I think you express it well, Scot. I notice this all the time, as far as the Evangelical side goes.
I appreciate Emergents’ concern. It doesn’t seem to be coupled with the idea that they’re a bunch of independent gatherings/fellowships/churches. There does seem to be some sort of healthy interdependency going on there, since they have liked to call it, an emergent conversation.

Scot,
According to your definitions, it would seem that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches also fear change to what is core/central to their beliefs, like the Evangelicals. (I don’t know if Holly considers those two groups to be liberal or not, though I am sure there are some in their camp that would be labeled as such.) It would seem that maybe this fear is an inherited trait, for Protestant Evangelicals. Do you think it will become an inherited trait for Emergents who come out of the Protestant Evangelical movement?
Another fear I think that Evangelicals have is a fear of sinning. You are not allowed to sin, so nobody confesses sinning. There is such unease when someone is caught sinning, and thus there is inept (if any) attempts at reconciliation, forgiveness, redemption, etc.

Scot, it sounds like Liberals seek to live a centered-set faith but can’t quite get the center right. Evangelicals are bounded-set folk worrying about “the great moral issues” of the day and shouting about the boundaries. Emergents, I think, are centered-set people who I think are more accurate about the Center and who don’t believe there are boundaries of any kind; they even resist boundaries.
Tim, along with Evangelical fearing sin, I think fear “the world.” That big bad fallen world that trying to take over the kingdom. The Evangelicals fear that grace will NOT abound where sin abound. They think that greater is he that is IN THE WORLD than the One who lives in the believing community.
Holly, thanks so much for your intriguing question to Scot.

Tim,
To be sure, the RCC and EO are much like Evangelicalism, particuarly when it comes to doctrinal changes. John’s right: bounded set structure.

Would you consider fear of irrelevance as a major fear of emergent Christans?

I think what Emergent fears most is not authority, though that’s a close second, but lack of thought, mindless following of formula and lack of reflection about what aspects of faith really means. Emergents will follow and obey a person they trust (at least so I’ve seen), but that person better be thinking, smart and on top of things. I have had the often painful privilege of being on both the evangelical and liberal sides of the equation: at the extremes the zealots on each side are equally devoid of real thought and full of stereotypes, caricatures and loathing of the demonized other. What the extremes have in common are platitudes that can’t be thought about or questioned: “My sins are washed clean by the blood of Jesus” for tradionalists perhaps or “all religions are the same because they’re different path up the same mountain” for liberals. Question these statements to a zealot and watch what happens. Rather than think about the question, most often they will get angry and treat you as the enemy. And interestingly, I’ve witnessed the extremes on both sides view Emergent with deep suspicion. It’s most surprising and revelatory on the zealot liberal side, where you would think new ideas and thoughts would be embraced. But, au contraire, I have seen Emergent treated with loathing. (They pretend to be hip, but we KNOW the truth … they’re stealth Falwells.) But in reality, the Liberals don’t want their cherished notions to be questioned or really thought about any more than the Traditionalists. And we really need to be thinking. Obviously, fear of authority closely, closely dogs on the heels of this because authority tends to over-control conversation. But as we know, we very much need to be thinking.

Evangelicalism’s greatest fear? — I think its a fear of losing its identity and impact in the world.

Scot – your category of “Letters” is really great. Whenever that is in the title, I know I’ll be stretched by the post and the comments.
John thanks for the centered/bounded stuff. I think that is such a helpful lens.

Actually – to speak in broad generalizations – I think that evangelicalism’s greatest fear is that the Gospel and the Christian story won’t hold up in the light of reason and critical thought. Therefore anti-intellectualism, propositional absolutes, and banning books or questions becomes, for many, a way to hold on to “truth.”

I think evangelicalism’s greatest fear is that they could be wrong about something.

This may sound strange but as one who see himself as part of the emerging movement I fear the pain/frustration that many pastors experience because they are trying to “run” or “lead” the church within a consumeristic, church growth mentality. I speak with pastors almost every day that are struggling deeply with knowing that their church is not a true reflection of the nature of the church but they can’t seem to do anything about it because the church demands certain things (such as programs for the members) that are in line with the institutional, consumeristic model.

i resonate with the fear of authority stuff. if i’m honest that is a huge fear of mine… people/structures/insitutions with too much authority is hard for me to deal with.
i agree with Diane #6 that people being thoughtless is hard. yet this does not scare me as much as annoy me and make me angry and hurt.
and once again, along with Brad in #11, i too struggle with leading a church in this society. however this does not scare me… this really ticks me off and really hurts me. but it does not scare me

Brad,
That’s quite a comment. I meet with pastors and leaders all the time, and I’m sensing this going on at a major level — and the emerging piece generates stimulating interests for many of them.

Scot
I would love for you/us to discuss this issue at some point. Just yesterday I had met with two different pastors that were totally unrelated and received an email from a third who were all experiencing the same thing. I can’t help but think there is something significant taking place in the hearts of many who KNOW that the church today is not really the church, they are not sure what it is, but it certainly isn’t the church.
Now I know that this isn’t true every where and with everyone but there is something from this conversation that is resonating deeply with many leaders but they do not know what to do.

Amen, and amen, Brad.

Another emergent fear might be legalism.

From where I stand, I believe Evangelicals most fear being shoved off to the side and being ignored. May be the term marginalized is better. They want to be taken seriously which is why Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell are tolerated, not necessarily embraced but tolerated. There is also a fear being left behind, not eschataologically, but culturally, as if they have a had their time and it is past. Which is why they may be resistant to the emerging conversation.
I don’t know the emergent as well, but from what I read and see, they seem to be fearful of commiting the sins of their fathers in terms of the church, and they are not always sure how to avoid them.

If what I see on TV is any indication, fear of losing money (or not making enough money) seems to be a big issue. Or, as I read recently, if the love of money is the root of all evil, why do televangelists keep asking for it?

Evangelicals: fear God’s going to punish them.
Liberals: fear various people groups won’t like them.
Emergents: fear themselves.
Peace,
chris

Scot,
I agree with your assessment of Emerging folks the most. And Brad adds an important angle to that. To elaborate a little, what bothers me, what I fear, is how different passages of scripture (aspects of God and his work) get left out of so many ‘systems’ of any kind. I question, for example, a ‘head pastor’ system that seems so problematic, from a NT perspective. I question theological and denominational systems that ignore or minimize or otherwise distort Jesus and God’s work through him, though I continue to earnestly look for a paradigm, a metanarrative, even if I have to hold it a little loosely, that fits all the pieces together. The best one I’ve found so far is the reigning of God.
On the evangelical side, I agree with your ‘conservative’ comment as well. Several weeks ago, someone commented that accepting a ‘trend’ approach to scripture would be easier for charismatics than cessationists because of the difference in our theology. I disagreed and still do. After thinking about it some more, I do think that some charismatics–those like myself that used to be or were brought up in a gift denying or ignoring environment and later became convinced otherwise–are more open than life-long cessationists to theological change in general (though most are still extremely conservative), but not because the theology is less fiercely tied to scripture. It’s because those charismatics have personally experienced how they and those they love and respect have actually been wrong about some very significant things. That experience makes a person a little more teachable; a little more open to finding out where else God has been missed by us (human) Christians. It doesn’t mean we buy everything that comes down the pike–I’m probably more suspicious of bad theology than I’ve ever been–but change doesn’t scare me since I know that I and my ‘ancestors’ in the faith have been wrong before; it’s practically a staple of my journey with Christ.

Scot,
While I am not(yet)emerging, many of the concerns about the Evangelical church I hear from emerging folks are my same concerns. You know my background, Scot. Things old become new again if we wait long enough. If I read the Evangelical church correctly, they are losing “market” share; and that is their greatest fear.
Relevance, authority, power, money,… the whole thing. The response I have seen to this problem is moving toward fundimentalism / legalism. Rather then moving ahead, they go back into the past, not a very Biblical past at that.

Scot,
A great letter. (I appreciate what John F. had to say regarding the center/boundaries, etc.) No matter who we are, I think it is important to admit that we do fear something. It may be far easier to see the fears of those in other quarters. Nevertheless, to see our own fears might help us to understand why we react (or why our church members react) to certain issues/concerns the way we/they do.
Brad make such a good point and you obviously see this from your comment as well. This is major and is impacting many, many church leaders.

Brad,
Yes, the consumer, celebrity culture of the “church” and the pressure for numbers and programs — these are big problems from what I see too. It turns nonbelievers off and believers too. And of course drives the house church movement.

Jim
Jim
Yes I agree that it “is major and is impacting many, many church leaders.” At this point all I can seem to do is to encourage these leaders by helping them recognize that they are not alone in their thinking (although several have made comments like “I was wondering if I was the only one who thought like this” or “I was wondering if I am in the wrong vocation”) and to find encouragement in seeing small “shifts” in missional thinking and/or activity. For some however, small shifts are not enough.

Will (#5) perceptively asks “Would you consider fear of irrelevance as a major fear of emergent Christans?”
At the heart of “emergence” – such as found in biology, genetic systems, AI/AmI, and other complex/distributed systems – is the notion of organic self-organization.
Self-organizing “ecclesial emergence” is being reflected by a rapidly growing, highly diverse body of Christ-followers, most of whom would not readily identify with “formal” structure (such as the “Emergent” organization), and would generally wince at the idea of being branded “emerging” – as if their mind, soul, and spirit can be defined, packaged, and marketed by some central ideological clearinghouse.
Virtual community is shifting our hopes and dreams from managed ecclesial centralization to shared ecclesial distribution. Attempts at artificially “organizing” an inherently self-organizing system will ultimately fail. Will’s question embodies its own answer: those who see the future of the church in artificially organized systems are somewhat like “the gray hairs who thought the guitar had to be stopped at the door.”
What’s “emerging” is an explosion of virtual-ecclesial interactivity, facilitated by worldwide interconnecting technologies. The network itself is the clearinghouse, not a small group of theologians with big plans. All organizational models, including (especially) the church, are being swept into this new emerging paradigm like a surfer being pushed along the bottom by an extremely powerful wave.
So (!) to offer an answer the Scot’s question, yes – those who identify ecclesial emergence with centralized organization should be concerned about their long-term relevance.

I think another area where the emerging church has fear (and I think there are some parallels with the Liberal category here) is the fear that we will alienate people from Christ, His message & His intended community.
As you said, Scot, EC isn’t centrally a doctrinally driven expression, therefore I think they are less likely to abandon orthodoxy for fear of alienation that many in the Liberal stream, but I think there are some parallels there.
Great post!
Peace,
Jamie

I think a very real fear of liberal Christians is that other groups will (continue to) succeed in legislating and codifying the very intolerance that they find antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Brad (#11) and Scot and all,
Brad’s comment “I speak with pastors almost every day that are struggling deeply with knowing that their church is not a true reflection of the nature of the church but they can’t seem to do anything about it because the church demands certain things (such as programs for the members) that are in line with the institutional, consumeristic model” is startling in its honesty. I echo his words. Some kind of mutation has created a me-and/or-my family-what’s on the menu of this church-consumerist ethos. It’s finally coming home to roost as emerging voices and issues arise, and organic, simple church forms are multiplying. McChurch is dying. Let’s give it a decent burial. Christology and eschatology (in that we are an eschatological people) must shape ecclesiology. The church has been shaped too long by capitalistic business culture. A weak theology gets us “saved” and then USAmerican business shapes our corporate Christian experience. Pastors are beginning to smell something rotting and they are being crushed by horrid unbiblical expectations.

To John and then back up to Will,
I tend to see “relevance” as a seeker-sensitive category. It just may be my take on this term and its use in the church. So, when I hear “fear of irrelevance” for emerging I think of a different kind of irrelevance — a kind of Christianity that no longer fits the world in which we live rather than finding connecting points with a culture in order to bring the gospel home.

Great thread Scot,
John, The centered set/bounded set comment is good. I disagree with youon one point: that ‘emergents’ “don’t believe there are boundaries of any kind”. The breadth of people participating in the conversation indicates varied boundary lines, and you hear them discussed often. What I would say is common in the emerging church conversations, is that folks feel the EMPHASIS has been on the boundaries rather than the center. As evangelicals, much of our communication and interaction with ‘the world’ has led with boundaries. THAT is what makes people uncomfortable and leads them into discussion to question and seek together what God would be teaching us at this point in our journey. Many strongly beleive in boundaries, they just see/feel/believe that when leading with those, people aren’t able to see Jesus, the center. Does our evolution to 20,800 christian denominations (the count is as high as 33,380 – I went conservative) show us that we have been a bit focused on boundaries in the last few centuries?
Brad #14 – this is a major topic in emerging conversations. In fact, the one that drew me into the conversations because of my work with Christian leaders and organizational learning.

“One of our oddities — and believe me it bugs me at times —is that many of us in the emerging movement draw deeply from some of the most hierarchical, centralized and institutionalized churches in the history of the Church: the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. (Not to mention other denominational structures.)”
Doesn’t seem odd to me at all Scot. My sense of Emergent, is that it’s frustration is not with authoritarianism per se but rather with certain types of authoritarian models.
A primary catylyst, as I read it, for the Emergent disposition, seems to be an inituitive mistrust of authoritarian models that seem more material/political in their ojectives, than they are spiritual/religeous. I also think it true that the primary (frankly I fight not to substitute the word exclusive) means by which the “Emergent Mind” comes to believe what it does is through scholarly methods of critical analysis and deconstructionism.
If true then, it seems entirely logical that an Emergent dialogue would examine the whole historic body of Christian experience and ultimately gravitate towards, what it believed to be, were authentic interpretations of Christian expression. Emergent, in my mind, if it is to be true to itself, is compelled to travel through the “RC and EC landscape”, if it wants to develope an intellectually credible theses.
Who knows maybe after that experience, if an authentic expression is found, questions of authority and hierarchy will become irrelevant.

Hey Chris (#19)
Wonderful wit, (read as “sic funny, dude!) I’m still laughing.

Evangelicals fear being told, “yes, you can”
Emergents fear being told, “no, you cna’t”
Liberals fear having to make a decision.
PS. Good to see you at MidWinter.

Echo kudos to Chris #19. That’s hilarious.
John #27, and Paul #30, and John #25 – Absolutely. Put those thread together and we would havean AWESOME dialog in person on the connections. We have struggled throughout history, and will continue to struggle to find the right ecclesiastical balance: between movement and institution, organic and systematized, the ‘priesthood of all believers’ and the belief that some are trained and called to lead. God calls us to live into so many seemingly paradoxical calls, that as we try to live them out corporately, we learn, we swing, we grow – well sometimes we ‘shrink’ (literally and figuratively), but God uses that to transform us. It is an exciting time!

On a personal level, I think Emergents fear being told by a fallible human being who they must be, how they ought to feel, and how they should act upon their faith. While a portion of our life scripts have been written for us already, Emergents want the freedom to pursue their uniqueness in Christ as well as their place in the universal and historical church. (Certainly this can be linked to a structure of authority and hierarchy.) To be denied this and see others denied this is, I confess, one of my greatest fears. I trust that I am not entirely unique in this respect.

I was able to speak with Tim Stafford (CT writer) in a small group last year. I asked him what he thought the most difficult thing for the church is right now, as he travels a lot and speaks with many people. His answer was Materialism/Consumerism. I tend to agree, being convinced by not only looking around me but looking at my own life. I think the most aware emerging folks fear leading lives overrun and/or practically directed by materialistic consumerism, as well as what has already been noted. It’s very, very difficult to get disentangled from it- the spirit is willing, but… There are innumerable “gray areas” in trying to live a less materialistic consumerism-driven way of life, in order to bless our loved ones, other people, and the whole planet. Countering this tendency is one of the things that is uppermost for emerging Christians.
Dana

Pam (#29),
I appreciate your response. I agree with you that (most) Emergents do have boundaries even as they emphasize the Center more than the boundaries. Your point made by the number of denominations, i.e., bounded communities, is well taken.

Scot,
You nailed the emerging one on the head! I have found it intriguing that I am very anti-institutional, yet I find beauty and truth and freedome in practicing liturgies and traditions from very institutional churches such as RCC and Eastern Orthodoxy. Perhaps because I grew up so far from those traditions I am willing to embrace them outside of their institutionalism.
For me it is the market place institutioanlism and the cooption of denominational and non-denominational ‘evangelical’ churches, which I find abhorrent. So the beauty of the church community I am part of is that we dont define success by market place indicators (e.g. massvie builidings, bugets and numbers) and at the same time we can embrace and play with a more participatory way of doing worship together.
At URBANA 2003 a Nigerian man read John Stott’s key note speech because he was hospitalized. Stott pounded the pulpit with the words that future leaders of the Christian church must preach against materialism, consumerism and pluralism. I think much of the EC is doing this by how they gather and oder themselves. It’s tough to preach against materialism and consumerism when that is the systemtic sin (evil) of our society. It’s tough to do this when massive gatherings are founded on the very assumptions that create insatiable materialism and consumerism. That is efficiency, anonymity, and the “removal of religious symbols.” I believe it was Dr. Mouw at Fuller that mentioned these were the cornerstones one which the seeker sensitive movement of the Hybles/Warren breed were founded.
In response EC’s value authenticity (not efficiency), they show hospitality through relatioships (not anonymity), and they welcome historic Christian symbols, even icons, and new ones such as art and sculpture because to remove them is to cut the church off from its history.

Nice try. Of course, all of these are gross over-generalizations, and as such are probably not really true of most liberals, evangelicals or emergents.

Scot (28): My definition of “relevance” here is not as a re-packaging of the Xn story to engage a particular ethos or tribe – such as seeker sensitive / church growth models.
Ecclesial emergence is revealing itself as an unbounded, lay participatory, self-organizing phenomenon born of virtual interaction. Those who define Xn emergence as a specific theology or institutional package are becoming somewhat irrelevant to the much bigger picture – to what’s truly emerging.
The image of emergence as global conversation is helpful. The idea that an organization can become a “clearinghouse” of this conversation is an example of pre-virtual territorial thinking. That model is being replaced.
Curious what Will thinks about this.

While in many instances in can be frustrating (particularly to the author) when a post evolves, expands, or strays, the comments on this post I think are an example of how this can be a good thing at times. Instead of “What is the biggest fear of…”, the conversation has evolved into “What are the biggest fears of…” I think it’s great to explore all of our fears and not try to oversimplify people and movements (that’s what everyone’s trying to do to EC).
That said, I agree with nearly all of the fears mentioned so far. Each of us, insofar as we identify with one of these movements, probably feels that our fears are the biggest ones. I find myself having some of each of the fears of all 3 paradigms, strangely enough, depending on the situation. Doctrinally, I consider myself fairly conservative (lower case “c”?). Socially, I hold more liberal views of community and justice. Ecclesiastically, I share the view (expressed by Brad) that the Western Church is way off base, with no way back on track except to scrap the old (modern) wineskins and embrace new (ancient) ones. As such, I find intentional community the only way to be faithful to all of Jesus’ teachings (remaining free from the love of money and possessions–your treasure, if you have them, according to Him; refraining from lending and borrowing; laying down our lives for one another as He did for us, which requires intimate, day-by-day community).
I also strongly believe that boundaries bring true freedom. The purely liberal thinker and theologian, by liberating him/herself, has enslaved him/herself to the need to be free from absolutes. Put another way, if we believe there are no boundaries (or none knowable), then we are forced either to (a) exist in utter apathy over all our ideas and actions, or (b) exist in a constant state of paranoia, because of complete uncertainty about whether we are crossing the unknowable boundaries. One only needs to observe a child whose parents neglected to establish any boundaries whatsoever, from birth–letting him always have his way, letting him run into a busy street, etc–to visualize this. Boundaries, to some extent, bring freedom–freedom to focus on what matters, freedom to do what’s right, freedom to save oneself from certain harm or even death, and in the sake of Christ, the freedom of one’s spirit to enjoy intimate communion with Him.

Mike,
What would you say they are?

This is a very interesting topic, one that made me think a bit. As a non-liberal Lutheran (yes, it’s possible) who has for 30 years lived in the fringes of the evangelical and emergent areas of the church, here is my perception: One of the primary differences between what is being discussed as the Liberals and Evangelicals (bad over-generalizations, by the way) is what I will call “the box.” Evangelicals are afraid of what they imagine is outside “the box” and Liberals are afraid of what they imagine is inside “the box.”
Emergents (another over-generalization) for the most part don’t even believe in “the box,” and rebel against these types of arguments and fears as being not relevant. What they seem to fear is growing up, of becoming irrelevant. They have that “don’t trust anyone over 30″ mentality, afraid that someday they will be what their children will rebel against, the new irrelevancy.

I think it’s a bad question. It’s framed in such a way as to force a overly generalized answer. I don’t think any of these movements can really be summed up in terms of only one main fear (or even in terms of “fear” at all).
Anyhow, that’s why I said nice try. If one accepts the premise of the question, then your answers are decent enough. But again, I just think it’s a bad question.

Great perspective, Pam. It reminds me that the foundation for our relationship with God, self and each other is love.
Lovers, irrespective of their fears, ought to remain optimistic about the outcomes.

Do I hear an echo?

Hey Alden # 42 – I’m well over 30! Does that mean I can’t trust myself?
Matt #40 – Thank you for your post.

The fears of Christendom « Random Bloggings

[...] 15, 2007 Posted by Calvin in Ministry Driven, Emerging/Missional, Evangelicalism, Christendom. trackback I often read Scot McKnight’s blog. As I was going about my normal blog reading today, I cameacross an excellent post. However, I think that Scot has it slightly wrong in this post. I can’t really speak to the fears of “liberals.” However, when it comes to Evangelicals and the Emerging, I think I have a slightly different idea than what Scot suggests for their fears. [...]

I am left reflecting a stage back from y’all, now that I have managed to read all these comments.
What is it that fuels these fears?
Recently, I was in a conversation that decided that vision and frustration were the same thing: if you are frustrated about something, then there is at least the potential to change it into something better.
In turn, I am left to ponder whether in fact there is a converse to these fears, and that in fact they illustrate something of the hope that we have as representatives of the spectrum of the Christian faith.
I do not want to interpolate too far into your ideas, Scot – I think that you are highlighting some very real and pervasive issues. But I wonder if these fears could be used proactively to assert and celebrate good trends within these theological and ecclesiological camps – and if in turn this might be a better sociological question to press into cultures and subcultures.
Not – what is your greatest fear; but perhaps, ‘what is your greatest hope?’

Joanne,
Our critiques of others (which are most often inherent in our fears) are virtually always rooted in our feeling that “our way has something better to contribute”. If approached humbly, this can be very beneficial for the Church, especially when it is also received humbly by those who are being critiqued (“Rebuke a wise man and he will thank you.” -Proverbs). I don’t know of any Christian movement OR institution that doesn’t have something positive to contribute to Christian theology, ecclesiology, and mission. Recognizing this fact, I believe, is one of the most promising attributes of the emerging church (though, because of recency, we unfortunately tend to be more consistent in our criticism of the Modern/Pragmatic church than we should).

I think that evangelicalism’s greatest fear is that the Gospel and the Christian story won’t hold up in the light of reason and critical thought. Therefore anti-intellectualism, propositional absolutes, and banning books or questions becomes, for many, a way to hold on to “truth.”
I’d say this is more of a Fundamentalist problem than an Evangelical one per se. You’ll find Evangelicals on varying sides of intellectual engagement.
Has anyone here heard of the Plymouth Brethren? The denomination has its faults, but it’s the tradition that I grew up in, essentially a church of laity. There are no pastors (it’s seen as unbiblical), only elders and deacons. There’s no central organizing body, rather a loose fellowship of like-minded churches. I’ve often thought that more structured, hierarchical churches would learn from the PB, because it gives more responsibility to the members of the church rather than investing everything into one person.

I cannot believe I’m being accused of over-generalizations. I made succinct 100% accurate, carefully nuanced conclusions about these camps (wink, wink).
Of course most responses here do not reflect a comprehensive picture of each camps fears. Let me remind whoever that this is blog not an academic journal. Most of us here just want to get our jollies by mouthing off about how Scot’s offerings interact with our own experiences and information. Let’s be real here, we love throwing out an idea or two and seeing how it affects the community and how we can refine our own understandings. In light of this, we have to accept that over-generalizations are par for the course. However, even over-generalizations do contain some truth and its up the individual to critically think about where the truth is.
Bad question or not (I thought it was a good question), Scot is on a journey, like all of us, and I feel making judgements about the value of his questions seems unhelpful (didn’t we learn that there are no bad questions from Mrs. Campbell’s third grade class). If we think its a bad question, perhaps the most helpful response is to not respond.
Open to rebuke as well,
chris

To my knowledge, Dawn, you’re right. The term “pastor” is not directly used to refer to a position in the church, but rather a function of the position of the elder, or “bishop” (those two are synonymous). To “pastor” is to shepherd, which is, to lead (cast vision, make decisions when needed), feed (understand and teach the Scriptures), and protect (refute false teachings and discipline the “wolves” who are teaching it). The exercise of these roles is not inherent in the “senior pastor” model, which I am also skeptical of. The church I have been attending since moving to Chicagoland has a group of elders, each of whom exercise their gifts differently, and one of whom is the spokesperson and primary teacher. They are extremely evangelical, and in agreement with you on this. Take heart.

Personally, I fear all these new-fangled contraptions and not being taken seriously.

To expand a bit on my comment on ‘irrelevance.’ I meant something more like ‘meaninglessness.’
To be ‘emergent’ is to be in a movement where you are making up a lot of stuff as you go along. You _have_ to make these decisions because of the demand characteristics of any group (no matter how small and ‘distributed’ in John L comment), and it takes a lot of energy and thought; and the things that come easy are probably suspect as well.
The point is: is it worth all the effort? You think you’re pretty sure that the meaningful life isn’t to be found in the traditional evangelical molds (perhaps, as Scot suggested, especially as it relates to new people coming into the fold, whom you’d just as soon not turn into twice the children of hell as you have been). But are you going to actually live more meaningfully?
To be clear: I was asking the question whether this is the kind of fear that leaders and others in the emergent movement have. I don’t have enough data points to know.

Dawn,
Probably more true of fundamentalists than evangelicals.
But I was raised in an evangelical family and church and have generally attended churches that would be classed as evangelical – and I think that there is an undercurrent of this in the evangelical church.

I’m to comment #22 and there are broad stereotypes/generalizations made of the title evangelicals. It has me scratching my head of what it means, not a rare thing. Evangelicals are tv preachers, legalists, Falwells and Robertsons, afraid of the sufficiency of Christ, don’t allow reason and questions. In my day, fundamentalists were that and the dirty word. My demonstration of evangelical was/is L’Abri and my house church. I haven’t seen those things.
Ok, on to comment #23 through 54

Sorry about the repeat post. Hope it gets fixed.
To talk about fears is to wonder some about the roots of those fears. That is, where psychologically are we reacting from childhood stuff. Are we reacting so to form something else? Not to pick, but it caught my eye in the comment that said “fear being told by a fallible human being who they must be, how they ought to feel, and how they should act upon their faith. Emergents want the freedom to pursue their uniqueness in Christ as well as their place in the universal and historical church.” I can pick that apart as “fear being told by a fallible human being who they must be, (reacting against parental authority0 how they ought to feel, (were told as a child what not to feel) and how they should act upon their faith. (the “just let me be my own person” teens go through. That is, how we muddle through the waters to come through the other side as the person we’ve put the parts together as.) Emergents want the freedom to pursue their uniqueness in Christ (want to solidify the person I will be. Want to seperate identity from parents) as well as their place in the universal and historical church. (oh yeh, finding who we are in all stages of life.)
Is it reasonable to think any movements can be seperate from muddled psycholoical stuff we all carry around? Can we look to create out of what is less a reactionary thing? I suppose that would be – what we will be, rather than what we will not be or don’t want to be.

Becky R.,
Scratch your head no longer. Here’s some dandruff shampoo…
Evangelical is not simply the term that has been thought up to replace Fundamentalist. The terms have both been around for a long time. But regardless of this, they have entirely different meanings, because they have different emphases. Fundamentalist describes any devotee to a worldview who would defend that worldview to the death. Evangelical describes only Christians who take the Great Commission at the close of Matthew 28 to be the sole purpose of the Christian and the Church–nothing more and nothing less. Evangelicals are the most missional (are you familiar with that term? If not, check it out in Scot’s “blogossary”.) Christians out there–they believe they are not just keepers of sound doctrine, but colaborers with Christ in the redemption of mankind. Put simply, evangelicals take the call to evangelize the world (preach and embody the Good News of Jesus) seriously enough to devote their lives to it. The media just so happens to pick up the opinions of those who just so happen to be slandering evangelicals, hence all the fundamentalist connotations you’re familiar with.

What’s interesting to me are the caricatures drawn about evangelicals in most of the prior comments. There were a few negative comments about liberals but it’s clear that this crowd views evangelicalism with greatest suspicion and disappointment.
However, there is a resurgence in reformed evangelicals that hold to historic reformed doctrine but also coupled with rich, thriving experience (see – churches led by John Piper, CJ Mahaney for examples).
There are no bad questions but the categorizations leave the evangelicals with the broadest spectrum to negotiate and paints all of them with the same brush.
Still, I’ll make a stab at answering your questions
Liberals fear intolerance and injustice
Emergents fear definition and doctrine
Evangelicals fear threats to the authority of Scripture…unfortunately, some also fear a loss of control over the “way things are done”

Emergents love doctrine… they just despise being locked into any of them.

With regards to #60, I think Evangelicals fear threats to *their interpretation* of Scripture (which, for them, would mean the authority of Scripture).
(Great conversation, all—fun to listen in on).

Matt,
I think sharing the responsibility for the various roles that a senior pastor is expected to fill is necessary–pastors have so much pressure: they have to preach well, be good administrators, cast vision, tend to the spiritual health of the congregation, care for those who are sick, and be excellent counselors. It’s a lot for any one person, and it’s no wonder that so many pastors, especially at smaller churches where they can’t share the burden of these responsibilities with a larger pastoral group, get burned out.

Fear, Identity, and the Emerging Church « Catching Meddlers

Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself
In a recent post on Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight posited his ideas of what the greatest fears are of three broad groups of Christians. Although the full article is worth reading, his general synopsis is:—–
[...] 16 Mar 2007 Fear, Identity, and the Emerging Church Posted by Matt under United Methodist , Methodist , Methodism , emerging , emergent , EmergingChurch , General  Scot McKnight has a very interesting post on liberals, evangelical/conservatives, and the emerging church. In his series, “Letters to Emerging Christians,” he looks at the question, “What does our greatest fear tell us about ourselves?” He then answers this for conservative/evangelical, liberal, and emerging Christians. You really should read the whole article, but the breakdown is roughly this. [...]

Dawn,
I believe you are 100% correct, without caveat. The senior pastor model as we know it today is not only unhealthy, it’s unbiblical. There are many different types and functions of leadership, which require unique individuals to perform them… and many different types within each worshipping community, which means, “Oa-la!” you need more than one person fulfilling them. That’s why the Bible ordains that there be a plurality of elders in addition to deacons. It’s very much a group thing, and any competent church planting strategist today will tell you that church planting takes a “team”. So I’m with you on this 100%. Now, if you’re saying that among the local assembly of believers, there should be no “leaders” of any sort, I’d have to disagree with you. But the key letter there is “s”.
The small town situation is very critical… as in, in critical condition. I grew up in a midwestern, rural town of 2,000, so I completely relate. That’s a different topic for another day, and I’d love to have the conversation, but this probably isn’t the place for it. Maybe I’ll post something on it on my blog one of these days. Feel free to email me if this is of particular interest to you.
Blessings,
matt

Dawn #51,
I was born and raised PB. I appreciate their emphasis on the priesthood of all believers. But the PB I knew had a very real – to the point of stifling – anti-intellectual bias. I currently attend seminary part-time. The PB people I know can’t wish me well. They wish for me to drop out.
Still, I find a certain irony in that the latest-greatest movements are beginning to look PBish in some ways (women in ministry and missional emphases excluded). When I was a kid, the whole house-church lay-leader thing seemed pretty strange compared to “real” church. Now it looks like it was jet-setting!
In the spirit of the post, I wonder what the greatest fear of PB is? It would continue the irony to discover a relationship between the fears of emerging and the fears of PB, don’t you think?

Becky #58 – I agree that we cannot separate our spiritual selves from the psychological baggage that we carry around. To compartmentalize ourselves is completely modern and anti-Emergent anyway. And by the way, I made the comment you quote, and no, I didn’t really struggle so much with my parents. It was a good guess, and I might have made it myself if reading my own comment. It has been in the conservative evangelical world in my adult life that I have been told most strongly who to be, how to feel, and what my faith should look like. I have also watched college students nearly ready to throw away their faith because of these very things.
While I understand that reacting to something negatively is not always a good thing, it often acts as a corrective. The strict requirements of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals have kept many a person from using their God-given gifts and experiencing the joy of serving Jesus as they believe to be called. Similarly, being told to feel happy when life stinks and you simply can’t feel otherwise is, I believe, antibiblical. One doesn’t have to look too far to see that the Psalmists didn’t have a happy-all-the-time attitude, and neither did Jesus.
One of my other “emergent” fears is becoming the person who sets up a different set of expectations for what someone else’s faith should look like. I guess in many ways, I want to remind myself of what it feels like to be treated in such a way so that I don’t make the same mistake with others. Does that make sense?
Cheers

Great post (still sorting through some of the comments)!
What we fear too often defines us… or as Bono has been quoted ‘make your enimies interesting.’
I think many on this board have a bias towards ‘evangelicals’, so it seems they’ve gotten off easier than ‘liberals.’
evangelicals fear- difference.
Anything, anyone, any movement or idea that is different… they’ve been repackaging the same ideas for years, and base some ‘core’ doctrine not on biblical ideas but what is ‘normal’ to evangelical culture… any idea that hasn’t been repeated by a ‘normal’ evangelical leader fifty times is thought to be heresy, even if it stands up to biblical truth (but maybe has to be found through remebering ancient tradtion). I think fear of change is a good way of describing evangelical fear… but this goes to the deeper issue.

Dawn #51 – I too come from a Plymouth Brethren background and believe in many ways, the Brethern’s concepts of the church and body life were right on target. For all the failings of the Brethern, they still project a strong historical example of how “church” could be if we took the Gospel call seriously and moved on to be the church of Jesus.

Matt R #68 – I think you’re right on about the fear of difference/change with evangelicals. I sometimes wonder if personalities that are more open to experience tend to gravitate toward emerging churches and those that are less open to experience stay within a more conservative church culture. It makes sense to me based upon what I know about personality types, but I wouldn’t want to make a blanket statement about such matters either.

Evangelicals getting off easy? I think Matt R #68 just made the point of my prior comment. There is a general anti-evangelical sentiment here. I’m guessing because of negative experiences rather than doctrinal differences…that’s unfortunate.
If there’s any group that got off easy, it must be the emergents, simply based on the sympathies of most of those who read this blog. I think an honest review of the comments should yield that conclusion. That’s ok, let’s just be honest about it.
My point is that we all want to view ourselves as moderate, reasonable and in the best light. The extremists are always to our left and right. If we don’t see that, we’re kidding ourselves. It should lead us to consider that perhaps our opinions of others may be flawed and biased.

Andre,
You’re new to commenting as far as I remember, but I can’t really say that I think my post was harder on evangelicals than anyone else. Maybe you are talking about “comments”? Take it as a family quarrel.

Family quarrel is accurate. We see the flaws most clearly in those we know the best. I don’t know what emergents or liberals fear, except as a guess from the outside. But evangelicals – that is a different story.

Scot
Absolutely agree. No problems at all with your post but the comments seem to have distinct disillusionment and disappointment with evangelicals? I’m curious as to why this is but hesitated to ask since it wasn’t the point of your post.

Thanks Matt for the definition. But what I’ve seen coming out of L’Abri, and it’s been over a period of 30 yrs, is honoring the whole of life and the whole of a person, in addition to evangelizing. And, honoring all of life and a person, is not a tactic or means to bring in converts (as I see how they operate), but seeing the Bible as addressing the whole of life and the whole of a person. I haven’t asked a L’Abri worker lately (we are helping the Canadian branch) but I knew they used to, if not still, label themselves evangelical. And part of doing that wes to distinguish themselves from fundamentalists. Maybe part of it was to define the who of what they are. All that is to say I’ve experienced a group over the span of 30 yrs, calling themselves evangelical, who have a positive honoring of life and people, They are involved in conversion, but as I would see it, mostly the conversing of ideas. So, well, I guess there are those who call themselves evangelical who fit outside the definition you provided.

You’re right, Becky. It’s very difficult to separate “love your neighbor” from “make disciples”. I would argue that it’s impossible. Each is a requirement of the other. From what I’ve seen, most evangelicals have stated the latter, while assuming the former. However, because of this, I think many evangelicals have neglected to make disciples, because they have failed to realize the holistic nature of discipleship. “If you say you love me, yet you do not love your brother, you’re a liar” – Jesus. However, it’s also clear that true followers of Christ must “teach them to obey everything I have commanded”. Teaching and learning of the Bible must be the most integral part of every genuine Christian community. Otherwise, they cannot “know Christ”, who is revealed through His Word. To whom much is given, much is required. We’ve been given a great gift in the Old and New Testament canons. I’m not implying that you meant anything contrary to this, just rounding out my comment.

Do these comments point out the fears of the various groups, or do they point out the fears of the people posting, about the various groups. There is a difference. Hmm.

Linda, a difference I see, is with those who try to constrict our life and life of faith, is to say “God bless you,” and walk away. I mean really, with a heart full, say “bless you.” Now the walking away part is turning to make my life what I think it ought to be. In your 2nd paragraph about reacting, this is what I thought. This is what I would spend my effort in conversing with those who are struggling with feeling constricted and wanting an alternative.
Maybe it’s just from my life experience and how I’ve had to learn to not go crazy from it, but for me, with those who try to constrict our lives, my response is like when one doesn’t try to talk sensibly to a alcoholic who is using. We only put ourselves into our part of the disease by interacting with the using alcoholic, we are in the disease. If I am interacting with what we might label a sick constricter, I am participating in the disease. If I can say with a full heart “God bless you,” and walk away, I am living my life the way I want my life to be, seperate from the sickness. If I am reacting to the contricters I am still caught up in the malfunctioning. If that analogy makes sense. It’s my experience, and in working out my “stuff” have had to learn how to live.

I think you hit the first 2 on the head, but were too easy on the emergent crowd. Anytime I see an emergent Christian try to define what the emerging movement is and they mostly tell what it is not. I sense it is mostly a reaction movement (against the 2 others) that fears definition. In other words, I’ve heard the “third way” mantra so often that I am inherently skeptical and, as the liberal wing of Christianity dies, I wonder what the emerging church will stand for without the second way to position itself against. As one who works with the emerging movement alot these days, I’d say that its next biggest fear should be what’s next… ten years down the road when the newness has worn off and the lack of any concrete definition results in splintering and more disillusion.
I hope this is not the case, but I fear more definition will have to appear and that more institutionalism must arise.

I am a conservative evangelical. I fear not the emerging church and I fear not the liberal. I happen to disagree with each, yet I do not fear either. I fear God…alone.

Timbo:
Could you expand on what you mean?
Do you mean that the evangelical position is what it means to fear God? or If you fear God then you would not be a liberal or emergent? or It doesn’t really matter whether you are conservative, liberal, or emergent, as long as you fear God?

Linda #70, thanks… though I too am leary of generalizations, I think you’re on to something with personality types. Care to go into more detail?
Scot #72, I think andre #71 was responding to comments, particularly mine… but I agree, this is more like a family quarrel, didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. Just thought that some of the comments suggested that evangelicals were ‘afraid’ of straying from Scripture, but I think all sides could say simular things… that’s why I said “getting off easy.”

Wow! As an evangelical, and aware of my fears, I’ve come away beaten up here. Is there a fear for the direct and overwhelming pointing out of evangelical fears here?

Wow! As an evangelical, and aware of my fears, I’ve come away beaten up here – which is one of my fears. Is there a fear for the direct and overwhelming pointing out of evangelical fears here?

Matt R #83 – If you do a quick search for the Big Five Personality Traits on Wikipedia, it gives a very simple and useful overview of the five personality traits that some researchers say make up the human personality. Openness to Experience is one of the Big Five. While I certainly wouldn’t recommend Wikipedia for scholarly research, it contains some good general information on the Big Five as I recall them.
Cheers.

I think everybody’s gotten pretty beaten up, Mike. That’s the nature of this kind of overgeneralization and stereotyping. I doubt there are any two people who can agree on definitions for all three labels, let alone apply them objectively to anyone (including themselves). I think it might be more useful to identify a big set of definitive values held by a broad range of Christians, and then see how people embrace or reject them. It’s always better, ISTM, to define ourselves by what we believe/stand for, rather than what we reject/fear.

I think understanding our fears helps keep us grounded about what we really believe. Sure, we should articulate what we “believe/stand for”, but do we really live it out? We often speak one thing and practice another. A habit of articulating our fears gives us a more balanced understanding and humble understanding of where we are at.
When I profess that I believe in “an absolute truth, but not being able to know it absolutely” I stand for being more open. When I treat an emergent with a judgemental-critical attitude because I feel they’ve diluted truth, then I know I’m fearing openness. So I can believe in openness, but my actions say I don’t sometimes.
Belief gives us a vision of where we want to go, fear gives us a report on where we are.
Peace,
chris

Good point, Chris. Maybe the biggest problem is presuming to say we can identify the fears of those with whom we disgree on various theological points.
IOW, I rather doubt that someone who embraces the “emerging” label is a particular expert on what liberals or evangelicals fear, just as they don’t really know what each other or the emerging folk fear. And where does that leave people for whom the labels simply don’t fit?
Shortcuts like labels and associating assumed fears with them, are not a good substitute for actually listening to those with whom we disagree. We generally find out that they’re individuals and our presuppositions about them don’t hold up.
Now if I articulate my own fears, that’s a different animal. And frankly, there are less than safe places to do that. (The internet in general being one of them.)

Wise words, Psalmist. Generalizing is only helpful in a utilitarian sense (i.e. humans have a difficult time engaging with something or someone they can’t categorize. It’s a basic psychological fact), and in many cases, simply for the sake of entertainment. It gives us something to talk about, write about, sing about, preach about, blog about. Does that give it merit? To me, absolutely not. To journalists and bloggers? Maybe. What about to Christians?

For whoever is still listening in on this convo, Madeleine L’Engle has some interesting things to say about fear. From The Rock That is Higher.
I asked a large group at the Midwest conference: “If your faith is secure, what are you afraid of?”
If my faith is secure, what am I afraid of?
The answer is, of course, that my faith is not as secure as it ought to be. Finite Madeleine is often far from certain of the infinite God who (nevertheless) rules my life.
I suspect that fear and condemnation comes because it is difficult for us to let ourselves go, to put our entire lives with absolute faith in a God we cannot in any way control. ……… The only way we can hope to be able to work with our Abba/Amma in the telling of our story, is to have the courage, the faith, to abandon our control and to give it entirely to the Creator.
Why do we forget the promise of the Rock under our feet? Why is there so much fear, so much antagonism, so much judgmentalism? …… It is a human tendency to draw together when a common enemy can be found. ….. if the real enemy is too fearful to be faced, then one has to be made up. That frightens me more than the real enemy. …….
Community is in the context of human failure. When we as individuals and I myself can acknowledge our/my own failures we/I am free to be part of community and part of that freedom is being able to accept the community itelf is going to fail. That is, in worldly terms be a failure.
Becky: I thought this was interesting because a thread through the comments is blaming churches or faiths or movements of their failures. Hmm.
Jesus’ joy came from his constant awareness of his Source. And it is that awareness of our Source that takes away our fears and not only allows us, but prods us, even commands us to enjoy our faith.
Becky : So maybe the problem isn’t “them,” but where our being is focused.
Those that are against something tell me more about the people who are against it than about that which they are against.
In Acts, the early followers of Jesus were so like us, quarreling with each other, reinterpreting and misinterpreting the words of Jesus, and yet, ultimately, serving Love rather than themselves and their own opinions.
Ala Madeleine L’Engle

Becky – thanks for the L’Engle addition.
I just have to add, that 95% of my ‘emerging’ friends (20′s to 70′s in age), are evangelicals. And many of us come from evangelical seminaries. I am much more able to identify the fears of the body with whom I have journeyed for 35 years in seeking the way of Jesus – evangelicals – than anyone else. My guess is that is true with most in this conversation, so the evangelicals would sound like they got beat up. If we are reflecting in honesty and humility, we should be harder on ourselves. And yes, the delineations are generalized and artificial, but we create them, so we should at least reflect on them from various perspectives.
The fear question is powerful. I am still sitting with it. Yes, I am someone who is committed to getting myself and others focused on the ‘hope’ in Jesus, but self examination requires multiple perspectives, and this one puts a new light on our relationships to others. Especially the deeper questions thatspin off of this one. I don’t remember who asked ‘are we revealing the fears of these groups, or the fears we have of the theology of these groups?
Thank you to all for your thoughts. I didn’t get through all the comments, but enough to be blessed and challenged by the thoughts.

10-4 Psalmist on the presumption issue; I agree. I think the problem comes when we take an unhealthy attitude toward presuming; something of the self-righteous kind. Brennan Manning says in one of his books that we must forget about thinking we can thoroughly understand someone. We must give them the space/grace to be outside the box we put them in.
I have followed Scot’s blog with the presupposition that all sorts read it (Liberals, evangelicals, emergents, maybe your occasional Tibetan Monk). This thread is interesting because I thought there would be more direct disagreement with everyone telling each other what they fear (like, “I’m a liberal and I think your assesment of my fear is inaccurate. Here’s why…yada yada yada [Has anyone seen that Seinfeld episode? Hilarious]). Perhaps, though, I’m presupposing too much. Maybe, we are more alike than I thought. Anyway, my point is that I feel comfortable presuming some other camps fears when I know they have a part in the discussion and they can push back, dispelling my straw man arguments and refining my more solid conclusions.
We make presumptions/overgeneralizations anyway; why not throw them out and be humble enough, taking a lick or two when we get them dead wrong. At the end of the day, what have I done to someone on this blog if I assess their fear wrong? Hopefully, their self-image is strong enough to handle my words and if they tell me in love where my foolishness lies, then they’ve made me better.
I say let’s be humbly real about our presumptions. If done so, I believe we only create a place of safety where we can grow each other.
Peace,
chris

Wow, I’m surprised there are so many former PBs on here. It’s not a large group on the international scale.
I agree that there’s an anti-intellectual bias among PBs–but I think it’s specific to theology. The people at my parents’ church are impressed when someone has a solid graduate degree and accord that person some respect, but they don’t necessarily think that going to seminary is useful. Bible school, now that’s another matter. I get protests from my mom when I talk about researching cultural contexts that the Bible was written in because she thinks that we should be able to read the Bible “as is” and apply it immediately. Yet I seem to have had a more intense study of the Bible from an early age than most people who come from other traditions, so it’s hard to say exactly how the intellectual bias plays out.
Like you all pointed out, it is funny that so many of the “new” traditions are things the PBs have always done. It seems difficult to get people who are used to more liturgical or planned worship to participate in prayer, music, etc. without a predetermined order. For the longest time I thought it was strange that other people had pastors at their churches, almost as though they weren’t good Christians–and then I went to college and realized that this was the norm.
Maybe the greatest fear of the PB would be to be “left behind” or miss the events of the Rapture as they unfold? Or perhaps that the church will stop preaching the gospel and will water it down instead?

This is an OK view of the groups
I think the description of Evangelical Christians is a bit out there. As a Pastor of a new church plant, I mean new as in a few months, and one who’s has placed himself in the evangelical camp. There is nothing traditional about myself, accept to my deep values that of, knowing and believing the word, living the word, and sharing the word with lost people. That is how most evangelicals can be described. What evangelicals fear the most is more about the destruction of the word of God as the main “T” truth for the faith. They fear Jesus being turned into some hippie-fag, philosopher, and they fear salvation being taught as just nice thoughts that did not truly cost Jesus his life.
The issue of the Liberal church I feel is right. They do fear lack of tolerance; this is why they love sin, because there is no sin, just wrongs done to individuals. Sin means you are judging and no one is aloud to judge.
The emergent group makes me laugh. They are confused; not wanting to submit to what the scriptures describe as a proper way that community of faith should function under some form of submission to leadership. They are on every side of the faith liberal & conservative, but I am not sure how conservative they are. I used to be really in to the emergent thing, I bought a lot of their books. It just depends on which group of emergent you are talking about. If it is Mark Driscoll, who rags on the emergent group, then you have a deep rooted conservative thinking person, who takes huge stands, if it is Brian MC, you are talking about someone who plants his feet firmly in thin air. Then you have some one who stands on very little. So what do they fear, I think some fear submission, I think some fear, absolutes, I think some fear that the Bible might actually be the absolute truth, and the problem with modern Christianity is not theology, but in discipleship. Remember, your Christology, will determine your Ecclesiology. What you believe about Jesus will determine how you live. Since our identity as believers is wrapped up in Jesus what we think and truly believe about him will be revealed in how we live.

I am late to the party; and I view this differently. If C.S. Lewis is right and evil comes in pairs of errors (and Satan does not care which one we flee to) – then to me the two errors (the ditches on the side of the narrow road) are license and legalism: theologically liberal Christians err to the former; fundamentalists, and to a lessor degree, evangelicals err to the latter (I am, for full disclosure, very much an evangelical).
To me, what is in the middle they are both running from is obedience to a real living God. Take for the proposition that we are indwelt by a God that has a plan for us – what Americans fear most is losing their freedom and giving up control to someone else: being a puppet – even to God.
For evangelicalism, this meant for a number of years rejecting the ministry of the Holy Spirit to a degree and denying that there is continuing revelation. If there is continuing revelation, then you might have to get quiet in front of God; listen to what He says; and then actually do it. Why, He might make you sell everything and go to Africa as a missionary. Instead, we turn the Bible into a rulebook; and rather than follow the Holy Spirit in our lives – we try to do the right thing. We deny the power of Grace, and His leadership, in our lives and try to live by rules.
For the theologically liberal, they reject the action of God in this world at all: God does not reach into, and act, in His creation. They talk about continuing revelation; but that is revelation from the community of believers – not from a living God. That community, in consensus, determines what God really is. Love for each other is everything. Grace abounds, and rules do not. The true theologians will tell you God is not going to tell you anything except through that community of other believers. Again, you do not have to worry that God is going to tell you to sell everything and move to Africa.
I think we all fear giving up control to God.

Brian,
Maybe you haven’t been reading all of this post when you described what you fear as an evangelical… I think you missed the point. ‘Fear’ as we’ve been talking about here is not neccessiarily a good thing. More about being honest about the fears that drive us to certain reactions. And, in a way you’ve displayed an evangelical fear very well… fear of loss of control.
Everything you mentioned (all of which, by the way are very traditional!), has to do with trying to maintain control: control of what ‘truth’ is (absolute, or absolutely agreeing with a certain interpritation of Scripture), control of people in church (‘submission’), etc… I hope you take this in the spirit in which it was intended… a brother trying to help you take a good hard look at your assumptions. THAT is what I see this post being about, the underlying fears that we don’t often talk about, but yet often drive us in negative ways.
One more thing… as a fellow church planter and minister… that word (f_ g) should NEVER be used by a Christian. It’s not about being PC, it’s about being Christ-like!

Out of the overflow of our hearts, our mouths speak.

Since Blogger doesn’t allow Trackbacks – I posted on this at Brain Cramps for God: “What Do We Fear?”

Sum’s up the House Church Movement perfectly. Any suggestions how we overcome this? I have posted this on my blog