodern relativists on their own turf by taking on hot questions about sexuality and biblical reliability.

HUMILITY AND AGREEMENT ON THE CREDIBILITY FACTOR
Why humility above boldness or love, two other virtues associated with New Testament’s effective evangelism? It has to do with authenticity that speaks integrity and in turn is rewarded with trust. Recognized as an essential virtue of a witness to skeptical relativists of today, this humble credibility characterized persecuted Christians in the first century who faced a different sort of rejection. James Sire, in his book A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics, references 1 Peter 3:15 and pleads for apologetic engagement with “gentleness and respect (NIV)”:

. . . it is important to see that a humble holy life (there is no unhumble holy life) is far more significant that one’s ability to fashion and present a verbal apologetic for that life. The holy life of one of God’s redeemed children living alone in a hostile environment is itself a strong apologetic. Even more so is a Christian community intent on living out its faith and actually doing so. If members of such a community are being persecuted and they gently give a reason for the hope that is within them, their apologetic becomes even more powerful.

These two streams seek to recover a vibrant spirituality by removing the pollutants of human pride from their missional waters as Sire emphasizes. Each one’s concept leaders recognize that to coalesce a movement’s philosophy of ministry, their constituents need an effective ethos among themselves, and both movements have rightly embraced humility. Yet interestingly, it is at the point of how the inscripturated Word is viewed that reveals their most glaring difference.

HUMILITY AND DISAGREEMENT ON THE WORD’S FUNCTION
When unbiased postmodern relativists see the messenger’s humility, credibility may be enhanced. Yet they still stumble over the idea of biblical authority, a concept unfamiliar to many. They reason that the Bible, as a historiography, cannot demand certitude without qualifications. As they compare the Bible’s account of the earth’s creation being six, 24-hour days with what they think is knowable, the record fails as a credible source. What about patriarchal polygamy, laws governing slavery, and “contradictions”? they ask. Missional leaders are empathetic about the postmodern’s struggle to grasp the complexities of interpretation knowing that these issues can distract from faith in Christ. Yet these two streams’ proponents take different positions on the function of the Bible. Comparing how they view the Bible’s function will show that the degree of certitude of what we know is the differentiating issue, and humility is promoted by two opposite rationales.

At this point a bit of care needs to be observed in making observations, for biblical authority has been a subject of considerable debate in the last 150 years, leaving evangelicals with suspicions of evil motives. This topic can unleash a torrential flood that does unnecessary damage. Therefore, stated simply, within both streams, the Bible is affirmed as God’s Word, yet there lies between them a divergent understanding of what this implies.

CONTRASTING VIEWS ON HOW THE BIBLE FUNCTIONS
Those in the first stream, including Mars Hill (Grand Rapids, Mich.), cite a first-rate and sometimes controversial biblical scholar by the name of N. T. Wright. In his article “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative,” Wright challenges us to reassess how the Bible is utilized as compared with its intended purpose. He finds fault with what he asserts is a common misapplication of the Bible’s actual function:

My conclusion, then, is this: that the regular views of scripture and its authority which we find not only outside but also inside of evangelicalism fail to do justice to what the Bible actually is—a book, an ancient book, an ancient narrative book. They function by turning that book into something else, and by implying thereby that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book.

How does this perspective affect the Bible’s function as proclamation? Wright goes on to illustrate:

Somehow, the authority which God has invested in this book is an authority that is exercised through the people of God telling and retelling their story as the story of the world, telling the covenant story as the true story of creation.

A reader of the Old Testament perks up to affirm the majestic power of the thematic flow of the historical account of Redemption. It is unrivaled in answering the fundamental questions of why things are the way they are and what God has, is, and will do. Those that employ the Bible in this fashion do captivate the postmodernist who has abandoned seeking a sense of divinely given purpose to world history, much less their own individual lives. The value of the biblical narrative beckons them to reconsider.

From this foundation, Wright argues against inferential theologizing derived from the Bible being the “wrong sort of book.” Instead, he asserts Scripture should be understood in light of its objective, to “liberate” from bondages of all sorts. Further, Scripture exists as a delegated authority from God. He notes that only God Himself has authority, yet as He has in the past, so He continues to delegate the means by which He speaks. As the Old Testament was a record of God’s dictations to Moses and visions to His commissioned prophets (with both adding their commentaries), so God continued speaking through apostles and other recognized New Testament writers.

Wright proposes that this pattern of God employing indirect means of communicating his will continues within a narrative framework. God now invites his people to imagine the next stage of redemptive history, and Wright uses an illustration of a five-act, Shakespearean play where the actors and actresses themselves must write the last act. Since they know the flow of the plot and the players’ characterizations, they can knowingly improvise the drama’s next act. Similarly, the Christian church has been given a narrative of four major movements of sacred history (creation, fall, Israel, Jesus) to complete the final act. Christians, so it seems, have delegated authority to write the narrative for their time, guided by God’s revealed intentions. Therefore, we should ask how to go about liberating today. With such latitude, humility is fostered by forgoing judgmental certitude as it creatively explores new ways of improvising in light of this world’s Kingdom objectives.

The practice of forging various consensuses, in an irenic atmosphere, remains a critical endeavor among evangelicals. They have achieved some notable successes and at other times have missed opportunities. In comparison, the humble orthodoxy stream is an advocacy coalition fostering understanding of the Gospel through a Reformed lens. Among this stream’s proponents are like-minded scholars, who themselves have theological differences in some non-essentials. Still, the Bible’s function is polemic, especially as it pertains to correcting false notions on critical issues like God’s attributes. In regards to God’s actual sovereignty in salvation as mentioned earlier, they believe Scripture is unambiguous. They have set about, in conference style, to foster a populous movement, not necessarily as a reaction to post modernity but rather out of a shared passion.

Parenthetically, many readers realize that the 16th-century Protestant Reformation had several defining themes, including sola scriptura, which spoke of authority to establish dogma as residing in the written word. Even though asserting its foundational importance was necessary in engaging aberrant beliefs that crept into the Western Church, the Bible’s self-witness places it over any other delegated authority. As with much of evangelicalism, Scripture’s function continues as a standard by which essential doctrines and behavioral standards are established, even utilizing inferential reasoning as needed. It critiques cultural values and challenges the bases for civil law. This focus is not to deny its narrative function, but Wright’s position seems to infer that Mosaic case law and the didactic New Testament texts served only for issues of another time and cultural setting alone. Rather, the Bible’s function as the effective agent of God the Spirit’s transforming work continues. Jesus himself said in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” Truth, that is certitude built upon all that God has said, affects humility positively by instilling confidence.

CONFIDENCE, BUT ONLY WITH CARE
The similarities between inferential theologizing and improvising are noticeable and one can agree to the benefits of each approach, yet do so uneasily. Each may take a route to sharply contrasting conclusions. When teachers of the Bible assert application of the biblical text by employing, on the one hand, hermeneutical “ladders of abstraction” to script its biblical principles of a narrative text, or, on the other, “trajectories” to suggest a notion of what Jesus would say and do if He were here today, they may not arrive at similar places.

These contrasting views of the Bible’s function differentiate these two streams. It guides how they speak to postmoderns about what the Christian faith teaches. Recovering the Christian identity as being local communities bound by a God-established covenantal relationship is a message the contemporary evangelical church needs to hear, and the narrative approach is valuable. Yet, post moderns import their own filters of cultural values and philosophical beliefs that affect interpretation. Might we endanger our prophetic role to culture if our generosity becomes pluralism?

HUMILITY, SAYING TOO LITTLE OR TOO MUCH?
These two streams are catching the attention of those who seek to draw next-gen believers who are often steeped in relativist thinking, are savvy to cultural hype, but listen to personal transparency of others’ spiritual journey. They both know that in every human exchange, the Christian’s demeanor whispers in the background either the awe of being a recipient of God’s grace where others may be freely drawn, or that of a pharisaical boldness designed to ensnare and enslave. A God-wrought humility is indispensible if our evangelism to show our hearts.

Each stream’s popularity is on the rise, and like the initial excitement of a fresh approach, they now ride the crest of an advancing tide where each stream claims humility as its distinct value. For the moment, neither stream is far apart on many essential beliefs, but time will tell where each one’s ideas about authority takes them. Even though the South Platt and the Colorado Rivers find their source in the same snow pack atop the Continental Divide, they empty out into different oceans. The question is which direction should you take: Generous orthodoxy or humble orthodoxy? Choose wisely, for as Isaiah 66:2 indicates, the esteem of God is at stake.

Sam Smith is a pastor in the Evangelical Free Church and currently resides in Northern Michigan.