aldenswan.com

It seems that I’ve lived a very sheltered life, at least as far as life in the evangelical world goes. I thought that I had a pretty eclectic theological history, and understood evangelicals pretty well. I was raised Lutheran, as I’ve mentioned before, but was deeply influenced in high school and college by a variety of non-Lutheran folks, attended an Evangelical Covenant Bible school, and even served on the board of an Evangelical Free Church. I have hung around with both Southern and American Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, holiness folks and Greek Orthodox. I’ve been traveling in Vineyard circles for over 20 years, and for the last 10 have been investigating what is now being called the “emerging” church. I’ve read Christianity Today, The Purpose-Driven Church/Life, and tons of other best-sellers. I have owned at least 3 systematic theologies. And, I often use the NIV (although I do prefer RSV).

So, I’ve “been around,” as they say. However, over the last few months I have been exploring the vast resources of the internet, only to find that I apparently haven’t a clue about what Evangelicalism is all about. I knew that I didn’t agree with fundamentalists of any stripe, John MacArther, Pat Robertson, Tim LaHaye or James Dobson (and still don’t). However, I really had no idea there were such strong and volatile groups of Calvinists, Baptists, Calvinist Baptists, Anabaptists, and other random evangelicals out there. I’ve discovered that I don’t understand Calvinists at all (and still don’t really care to) and that I’m getting tired of Baptists who think they understand Martin Luther. However, I’ve discovered that there are a number of really sharp Lutherans who really do understand Martin Luther.

I also didn’t know that orthodoxy was such a big deal (not just “who’s in and who’s out,” but what it is that makes you in or out). I didn’t know that the Nicene Creed was an issue for some people. And, I’m very glad that I have had no reason to know these things.

There are a few decent evangelical blogs that I have been reading (and occasionally commenting on), including Parchment and Pen, the blog of C. Michael Patton, a dispensational Calvinist. On that basis alone, I shouldn’t understand his point of view at all. However, he “reaches across the aisle,” as it were, and has started some very interesting discussions in the last couple of weeks concerning who is “emerging,” who is and is not “orthodox,” and who are the Eastern Orthodox. On the latter topic, he has invited Dr. Bradley Nassif, an Eastern Orthodox theology professor at North Park University, to write a series of posts to introduce the Orthodox to Patton’s mostly evangelical audience.

The resulting discussions on each of these three topics are quite interesting, as well as being very educational. If you are at all interested in the variety of theologies held by the large group(s) calling itself “Evangelical,” or if you just want to find out what a strange world evangelicalism can be, it’s well worth an hour or 2 of your time to read through these discussions. I have especially enjoyed the Eastern Orthodox discussions, and am impressed with Dr. Nassif, who exhibits much more grace and patience than I would in dealing with some of the comments.

I have not drawn any conclusions, per se, from these discussions, but I have a few hunches and perceptions:

• Evangelicalism appears to be half - perhaps more - Modernism.
• There is at least a very strong commitment to submitting theology to a rationalistic analysis
• There is also an ahistorical attitude that borders on arrogance.
• Evangelicals more often than not cannot properly understand Luther or the early church, as they can’t accept that modernism has changed the meanings of many words and concepts.
• I have never been “evangelical” in the sense that most people use the term.
• I am okay - actually, I am more than okay - with that.
• I tend to like many of these people, anyway.
• The more theology I study, the more Lutheran I get.

What I find really intriguing, as I read through Robert Webber and other books dealing with historical theology, is that much of today’s evangelical church probably would have been considered heretical (at least heterodox) by Luther and many of the other reformers, not to mention everyone’s favorite, Augustine. Oh well… the beat goes on.

For those of you interested in the recent California Appellate Court ruling concerning homeschooling, here’s a response that a friend of a friend received to her e-mail to the Governor’s office:

From: governor@govmail.ca.gov < governor@govmail.ca.gov>
Date: Mar 10, 2008 5:42 PM
Subject: Re:Homeschooling
To: [deleted]

Thank you for contacting me about the recent Second District Court of Appeals ruling on home schooling.

Every California child deserves a quality education - but it is the parents’ right to decide what’s best for their children. Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education.

This ruling is outrageous and must be overturned by the courts. If the courts do not act to protect parents’ rights, then - as elected officials - we will.

Again, thank you for adding your voice to this important issue.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Technically, homeschooling is not legal in California. All homeschooling - and there is a lot of it - is done as home-study programs under either the public or a private school. However, a private school can exist merely as a record-keeping service for self-study programs. It’s a funky setup, but it’s worked okay. However, being that homeschooling is technically illegal, there is some potential for abuse and persecution from the State in it’s various forms (and it does happen, more often than it should).

Perhaps this ruling is a good thing, as it’s opened some eyes about the situation. It’s probably time that California establishes some real homeschooling legislation.

Some of you might recognize Everything must change as the title to a rather poor book by Brian McLaren which I reviewed some time back. While McLaren - in my opinion - failed miserably in laying out a case for why everything must change, I think Webber does just that quite well in The Divine Embrace, although he doesn’t use those words.  I am surprised, though, that evangelicals could read and say they agreed with what Webber says, but then go merrily on their way.

This post, by the way, is the 8th article in my Webber series that is discussing the book. These next 2 chapters are entitled My life in his and His life in mind. In My Life in His, he states:

The Christian life does not oppose experience of the transcendant, but the Christian spiritual life is not an experience out of this world, it is an experience of transcendant meaning here and now in this world.

This is a key, I think, in distinguishing between the spirituality of the past and that of the present. We tend to think of transcendant experience in a Platonic sense, where we leave the physical (the secular) and reach the spiritual (the sacred). However, this is to deny the incarnational aspect of God’s work.  God did not only become incarnate once; he continues his incarnational work in his embrace of us and creation. Webber suggests, in fact, that few evangelicals really grasp the concept of the humanity of Jesus. The incarnation is so contrary to our modern sense of Platonic dualism that we have a hard time really accpeting it for what it is.

In Chapter 9, Webber deals with what he sees as the common misunderstanding that spritiual disciplines as the source of our spirituality. I would agree, from my own experience in dealing with various evangelical groups, that this is indeed the basic teaching: if you want to “grow,” you must pray, read the Bible, and so on. There is a constant tension in teaching that we are not saved by “works,” but that we require works to mature, or in some cases, even to continue being saved. However, Webber says that “our goal is never to become spiritual but to live out the spirituality we have” in continuing to live in the divine embrace.

Webber, however, lost me a bit in this chapter as he spends a lot of time discussing a Benedictine approach to the spiritual disciplines. As this chapter is drawing conclusions about how to respond to everything he has said in the prior chapters, I found this suggestion to follow a Benedictine approach a bit anticlimactic and disappointing.  Even so, his points about prayer, study and so on are well-taken.

As I sat in church this Sunday morning, I was very aware of how far the evangelical church has moved from any sort of Biblical understanding of spirituality. The “worship” songs had very little worship content in them (most celebrated our emotions) and the sermon gave us ideas on things we could do to grow. There was no celebration of God With Us, no sense that God is able to do all that He has set out to do.  Not too long ago, I just would have left disatisfied, not really knowing why. Webber has been beneficial in that now I can better see and understand what lies beneath these defects. It helps to know why… I didn’t leave angry. Sad, yes… disappointed, yes… but not angry. That’s progress.