We have before us now the resolutions that will be presented at the upcoming General Conference of the United Pentecostal Church International. These resolutions include one, Resolution 6, that relaxes our historical position against Christians taking life in military service, leaving the decision up to individuals. I am writing this article two weeks before the General Conference, and I have not heard one comment about Resolution 6. I have not received any e-mail about Resolution 6. Most people I have talked to are unaware the resolution exists.

Can we delete the following text from our Manual, as Resolution 6 proposes to do, without a vigorous debate?

As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, we believe in the implicit obedience to His commandments and precepts which instruct us as follows: “That ye resist not evil” (Matthew 5:39); “Follow peace with all men” (Hebrews 12:14). (See also Matthew 26:52; Romans 12:19; James 5:6; Revelation 13:10.) These we believe and interpret to mean Christians shall not shed blood nor take human life.

Therefore, we propose to fulfill all the obligations of loyal citizens, but are constrained to declare against participating in combatant service in war, armed insurrection, property destruction, aiding or abetting in, or the actual destruction of human life.

The point here is not to articulate a position on television or taking life in the military service. The point is that we ought to vigorously debate matters of holiness, and there is no issue deserving of debate more than the taking of human life. But there has been no outcry. There has been no debate. Furthermore, the issue of television only goes back about six decades; the matter of taking life in military service has been debated among Christians since the first century. The literature—not to mention the Bible—available to us for a rigorous debate is voluminous.

Where are the heated Internet forums?

Where is the entire issue of the Forward devoted to the ethics of killing?

Where is the survey?

Where are the summits and conferences?

Where are the self-published booklets?

Where are the threats?

Where are the breakaway groups?

Where are the cries about methods (what we do) shaping our message (what we believe)?

Where are the pleas for maintaining holiness?

I am deeply moved by the silence.

Is advertising on television a greater moral offense than taking the life of another human being—likely in his land at the command of a secular leader for reasons we may not fully know or understand? Do we give less thought to the taking of human life than we do to advertising on television? What right do we have to take another human life? In a war who is morally right? Who is morally deserving of death? If I take up arms and kill, can I be assured it is in self-defense, either of the nation or of myself? (If one takes the commands of the New Testament literally, self-defense is not a basis for violence.) Is it okay to kill another Christian because he wears a different uniform? (The Civil War is a great example of Christians killing Christians while both prayed to God for victory.) Under what circumstances is it justifiable for us to kill another human being, one who likely is unprepared to face Jesus Christ in judgment? If he or she is prepared to face Jesus Christ, would not this be a greater atrocity? At whose command should a Christian be willing to take another human life? For what cause should a Christian be willing to take another life? How does one’s call to be an ambassador for Christ intersect with one’s loyalty to an earthly state? To what should one pledge allegiance other than to Christ, and how widespread should this allegiance be? For what should a Christian be willing to kill? For what should a Christian be willing to die?

I recognize that the issue of war is extraordinarily complicated. Theoretically, I think a state has the right to defend itself. Further, I think a state has a moral obligation to protect its neighbors from aggressors when it has the wherewithal to do so. I think some version of a just war theory is workable. Further, if we are beneficiaries of the freedom and security accomplished through war, we are in some sense culpable for the actions of the community. We cannot wash our hands of violence and yet support the violent machinery in “non-combat” roles, pretending we had nothing to do with the violence that was wrought.

Most definitely there are ways to engage in ministry to military personnel and in support to those who have enlisted in the military that do not require one to take life. Even so, these roles often provide support and infrastructure for those who do kill, so in many cases moral culpability may still exist. But we are not talking about support roles. Resolution 6 specifically removes our historical stance against taking human life in military service.

Some have lifted up Cornelius the centurion as an example to justify bearing arms in military service. I hardly think Cornelius teaches us anything of the sort. Cornelius, being a Roman soldier, was in a position which would have required him to subjugate or perhaps kill Jews and Christians if it were deemed prudent by a Roman leader. Further, if Jews or Christians were to have taken up arms against Rome, they very well could have taken the life of Cornelius, a fellow believer.

Cornelius was a military man who feared God. Are there no military men and women across the world who fear God? Are there no Corneliuses in armies around the world? If we bear arms and kill enemy “combatants,” do not we take the risk of killing a Cornelius? Are we prepared to do that at the behest of a secular commander in chief? In reality, we have no idea what happened to Cornelius after his conversion, although he presumable retained his military career. (Luke 3:14 may be instructive here, although a career change likely was not an option for Roman soldiers.)

Apparently, as an organization, we can deal with the matter of taking human life in the name of a secular state with little angst, yet we can divide churches, families, and even an organization over the use of modern technology to spread the gospel.

I am not attempting to settle the issue of whether Christians should bear arms. I have a lot of questions for which I have not found satisfactory answers. My concern is the ease with which we brush aside this topic while fighting to the bloody end over technology. We have a split conscience. We are morally dissociative. If our real concern is holiness, there is no greater issue than the taking of human life. Debates in ethics frequently degrade into hypothetical scenarios, all the what if propositions intended to stump someone of another opinion. However, this is not hypothetical given our current conditions. As it stands, military service in the United States is voluntary, and it is possible to serve and object to serving in combat roles. Given this choice, what would motivate a Christian to intentionally enlist and train for the purpose of taking human life? One who is converted after enlisting could likely declare his or her conviction and request a reassignment. If reassignment were not possible, the individual could seek God for grace to avoid the predicament of having to choose whether to take human life.

One of the most interesting components of Resolution 6 is its call for the decision to participate in taking human life in military service to be left to individuals. The option to exercise personal convictions in other areas has been vigorously opposed in many of our debates, including the debate over television. To illustrate, I have taken Resolution 6 and substituted the language on military service with language about television. (See below.) If this sample resolution were circulated in the past or present, it would incite vigorous debate. If we are prepared to leave the matter of taking life to personal conviction, we should be willing to leave all other matters of holiness to personal conviction. Can we do this and remain in fellowship? If not, what is unique about this most serious matter that removes it to the realm of personal conviction?

We indeed strained out a gnat in our decades-long debate over technology. We have caught the tiniest speck and examined it ad nauseam. And we should have strained out this gnat. But the camel we swallowed lodged in our throat. What is the theology behind Resolution 6? Are our conclusions rooted in patriotism, politics, or theology? We need a holistic theology of life which includes both the unborn as well as the already-born. Since this involves taking lives of people from other countries, should not this be discussed by the Global Council and not left solely to the UPCI in North America, especially since military service is compulsory in some countries?

How can we willing send combatants and missionaries into the same field?

I hope we at least have a vigorous debate.

Resolution #6 Rewritten

Whereas, Our position in the Articles of Faith concerning Conscientious Scruples on advertising on television causes concern and has mixed support from the ministerial constituency and does not therefore accurately represent our corporate identity, and

Whereas, Many of our pastors are ministering to members in combat positions who own televisions, and

Whereas, Many of our churches are ministering near military bases and serving the needs of many members in the military and aggressively reaching the lost serving in the ranks of the military, to people who own televisions and are aggressively reaching the lost who watch television and

Whereas, Some of our military personnel have faced the difficult decisions of military service and some have chosen combat positions some of our people own televisions and have a shadow cast over them by our present position, and

Whereas, The present position leaves no room for individual choice for a minister offering counsel to a member who is making military choices personal viewing choices, and

Whereas, We have taken no written position on the involvement of a United Pentecostal Church member service as a Police Officer or Security Agent, thus carrying a weapon with the possible use of force banning the use of the Internet, and

Whereas, We have not addressed the equally difficult decisions concerning personal home and family protection in the event of a confrontation with a violent attacker developed a comprehensive plan to deal with technology, and

Whereas, In signing ministerial applications and affirmation statements, many ministers are not in agreement with our stand on Conscientious Objector Status owning a television or ministering on television and are consequently endangering their personal integrity, and

Whereas, This deep and complicated issues merits the value of individual deliberation and heartfelt consideration, and

Whereas, A  restating of position will in no way limit a local church pastor from teaching to refrain from active combat in the military watching television or advertising on television, and

Whereas, A new approach to this sensitive subject will not limit the child of God from declaring a conscientious objector status refraining from watching television nor a church from advertising on television if their conscience so dictates, therefore

Resolved, That the Article of Faith entitled “Conscientious Scruples, contained in the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International, as set forth on page 35 of the Manual of the United Pentecostal Church International, 2011 Edition, be amended to read as follows:

. . . . The whole idea of taking of human life technology is complicated with a wide variety of complexities. . . . We recognize the deep and difficult deliberation required in these decisions. We therefore support our members in prayerfully and scripturally exploring their individual responsibility to God in these matters. We therefore honor the right of our members to serve as conscientious objectors and not bear arms refrain from owning or advertising on television. We also encourage those who serve watch television or advertise on television according to their conscience, in any and all capacities, to express courageous loyalty to country while serving in appropriate roles working ‘heartily, as to the Lord’ (Colossians 3:23) to the biblical teachings on holiness.”

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

There was nothing unique about this trip. It was similar to many others I have taken, but for the sake of recording 10 days of my life, I write.

The Filipino way
The Philippines is a beautiful country. It is comprised of more than 9,000 islands which are mountainous and covered in lush vegetation. The surrounding seas are clear and beautiful. The fruit is delicious, particularly the mangos, lanzones, rombutans, bananas, pineapple, and pamelos. There are many other varieties.

The Filipinos are delightful people. Although they frequently are not trained in the finer aspects of service or hospitality or whatever their supposed area of expertise, they always greet you with a pleasant smile and in a sing-song sort of way say, “Hello, sir” or “Hello, ma’am,” which usually comes out “Hello, suh” or “Hello, mom.” Many times there will be 6 or 7 workers in a restaurant waiting on 2 guests. Labor is cheap, so workers are usually in abundance. Unfortunately, this does not always translate into efficiency or effectiveness.

The conference was in a hotel in the city center of Cagayan de Oro, a different hotel than where we stayed. It was located in a part of the city which seemed to be where the typical resident shopped. The streets were lined with small shops no bigger than a nice-sized office, often with poor lighting and very little merchandise. Every second or third shop was a food venue complete with plastic chairs and tables and dim fluorescent tube lights. The shop floors morphed into the sidewalks which morphed into the street. It was not clear where one changed into the other. There were also street vendors along the streets, mostly selling food from their carts. The buildings looked unfinished, and everything was a shade or tone of brown. The shops with glass fronts and sufficient lighting typically were grouped together but not always. There are modern shops and restaurants, sometimes in secluded parts of town, sometimes sprinkled throughout these more common establishments. Pedestrians, cars, taxis, jeepneys, motorcycles, bicycles, and tricycles jammed the streets. Everything with a horn honked.

There are three traffic laws: (1) if you will fit, you have the right-of-way; (2) do not hesitate; and (3) honk. Honking is usually not to scold but is more of an announcement. One honks to let someone know he is coming or going or that he would like to come or go.

Four-way stops are neither four-way nor stops. They are blobs of traffic where every man does what is right in his own eyes. Each driver inches forward, negotiating for space and priority, giving and taking in order to carve out his own path which immediately closes up behind him. Occasionally, due to the negligence of a distracted or timid driver, two cars—or bikes, or mopeds, or whatever—will squeeze by instead of one.

When it is deemed necessary to have a traffic signal at a given intersection—and the logic for making such a determination is never apparent—it is also deemed necessary to have a policeman direct traffic because no one pays attention to the traffic signals.

It gets dark early in the Philippines, so we made this journey to the conference in the dark each evening. There is very little street lighting, so this extreme congestion takes place in poor lighting. Not only so, but many drivers drive without headlights, thinking they are saving gasoline. This, along with the throngs of people, the dilapidated or unfinished buildings, the trash and dirt along the streets, and the overall sense of chaos makes it seem as if one is in a gang-ridden ghetto in danger of being mugged. But this is not the case at all. These are simply people going about their business, doing life in the only way in which they know to do it. They are husbands and mothers and students and common people living their lives.

People relieve themselves whenever they need to and wherever the need becomes urgent. Not everyone does this, of course, but enough do so that it is not an oddity. The men usually face away from the street. Women usually hide behind umbrellas.

The Philippines, like most developing and Third-World countries, is very dusty, even in cities. Diesel smoke can also be a problem due to the traffic congestion and the age of the vehicles. Too, people build fires to cook or eliminate their trash, and sometimes the city is literally covered in a haze.

Last night as we left the conference, working our way through the seemingly endless maze of streets, we stumbled into an extraordinarily sophisticated development of shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues unequaled by most establishments even in the United States. I wondered who owned these affluent stores. Who were the customers? Would people actually drive through the chaos and filth to come here? And then, as if we crossed the border of some strange country, we were back in the dark. Back in the dirt. Back in the filth. Back in the chaos. Back in the normal.

A common tip is fifty cents. A common cab fare is $2–$3. The fare from the airport in Manila to the hotel where I overnighted upon arriving and departing the Philippines, was $6. It would have cost $30 or more in the U.S. I took a “coupon taxi,” the upscale taxi, from the airport in Manila to the hotel and paid double the fare of a regular taxi. It was $13 and took 45 minutes. Gasoline is $4 per gallon. After a driver pays for his car and fuel, he literally only makes a few dollars a day.

Accommodations
The first hotel we stayed at in Cagayan de Oro was a magnificent building . . . thirty years ago. The building had great promise. Inside was another story. The building was of concrete construction, and each room was essentially a concrete box. The floors were tile. It had a cold, unfinished feel. There was a sign over the bathroom lavatory which read, “Water is not potable,” beside which were two drinking glasses. But I have stayed in much worse. (I am particularly thinking of India and some backwards places is Eastern Europe.) This building was reminiscent of thousands of such hotels in such places around the world. They started with a great vision but never seem to have finished. Someone who knew nothing about hotel management, or interior design, or hotels decided to build a hotel.

The hotel sat on top of a hill overlooking the town. Below were countless shanties huddled in clusters, sometimes sharing walls. They were built with whatever materials could be found; most of the roofs were rusted corrugated metal. Many were no bigger than a room or two. Some housed multiple families. Some owners rented rooms—single rooms—to other families. At meal times smoke rose from these houses as women prepared food over open fires. The result was a gradual haze which ascended and filled the valley and ultimately joined with dust and diesel smoke to filter out the mountains in the background. The haze would drift away with time. But just as the mountains became visible, it was time for the next meal, and the cycle repeated itself.
The hotel had a window-unit air conditioner in each room. The unit was like a pump dumping outside pollution into my room. The room smelled of soot. I finally had to turn off the air conditioner in order to breathe.

Due to the hotel being over-booked, we had to change hotels for the last night. We moved to a Korean hotel located on the edge of town. Being on the edge of town, the pollution was much less severe. In fact, there were affluent subdivisions surrounding the hotel, demonstrating the extreme contrasts between the rich and the poor.

The hotel was only 5 years old and was no doubt the dream of some Korean entrepreneur. A lot of money was spent on this complex, but it was inadequately finished and was already falling into disrepair. Parts of the grounds were not maintained. The lobby had no drop-off point for guests, only a row of parking spaces in the front. The lobby was a patio with no protection from blowing rain, flies, or the heat. The floor of the entrance to my room, an area about 4 feet by 8 feet, was covered in mold, which added to my allergy problems. However, the outside air was not as bad as at the other hotel, so I was able to survive. This is where we encountered the rat.

The conference
This conference was a district conference, a gathering of the ministers of the Northern Mindanao district. The presbyter (district superintendent) has wanted me to come since I first visited the Philippines in 2005, but it has taken this long for it to work out, although I have returned to preach and teach at other conferences since. The conference grew in intensity each night and ended on an encouraging note.

The Filipino church is very strong. They have good leadership and have aggressively focused on starting new churches. They only license ministers who are already engaged in ministry, and many pastors pastor multiple congregations. The Filipino church has risen to the challenge and is an example from which we all can learn.

We celebrated after the service last night by going to McDonald’s. It was a treat for us all! The Filipinos ordered spaghetti and fried chicken. I had a Number 1 Combo with a large Coke. The Filipinos gave me a nice plaque and a barong in appreciation for coming. I will wear the barong Sunday.
 
© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

I arrived in Manila around 11:00 p.m. and caught a cab to my hotel. I convinced the driver to stop at Jollibee so I could grab a burger. The hotel room was very nice, and the breakfast buffet the next morning was wonderful. After breakfast I took the hotel’s car back to the airport and caught a flight to Cebu where I was picked up by Kevin Vacca.

I have been hanging out at the Vaccas’ home for a few days. My son, Taylor, had originally planned to come with me, so I planned a few extra days for us to goof off. He was unable to come, so I am enjoying some down time with the Vaccas. The Vaccas have an amazing home on the coast. It is a modest house, so don’t think they live in a mansion, although I would not fault them if they did. Their home sits on a bluff on the national highway—a 2-lane road—across the street from the ocean. A series of steps leads up to their house, and the bluff has been terraced and landscaped like a dream garden. (The photo was taken from their front porch.) There is a guest house behind the main house, and this is where I am staying. Location, location, location.

The Philippines, like so many countries around the world, is filled with extreme contrasts. Shanties are built next to mansions. I rode with Brother Vacca today to get his driver’s license renewed. Women were on the roadside washing clothes in the standing rainwater. One man was washing used trash bags so they could be reused. The driver’s license office was on a side street, which was no more than an alley, lined with graves in concrete vaults stacked 4 or 5 high. Vendors sat in front of the vaults selling candles, food, and other miscellaneous items. When the vendors see white people in a vehicle, they are assumed to be Americans, and there is a special attempt made to market their wares. Dogs, goats, chickens, and dirty kids roam around. Most vehicles are 20 years old or more. Houses are made of whatever materials are available.

The Philippines boasts of the best mangos in the world, and Cebu boasts of the best mangos in the Philippines. Sister Vacca has made me two mango shakes so far. You would just have to have one to understand!

People are really the same wherever you go. Filipinos need God like everyone else. They too speak with tongues when they receive the Spirit, and they rejoice with exceeding great joy when their sins are washed away! And this is why I am here.

Tomorrow we fly to Cagayan De Oro for the conference. There will be fewer comforts there, and I may not have Internet access until I return to Manila.

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Change always brings anxiety. However, those who are accustomed to progress know that change is inevitable. As uncomfortable as change makes us feel, we do not have the luxury of waiting for perfect conditions before we do something. We do not need more commentators and pundits, armchair quarterbacks who watch from a distance; we need more participants, more players. We need men and women—old and young alike—who admit that what we have may be imperfect, but who, nevertheless, are still committed to staying in the game.

Choose to be confident about the future. I choose to see the future as a preferred place. I anticipate great things tomorrow, and next week, and next year. I choose to live in hope, not fear. The future cannot be subordinated to our memory of an ideal past. The past does not have superior standing due to its chronological priority.

The future is always bright for a Christian minister. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the church. God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh. Greater is He who is in us. These and many other promises bring me great hope! The success of the church is not rooted in its infallibility; the success of the church is rooted in the power of God! God wants to do great things even more than we want to experience great things. It really is an alignment issue: if we align ourselves with God’s purpose, success is guaranteed.

Choose to have faith in younger ministers. I hate skinny ties and low-rise trousers. In my opinion, wrinkled clothes are a disgrace and a complete fashion disaster. I would not be caught dead wearing shoes that turn up at the toe like a court jester’s slippers. But when I was their age, I was never fond of Brother Urshan’s suits.

When I see young people get an opportunity, I should not think of all the ways they are unqualified. I should not assume they only got the opportunity because of who they know. I should not think they do not deserve the opportunity or try to diminish the impact their ministry may have on my own life. When younger people get an opportunity, I need to celebrate with them. They need to hear me shouting from the bleachers, pushing them, promoting them.

I fear that too often our real motivation in resisting our youth is our own insecurity and jealousy. We masquerade as if we are concerned about preserving and protecting truth and tradition, when in reality, we may be only defending our turf. Power is a stubborn addiction.

Choose not to be cynical. Disappointments are inevitable. Working with people is sure to lead to disappointments as we watch people make bad choices and fail to heed godly council. However, we cannot afford to allow cynicism to rule our thinking. We must believe that people want to be saved, that people will follow when effectively lead, and that it is a privilege to serve in ministry. Ministry is not a bottomless pit. It is not a quagmire of burdens and hopelessness. Ministry is a wonderful vocation in which we witness the transformation of lives by the power of grace. If people were perfect they would not need ministry.

Similarly, we cannot become cynical about the fellowship of ministers of which we are a part. When I do not understand, I choose to believe the best and refuse to fill in the gaps with cynicism. I choose to believe there is no hidden agenda oozing out of World Evangelism Center. I choose to believe our elected officials have been elected because a majority of my brethren agreed they were qualified. I choose to believe my neighboring pastors want revival. I choose to believe there are good explanations for circumstances I do not understand. I choose to believe I am no better or worse than any of my ministerial colleagues. The church is not crumbling, and I am not the only one holding on to truth. If the majority seems to be going off in some strange direction, there is a good possibility I have lost my way.

Choose to respect our heritage. A good heritage never becomes irrelevant. People who disrespect their heritage cut their own legs out from under themselves. I choose to celebrate my heritage and pay proper respect to those who have gone before me. Without the sacrifices of former generations, I would not have the opportunity to write this article. Men and women I never met made tremendous sacrifices to pave the road I walk. Although some of the things they did may seem odd today, much of what we do today would not have worked for them. The progression of methods and technology in no way diminishes their genius. They were gifted, called, and enabled by God’s gracious anointing.

It is easy to honor the dead; the challenge is to honor the living. We need to pay honor to pastors, leaders, mentors, and those who walk before us. They are not irrelevant. It is true that some of the elders may not fully understand or appreciate the ways of the younger ministers, but that does not give us license to disrespect or disregard them. If they had not preached to us, we would not have been saved. If they had not prayed for us, we would not have made it this far. If they had not laid their hands upon us, we would not have been ordained into ministry.

It would be easy to fritter away the hours worrying about things that are changing. I would rather devote my life to things that do not change. I am staying in the game.

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2010. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Although an advocate of “worship renewal,” Schmit makes some pungent observations about the effects of such renewal on a church, and he offers some clear warnings: “There is a temptation among congregations to attempt worship renewal at the expense of those things that provide their core identity. . . . Attempts at renewal in Christian churches are a commendable practice . . . yet renewal must be done with an awareness of each congregation’s core identity lest changes in worship and congregational life have unintended negative consequences” (128).

Schmit then goes on to share some particular struggles experienced by Lutheran congregations that followed after the church growth movement:

“One of the distinctive qualities of Lutheranism is its carefully articulated view of baptism as the entry point for faith. . . . Because baptismal theology is central to Lutheran theological identity, it would be a loss for Lutheran worshiping communities to dispense with the baptismal focus in life and worship. Still, in accommodation to the church growth movement of the late twentieth century and its strategy to remove ‘churchy’ things from worship in order to appeal to baby boomers, some Lutheran congregations adopted worship practices that were more aligned with seeker services. . . . They built worship spaces that bore resemblance to auditoriums and hotel banquet halls. They displaced the strong symbols of worship and supplanted the tradition of Lutheran hymns and chorales with songs reminiscent of the idioms of popular music. Baptismal fonts, usually located in prominent places in Lutheran churches, were removed, along with other theological symbols” (129–130).

“The problem encountered in these churches was that they established worship practices and church programming that ran counter to a theology that places Christian identity in God’s call for sinners to be baptized. . . . In trying to reach out, the Lutherans in these congregations lost out. In throwing out the traditions of Lutheran liturgy, worship architecture, and congregational life they correspondingly jettisoned much of the theology that has historically identified Lutheran Christians. These churches effectively threw the baby out with the baptismal water. When Lutherans cease to be identifiable by such theological distinctives as baptismal identity, they run the risk of losing not only their traditional worship practices but also their theological character” (130).

Although it may be difficult for Pentecostals to relate to the struggles of Lutherans, some of Schmit’s comments are remarkably relevant. A method has arisen among us that deeply troubles me. Those who have read my recent articles know that I have argued for the diversity of methods while holding fast to the apostles’ doctrine. However, when a method comes into conflict with a New Testament teaching, I draw a line.

I have noticed several churches delaying baptisms until some future “baptism Sunday,” “baptism celebration,” or the like, even after a person has repented or been baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is troubling. I am not a doctrine policeman or a heresy hunter. That is a crowded field that doesn’t pay very well. But I am concerned for the preservation of apostolic doctrine and method.

The Pentecostal message is one that is constructed on a strict restorationist hermeneutic. We seek earnestly to pattern our teaching and practice after the apostles. The New Testament clearly teaches that conversion consists of baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit. Hence, our Fundamental Doctrine: “The basic and fundamental doctrine of this organization shall be the Bible standard of full salvation, which is repentance, baptism in water by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the initial sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance.”

Some may delay baptism to make sure the candidates have received adequate instruction. And though I insist that baptismal candidates be fully aware of what they are doing, it typically does not take months, weeks, or even days for me to explain to them the significance and urgency of baptism. It must be remembered that baptism is part of the conversion/initiation experience, not the discipleship experience.

Too, the people who heard the gospel preached in the New Testament were less familiar with Christianity than most people in North America today. The hearers in the New Testament were hearing about Christianity for the first time, and it was yet to be a worldwide religion. Even in this religious ignorance, baptism was administered immediately after a simple explanation.

Some may argue that it is beneficial to wait for family and friends to attend a baptism. Some may suggest that it elevates baptism by devoting a special service to it. Some might say that it is an opportunity to attract visitors including the friends and family of the one being baptized. And although there might be some value to deferring a baptism for the sake of having family and friends attend, this should be done on a case-by-case basis and not become standard operating procedure. Further, I would argue that it is detrimental to prolong baptisms as a matter of policy for the following reasons:

1. It ignores the pattern of the apostles.

Three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost with no delay: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41).

The Samaritans were baptized as soon as they believed the word that was preached to them: “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12-13).

The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized as soon as water was available: “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:36–37).

Peter felt obligated to baptize Cornelius and his household immediately: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:47-48).

So as not to delay unnecessarily, Paul and Silas baptized the Philippian jailer in the wee hours of the morning: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (Acts 16:33).

After assessing their need of baptism, Paul immediately baptized the Ephesian disciples: “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).

Ananias commanded Paul to be baptized and not to delay: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

2. It de-emphasizes baptism. Delaying baptism until a special baptism service may make for a more festive environment, but the long-term effect is a culture that says baptism is important, but not important enough that one must do it now. To illustrate the point, we would not defer people to a once-a-month or once-a-quarter opportunity to be baptized in the Spirit, because this would de-emphasize the work of the Spirit in our lives. So why would people be deferred for baptism if it is part of the new birth? Delaying baptisms places them on par with other communal rites like baby dedications and weddings, but baptism is fundamentally different. The urgency of baptism cannot be subordinated for the sake of celebration or community impact.

3. It withholds grace from that candidate. Apostolic doctrine upholds that the new birth includes baptism in Spirit and in water. We believe that the grace of God and the benefits of Calvary are applied to a person’s life in repentance, water baptism, and Spirit baptism. Therefore, when we defer baptism—essentially forbidding it in the present—we are withholding grace in the life of the person seeking after God. This is contrary to the pattern in Acts. Too, especially if one has received God’s grace as evidenced in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, who are we to forbid baptism? (See Acts 10:47–48.)

So the question is: Why the delay? Where did this practice come from? It certainly did not come from the New Testament. Christians began delaying baptisms over time, and this is one reason why baptism came to be de-emphasized in many traditions. For some it became a once-a-year event on Easter or Pentecost Sunday (and what a pageant it was!). But we jettisoned these traditional forms one hundred years ago, so why are some returning to where we came from? It is likely that this practice has been borrowed from scores of contemporary Evangelical churches who do not believe baptism is essential for salvation, but is only an outward symbol. This is one of the dangers of following non-Apostolic church templates. We need to fully embrace our theological and historical roots; our theology and practice must be rooted in the New Testament. As Schmit admonished, “Proper worship renewal cannot be achieved at the expense of a tradition’s theological birthright” (131).

Why are you waiting? It is not apostolic.

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The beauty of shrink wrap is that it conforms to its environment. The same wrap fits any shape. It snuggles up to and takes the shape of whatever it has been draped over. Some catalyst, usually heat, causes the wrap to shrivel up and cling to whatever is underneath it. In a sense, the plastic runs from the heat and clings to the first thing it makes contact with.

And while shrink wrap is a nifty invention for packaging stuff, it is an unfortuante metaphor for the Christian life. Albeit, it is a perfect reflection of how many go about living the Christian life. Conforming to external pressures and temperature changes can only leave one bent out of shape and looking very much like everything in the immediate vicinity. And it is very difficult to unshrink plastic wrap that has been shrunk.

Paul warned of the danger of allowing oneself to take on the shape of one’s environment: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:2, NKJV). We must be careful that we do not allow the world’s values—including politics, economics, entertainment, greed, and so forth—to push us into a mold. Our thinking needs to be Christian before it is Democrat or Republican. Our allegiance should be to God before country. Our morals cannot be borrowed from Hollywood. Our sense of propriety, modesty, and decency must not be determined by those whose agenda seeks to glorify lust, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality.

I am amazed when I see evangelical Christians stand up and defend the inerrancy of Scripture, the exclusivity of Christianity, and the universal guilt of humanity and then undress down to bikinis and go swimming in mixed company or go watch adultery, fornication, and mayhem at a movie theater. This is conforming to the world.

Who determines standards of conduct? Who decides what is normal behavior? Who decides what is wholesome entertainment? Who decides what is acceptable devotion? We would argue vehemently that those in the fashion and entertainment industries should not! It is a known fact that an overwhelming majority of these industries are controlled by those whose values are inconsistent with Christian values. Why then would we adopt their standards as normative? We should not. Do not be conformed to this world.

If this all sounds prudish and old-fashioned, that proves the point. Living for Jesus Christ will eventually force a person to take a stand against culture. Jesus stood against His culture. The apostles stood against their culture. Devoted Christians have always stood against culture. Are we exempt? Is it a badge of honor that we now are part of the mainstream of society? Is it a good thing if there are no noticeable differences between Christians and unbelievers?

It makes one wonder why some professing Christians prefer to adopt worldly ways. Do they enjoy worldliness or do they fear persecution? Leave the shrinking to plastic wrap.

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Corinthians were hung up on methods. They expected Paul to act like the philosophers of the day, to speak with polished words, and to accept remuneration from them as the traveling philosophers did. The Corinthians also wanted Paul to package the gospel in a way that was agreeable with their cultural expectations, consistent with their worldview that was philosophically dominated with the ideas of wisdom (sophia). In fact, they found the gospel itself to be somewhat lacking. The idea of a crucified messiah as the basis of salvation along with the idea of someone proclaiming this message (preaching) as the means to salvation was ridiculous to them. Further, Paul’s simple oratory was insulting. It was antithetical to their worldly wisdom; it was foolishness to them.

In the epistles to the Corinthians Paul used rhetoric—a lot. Not only so, but he reminded the Corinthians of how he was “made all things to all men,” adapting his methods to suit the particular cultures in which he ministered. (See I Corinthians 9:19-22.) Paul participated in a Jewish ritual to appease the Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 21:23–26). Paul’s most extreme adaptation to culture was having Timothy circumcised so he would not be a stumbling block to Jews (Acts 16:3). But Paul’s adaptation to culture was merely pragmatic. He never relied on methods as a foundation for ministry. For Paul, the working of the Spirit was the primary factor in his ministry. After using rhetoric, including sarcasm, idioms, quoting from contemporary writers, and adapting his mannerisms and methods to suit different cultures, Paul reminded the Corinthians, “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (I Corinthians 2:4-5). (See also I Corinthians 1:18, 24; 4:19-20; and 5:4.)

Pick your methods wisely, and use good ones, but at the end of the day it will be God’s Spirit that makes the real difference. It is God who calls us. It is God who equips us. It is His gospel, His salvation, and we are His ministers. But even with carefully crafted methods, we all must be prepared to be counter-cultural at some point. As accommodating as was Paul, he was stoned, beaten, and ultimately beheaded because of the gospel. The gospel, no matter how it is packaged, is a counter-cultural message.

It is inconceivable that the Almighty would become flesh. It is unexplainable that He would submit to death. It is beyond reason that he would commit the propagation of this message to simple people. The idea that humans can have His salvation freely is against all earthly wisdom and reasoning. Likewise, the idea that Jesus Christ is the exclusive way to salvation is scoffed at even by self-proclaimed Christians.

So no matter what approach one takes to ministry, eventually he will have to stand up against culture. There is no way to make the gospel of Jesus Christ consistent with culture. He went against the grain and His message goes against the grain. So if one thinks he will have less persecution or an easier go at proclaiming the gospel by tweaking a method here and there, he is mistaken. The heart of the message is controversial. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (I Corinthians 1:17-18).

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Do We Glorify God?

Is God glorified in us? Does God receive glory by the lives we live? At the end of each day, can we claim to have projected glory on the Almighty by the things we have said, by the places we have gone, by the company we have kept, by the things we have purchased, by the things with which we have amused ourselves, and by the way we have interacted with people?

There is very little meaning in our Sunday expressions of worship if they are not reinforced by a life which also glorifies God. To say or sing words of praise in public worship services and not back up those words with an appropriate lifestyle is no different than Tiger Woods telling his wife how much he loves her.

When we pray the Lord’s prayer (not merely recite it), it leads us to beseech God on behalf of the glorification of His name: hallowed be thy name. When we pray for God’s name to be hallowed, it is much like praying that God would send laborers into the harvest. At some point the prayer becomes one of consecration: “God, let your name be glorified in my life today—in the words I say, in the company I keep, in the activities in which I engage.”

Do we reach the lost?

I witnessed a man get delivered the other today. There was nothing special about that day. It was cold and rainy, and nothing in particular was going on that was out of the ordinary. But a man was delivered. Right in front of my eyes.

This is a common site in Pentecostal churches, or it should be. I am thankful for the apostolic heritage. We believe people can be delivered. That is what we are all about. It is who we are. It is what we do. It is why we live. We are apostolic.

If ever we are diverted from our duty to reach lost souls, we have also been diverted from glorifying God. There is no greater way to glorify God than to be diligently about His business. Having “good church” is a farce if no one’s life is transformed.

If it is not God’s will that any should perish, then we must ask in what way are we participating in or hindering God’s will. Do we make it easy or difficult for people to encounter God’s grace? Do we, like the Pharisees, “load men with burdens hard to bear” (Luke 11:46, NKJV), or do we, like the Good Samaritan, bend over backwards to rehabilitate a troubled soul back to health?

I suppose that what we do in each moment adds up to what we do in a day, and what we do each day adds up to what we do in a month and eventually in a year. This all adds up to what we do with our lives.

“Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psalm 19:14).

Commentators often use the term emerging to describe the changes that are taking place. Why? Because change is happening so quickly, any label that could be devised may be outdated momentarily. Accordingly, it is unclear what some of these new things will ultimately become or even what they are. Not only so, but there is no way to predict how two parallel changes might be impacted by a third perpendicular change. Things change so rapidly, about all that can be said is that they are emerging.

What is emerging?

If you search for “emerging” with Google, you will get 67 million responses. Some of the most notable results include emerging markets, emerging economies, emerging culture, emerging technologies, and emerging leaders. Standards and norms have changed in many industries. Urbanization, urban sprawl, multiculturalism, secularism, and immigration are some of the driving forces in the political, economic, and ideological shifts taking place. Increased population and increased consumer demand have also contributed to changes on a global level. Couple this with technological advancement and political reactions to all these factors and one begins to see the level at which things are changing. This all is overshadowed and influenced by a philosophical shift commonly referred to as postmodernism. (The effects of postmodernism are debatable, and they vary from one country to another.)

There have always been generational transitions. Older generations tend to be skeptical about the preferences of successive generations, and successive generations tend to be bored with the preferences of their predecessors. But we are facing something potentially much more drastic than this, something of epochal proportions if the analysts are right. We are witnessing a major transformation in North American culture as well as in cultures around the world.

Change is occurring even in the common areas of our lives, like fashion. There is a shift towards the more casual, even in the white collar workplace. Not only so, but old conventions are crumbling. White and patent leather are no longer seasonal. Untucked is not necessarily tacky. Twenty years ago dress shirts were mostly white or blue. Today, dress shirts are acceptable in any number of colors. In many circles suits and ties no longer represent stability, success, or reverence. In fact, for some, suits and ties represent the status quo or convention or the greed of Wall Street. Some of the foremost business leaders of our times—Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Eric Schmidt—rarely wear coats or ties. Of the fifty-five men listed on Google’s executive staff page, only seven appear in ties. The top leaders are not pictured in ties. The CEO, Eric Schmidt, is wearing a white polo shirt. (See http://www.google.com/corporate/-execs.html#eric.)

Approaches to leadership are changing too. Young leaders have grown up in this tumultuous environment (although they would not call it tumultuous). They view the world differently, and they also view leadership differently. They do not lead from a command-and-control, CEO-style of leadership, nor do they follow such leaders well. They prefer collaboration and community over the CEO model. A recent popular-styled book on Christian leadership articulated many of these principles. Interestingly, the book has more than 200 bibliographic references and not a single mention of John Maxwell (Jimmy Long, The Leadership Jump: Building Partnerships Between Existing and Emerging Christian Leaders [Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009]). Although I think the book is poorly written and could easily be challenged on many levels, I do not think it is an aberration but part of a trend.

Who are the foreigners?

If you are bothered by a lot of things in contemporary culture, chances are you are an immigrant. In fact, if you are forty years old or older, you are definitely an immigrant. Contemporary culture is not your home. You were transplanted here, likely against your will. M. Rex Miller has done interesting work on how these cultural shifts are impacting the church. In his lectures he describes the younger generation, young twenties and below, as digital natives. He describes the rest of us as digital immigrants. (See also M. Rex Miller, The Millennium Matrix: Reclaiming the Past, Reframing the Future of the Church [San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2004]). It is easy to gloss over this, but this is a substantial observation. The ramifications are staggering. This means that the younger generation—for whom all the digital devices are made and who know how to interact instinctively in a digital environment—sees the world fundamentally differently than I do. They view reality through a whole other lens. They socialize differently. They learn differently. Their preferences for entertainment are different. They also have different purchasing habits. They have never been restricted to what the local merchant has sitting on the shelf. Their entire experience of commerce is influenced by the Internet. Information on any topic is readily available on handheld devices, and social hierarchies are being flattened because of the access to information. And not to be taken lightly, they may have a different understanding of what defines a community. They also have a diminished sense of loyalty to established institutions and traditions, and this cannot be dismissed simply as youthful rebellion. It is simply a way of looking at the world that does not lend itself to agreeing with someone merely by virtue of his position or agreeing with a tradition merely for the sake of tradition. Miller, who evaluates culture from the lens of communication, claims we are concluding the era of postmodernism, which was a broadcast culture, and we are moving into what he calls convergence, which is a digital culture.

Emerging churches

Here is the question: What does one call a church that is established in this cultural milieu? For many the obvious label is to call it an emerging church. In this sense, the term has nothing to do with theology. It has everything to do with leadership style, architecture, music, service format, use of the arts, community involvement, and approaches to building community. An urban church planted in 2010 is likely to look entirely different from an urban church planted in the 1970s or 1980s and much more so than one planted in the 1950s.

Emerging churches can be seen across the world. Younger church planters often do not feel comfortable using models from previous generations, and they do not see how these models will effectively reach a post-Christian secular culture. This plethora of new church models is commonly referred to as emerging, primarily because they have emerged as something different out of the more traditional models. In this regard emerging church is a very broad label that includes a very diverse group of churches. Emerging is a label that applies to: (1) churches that are simply trying to reach contemporary people in contemporary ways but that remain loyal to their denominational and doctrinal heritage; (2) independent churches that arise within this contemporary culture with no denominational affiliation and no traditional forms to retain; and (3) churches that are reacting to what they consider to be lifelessness and irrelevance in their denominations, and therefore they shake off anything that seems traditional, stifling, or inconsistent with the gospel. These reactions especially have been seen among those reacting to mainline denominational churches.

This third category has produced a radical element often referred to as the emergent church, a subset of the larger emerging church. The emergent church is a movement that looks to leaders like Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and Rob Bell. The emergent church (not all emerging churches) holds to many unorthodox doctrines and has questionable stands on moral issues. These churches frequently embrace non-biblical views of salvation, judgment, eternal damnation, universalism, and homosexuality.

It is important to keep in mind that emerging churches—churches that are using a variety of methods including non-traditional methods to reach postmoderns—from all three categories share similar ideas in many areas while disagreeing strongly on doctrine. Accordingly, the distinctions between the three categories above can be blurred to the casual observer. All of the emerging churches are attempting to reach postmoderns, so the methods of all three categories might often be similar although their doctrine could be drastically different. For example, Brian McLaren and Rob Bell might suggest outreach events, ideas for building community, or leadership strategies that resonate with people from all across the emerging spectrum. So a young, conservative Evangelical might find very useful leadership or program information in McLaren’s and Bell’s material while objecting strongly to their doctrine.

Before we use these labels—emerging and emergent—for others, we need to fully understand them and then use them appropriately. For example, Bill Hybels and Rick Warren are neither emerging nor emergent. (They are part of an older church growth movement.) Andy Stanley and Ed Young Jr. are neither emerging nor emergent. (They were doing what they are doing before the emerging church movement began.) Mark Driscoll is part of the emerging church movement, but he is a conservative Evangelical from the Reformed tradition who takes strong positions on morality, Reformed orthodoxy, and other conservative issues. (He recently debated Carlton Pearson who has adopted a universalist approach to salvation.) Driscoll has spoken out loudly against the emergent church. This, of course, is no defense of Mark Driscoll. He is from a different theological tradition, and we do not agree with his doctrine just as he does not agree with ours. However, to use emergent or emerging to indiscriminately paint Driscoll, McLaren, and a young UPCI church planter with the same brush would be inaccurate at best, and it certainly would not be helpful.

Before we condemn younger ministers for adapting methods from people like McLaren, Bell, or even Driscoll, we must keep in mind that Oneness Pentecostals have borrowed heavily from and shared with Evangelicals and even Fundamentalists over the years. Our views on inerrancy, eschatology, hermeneutics, and a host of other issues are not things that we developed on our own in isolation. These are teachings that we share with a larger body of conservative Christians. Likewise, many programs, like Sunday school and modern small groups, are borrowed from non-Pentecostals. So for Oneness Pentecostals to agree with non-Pentecostals and Trinitarians on some common issues is not unheard of. We owe a great debt to people like Charles Ryrie, C. I. Scoffield, C. S. Lewis, Matthew Henry, and a host of other non-Pentecostal, Trinitarian Evangelicals. Most resources on church history, theology, leadership, church growth, biblical studies, church management, and the like are non-Pentecostal. Accordingly, to say that we cannot take advantage of the work of those outside our movement is inconsistent even with the way we do theology.

The point here is that it is unhelpful to use emerging or emergent as a pejorative reference to our younger ministers who are trying various methods to reach a contemporary world. In a literal sense, they may indeed be emerging in that they are not utilizing traditional methods to reach the lost. However, it is disingenuous if by emerging we are implying that they no longer believe in the new birth, the oneness of God, or a separated lifestyle. No doubt some may not believe our message in its fullness any longer, but this does not make it appropriate to use the emerging label indiscriminately for anyone who merely has a different approach, if by using the term we mean that they are less than apostolic. This is in the spirit of McCarthyism, and it harks back to recent decades when charismatic was the catch-all label that was used to brand everything we did not like, no matter that the label often was inaccurate.

Technically speaking, there probably are no emergent churches in the UPCI, i.e., churches that are lock-step with the theology of McLaren, Pagitt, et al. However, there are probably several that could be considered emerging churches, i.e., churches that are using a variety of non-traditional methods to reach postmoderns. This is not necessarily a problem.

Getting on in a new world

We need to encourage our young ministers to use whatever methods are in their reach to communicate the apostolic message. At the same time, we need to caution against the often dangerous association with non-Pentecostal sources and the danger inherently associated with some methods. But this is no different than what we have been doing for decades. We all have had to walk this tightrope. The deeper issue seems to be the rate at which our world is changing. White, middle-class men no longer rule the day. The massive number of Hispanic immigrants is changing the ethnic landscape, especially in border states. Asians are streaming into North America at a rapid pace. Old paradigms are being replaced. It is irresponsible for us to waste too much time becoming ensnared in the culture wars that are raging. We have greater work to do—making disciples of all nations. As I mentioned in a previous article, we should view North America, not so much as a home and way of life to be protected, as much as a mission field to be reached, in the same way a foreign missionary views a foreign country. We need to be prepared to abandon our own cultural preferences, if necessary, in order to reach the lost around us. Likewise, we should be willing to adopt various methodologies that are culturally relevant to the audiences we are trying to reach. We should step back and look at North America and ask, How do we reach these people? This includes respecting cultural and methodological diversity that we may not personally like.

The apostles lived in a climate that was more pagan and equally as hostile as our ours. If they were able to thrive in a hostile culture, so can we. If they were able to thrive while standing against the tide of worldliness, so can we. What remains to be seen is whether we can distinguish between our American and Christian identities and whether we are prepared to suffer.

If we cannot envision the gospel, our churches, or our theology apart from our American culture, then everything is spiraling quickly down the drain. However, if we can see that our faith and theology are quite distinct from culture, albeit situated within culture, then we are freed from much of the anxiety that some feel about “everything is changing.” Our buildings might change. Our attire might change. Our use of technology might change. All these things are emerging. But if our apostolic doctrine and identity do not change, we can be assured of apostolic results.

_________________________________ 

“Emerging” vs. “emergent”

“In discussing this new movement, we will be using the terms emerging and emergent interchangeably. Strictly speaking, our criticism is not with those who try to engage the emerging culture, but rather with the emergent church. Some have made a distinction between the two words, emerging categorizing those who are trying to contextualize the gospel for postmoderns, and emergent referring to the organization now headed up by Tony Jones and associated especially with Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren. For example, Mark Driscoll, of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, who has distanced himself from the emergent church while still trying to engage postmoderns, argues that ‘the emergent church is part of the Emerging Church Movement but does not embrace the dominant ideology of the movement. Rather, the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity’” (Why We’re Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, p. 16).

For more information on the emerging movement:

Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan K. Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

© Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com 2009. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Rodney Shaw and rodneyshaw.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.