“I understand and empathize with the compelling need to reorient ourselves and the church as a whole to Christ's teaching and lifestyle, instead of solely focusing on the aspect of his crucifixion and resurrection. Is there a peaceable process that you believe can bring together the emergents and those who are on the opposite end of the spectrum? Both sides seem frustrated enough to start a fight, and division is contradictory to what both "sides" believe. How do you think there can be peace concerning this, because it is the fundamental orientation of the church's outlook? Is there a point, do you believe, in which a follower of Christ must cease to call themselves a "christian" in order to follow Christ?”
The divide between "emergents" and “those on the opposite end of the spectrum” along with the divide between numerous other groups with various labels and sizes doesn’t seem to be shrinking, but as was alluded to is escalating in frustration to the point of boiling anger. As I have admitted before, I often have an antagonistic tone in many of my posts here. Frustration abounds. Too often as I follow the trail of unending links to posts, comments and various writings on the web, I find myself feeling overwhelmed and disheartened in the face of the tide of opinions and arguments that never seem to ebb. Within the extremes, this will never cease to exist. There will always be groups whose theology and framing story perpetuate, consent and even demand that they draw the line of exclusion deep and dark between themselves and any one outside of their long list of conclusions.
On one hand, I am ok with individuals/families finding groups/congregations that “fit” them better as I have said here and here. On the other hand there are some consequences of this trend as discussed on another blog found here.
First we must realize that one side will never silence the other. While a certain book, author, line of reasoning… may all but settle matters in one person’s opinion, there will never be a definitive end to the discussion. Rhetoric escalates and often becomes distorted and exaggerated as one fails to “silence” the other side and yet continues to try. With that, there is nothing wrong with us having opinions, differing in viewpoints, and even articulating why we think what we think and why we disagree with what we disagree with. Yet, if we are seeking to silence others or arrive at the end of the discussion, the only result will be polarization.
In addition, it may be helpful to look for overlap instead of victories. If one side will never silence the other then we are left with at least two choices. One, build higher walls and continue to lob word grenades into each others camps or give each other some space and grace and look for overlap in mission. Again, there are some groups who call themselves “defenders of the faith” which I translate into “preservers of the opinion” who will not be able to do this, but don’t get mad at me. I didn’t draw the line. I’m just pointing it out. For others, we may be able to disagree on some points without marginalizing each other and possibly open our common borders back up.
In regards to the last question, “Is there a point, do you believe, in which a follower of Christ must cease to call themselves a ‘christian’ in order to follow Christ?” At first I think, it is just a matter of terms. The word “christian” can have a lot of negative connotations and stereotypes attached to it. Unfortunately, so many of them are deserved. Some have begun to use the term “Christ follower” because of this. However, there is no shortage of people who want some followers of Christ to denounce their claim to Christianity all together because they don’t pass their test of necessary beliefs. I guess not calling oneself a “christian” in order follow Christ could be like one not calling oneself a “Republican” in order to follow conservativism. It would be a result of one believing that the party had moved away from the values (that is not political commentary, just simply a hypothetical analogy). To me that strikes at the heart of the debate between “emergents” and “traditionalists.” This brings us back to the issue of division. It is undoubtedly an emotionally charged environment because at the heart of it is one group questioning and often rejecting at least some of the values and priorities of the other. Navigating those treacherous waters is daunting.
So, that is undoubtedly an unsatisfactory answer, but may at least qualify for a start. Hopefully, this will lead to some further dialogue and maybe even better answers…
