If we were starting from now (as I kind of consider that we are), there is a great deal of wisdom that I from a protestant background would want to draw on from the orthodox tradition, and for that matter the catholic tradition. This experimentation with new models of church provides the freedom to do some of that, which I am enjoying immensely.
This is particularly interesting because sometimes when we engage new rituals and traditions, they are more meaningful than those that have become dulled with familiarity. Similarly, I think that sometimes traditional protestant worship and church practices are very “modern”, with a limited room for ritual, tradition, and engaging with the “other”. As a consequence, I am really enjoying the opportunity to experiment with other practices and traditions to recapture some of that richness.
I’ve said before that the emchurch wants to draw from other traditions, but only in bits and pieces. I think Dan is right that there is much of value in other Christian traditions that’s worth borrowing, because it’s not old and dead to us. That said, I make a clear distinction between borrowing stuff from other traditions and taking on the worldview of other traditions. An evangelical emchurch may use liturgical pieces and candles from, say, the Catholic faith, but they’re not going to start submitting to the Pope or insisting that pastors be celibate. Much of what I read on The Ooze fails to make this distinction, probably because it is not strictly an evangelical site, and has many Orthodox and some Catholic readers.
I suppose it bothered me when I got my Soularize CD and found that it had Orthodox speakers on it, because that was my first (online) exposure to anything Orthodox. It was jarring, because I always assumed The Ooze was evangelical, or at least post-evangelical. I think it’s fine to give some voice to other traditions, to see how we can be informed by their perspectives, but I think what Spencer’s been doing goes beyond that, into an unhealthy ecumenism, which endorses and promotes things we do not believe in.
I think it is interesting that the “emergent” church with its emphasis on being counterculture would incorporate anything from the Roman Catholic church. As one who left the RCC, its kind of puzzling that those who are outside of it would appropriate anything.
Maybe an honest look at the “why’s” of RCC ritual could be in order. Now, I say “honest” look, not the propaganda normally espoused by some sects. You may want to change your mind when you find out the whys.
I think the appeal comes from the longstanding-ness of the tradition, and the mysterious appearance of it all. Postmoderns are attracted to that stuff.
I’d be interested to know how accurate the evangelical criticisms of Catholic practice are. I had the opportunity to dialogue with CatholicRyan (now under a different name) on the RELEVANT message boards, and it was very enlightening. I still think much of what the Catholic church teaches is junk, but it’s much better to hear it from actual Catholics. Same goes for Episcopal and Orthodox traditions.
As an example of the “unhealthy ecumenism” the Ooze may be oozing toward, ETREK is offering a course in Native American spirituality. Now, I won’t make any blanket criticism, since I don’t really know the course content, but really…
The course description: “Native American Spirituality - The need to connect leadership with the rich traditions of an incredible culture give us the privilege to present Ray Levesque of http://www.1000tipis.com. He will guide would-be travelers to consider Native American Leadership. The kick-off should be a fascinating experience. Your context may be multi-cultural, wouldn?t you find it valuable to understand the richness of Native American culture as it relates to the journey of faith? Come go with Ray and these guest faculty: Richard Twiss, Father Patrick J. Twohy, Randy Woodley, Terry LeBlanc, John GrosVenor, Robert Francis, Matthew Coon Come, Vincent Yellow Old Woman, Lynda Prince, and Jeff Yellow Owl.”
from http://www.theooze.com/etrek
There is a difference between contextualization and syncretism. I’m glad people like Ray Levesque are doing things like this, as long as there is accountability to historic Christianity - though this is difficult when Christianity has historically been dominated by the European culture.
Justin asked: “I’d be interested to know how accurate the evangelical criticisms of Catholic practice are.”
Although I’m not Catholic, I’d say not very.
On that note: After studying Eastern Orthodoxy for 6 years from both the Anglo-Catholic and low-church Protestant perspectives, I can safely say that I have yet to find a critique of Orthodoxy from an Evangelical POV that takes seriously both the history and the mindset needed to accurately understand the Orthodox Church.
In some ways it is the very act of “picking and choosing” that makes the Emergers unable to understand the claims and teachings of the historic churches (RC and EO).
Justin later said: “There is a difference between contextualization and syncretism.”
You are absolutely correct. Well said.
I think there is a strong resistance among evangelicals to understanding the history and mindset of RC & EO churches because it is the underlying assumptions behind those traditions that make them unacceptable to evangelicals. For example, much of catholicism only makes sense if you believe the final authority to be the church, not scripture. Unless one really enters the tradition immersively, it doesn’t make sense. So is that a good or a bad thing?
“immersively”…is that a word? If not, I still like it!
It is very true that if one wants to really understand another’s paradigm, one must actually participate in it. Reminds me of John 1:46 where Philip tells Nathanial, not a lengthy series of proofs but the simple invitation: “Come and see.”
Is this a good thing? In the end, I’d say yes…. It means that the Christian life is more than an intellectual construct of our own making that we can simply bully people into “believing” without their own incarnated participation in it.
But can these ecumenical discussions still be fruitful? Yes, I know they can. I was drawn to Orthodoxy, at least at first, through books, discussions, and reading. It was in these things that my misconceptions were brought to light and alternate “answers” were presented. But it was only through living it out that it truly “made sense”…
By the way, my wife is also a middle-school teacher and we live just down the road from you.
(well, if you consider I-5 a “road” and Portland close by!)…I’ve been enjoying your blog quite a bit!
As the one who started the comments, I will give my perspective:
1. I was raised in the Roman Catholic church. I left it when I was 16; became born again at 17. I left the RCC because of serious doctrinal disagreements with them.
2. One of the huge issues is one of authority. Is our final authority the Bible, the Word of God, or the Pope, who claims to be the only one who can speak for God and the church? (Not kidding here. The Pope, who sits in the seat of Peter, speaks ex cathedra — infallibly, incapable of error. That is real RC doctrine.)
3. The second huge issue is this: Are we saved by grace through faith, or are we saved by the church?
My fear is that this movement will be enticed by the external trappings (i.e., traditional ritual, the mysticism) or in some romanticised image so that the actual reality of what the RCC is about is missed. There was a VERY GOOD reason for the Reformation. Modern non-Catholic churchgoers have a very poor knowledge of RC history and doctrine and can get the wrong idea of what really is going on there.
If the Bible is the sole source of authority, and it is totally true, then a large part of Roman Catholic teachings must be rejected. Don’t get me wrong here, I am not bashing RC’s. There are many sincere, truly born-again believers in the Roman Catholic Church. (How they can be is another topic altogether.)
All teachings must be evaluated in the light of Scripture, not how we feel about it. Because of the doctrine of papal infallibility, many erroneous teachings espoused since the dark ages are still on the books and unchanged, because an infallible revelation cannot be changed. This MUST be taken into consideration in any discussion of the RCC.
Personally, I would have love to see the RCC reform itself, get rid of the superstition, and return to the Bible. I would have stayed if they did. But that has not happened, and probably never will.
For any modern movement to assimilate anything from what they really do not understand is a serious error. Tradition is important to people, and I can understand that. But as leaders, we must do the difficult homework on doctrinal issues. Tradition cannot be accepted based on feeling or consensus. It falls or stands on scriptural evaluation alone.
Jon wrote, “For any modern movement to assimilate anything from what they really do not understand is a serious error.”
Very true. In fact the Greek root for our word “heresy” actually means “choice” or “picking and choosing”….Thus, the patristic definition of a heretic is simply someone who decides to only accept part of the tradition instead of the whole (2 Thess 2:15).
One of the interesting things about intra-western Christian debates (Reformed vs RC or Mainline Prot. vs “Emergers/PoMo’s) is that both are operating under the same “Matrix” (so to speak).
In other words both have made claims that *seem* opposing and contradictory. But in reality both still rely on the same vision, mindset and interpretation of what Christianity is. And that hermenutic and experience is radically different than the one preserved for 2000 years in the Orthodox Church.
Good discussion…