Future of the Evangelical Church: Back to Roots or Forward in Spirit

I am grateful for the copious amounts of free-reading time I had over the course of my school break this last month. I forgot how preciously scarce such time is when you are in the midst of a grueling school term, so having an overwhelming amount of time to read was a great blessing (at this point your 'ridiculous nerd' alert should be going off).

During my time of reading, I directed my thoughts towards the Evangelical church. More specifically, the future of the Evangelical church. The question of where she is going has always intrigued me. What can possibly come of this splintered mess we call denominations? Are we too disjointed to ever again be 'united in Christ'? Will unity look different than us all believing the same things?

To help in my endeavors I enlisted the help of two interlocutors. The first, Dr. Harvey Cox, retired Professor of Divinity at Harvard. The second, Dr. Robert Webber, Professor of Theology Emeritus at Wheaton college. Each of these men I respect a great deal for their lucid thoughts concerning Evangelical Christianity. Although I do not agree completely with either of their positions, I found them to have interesting, albeit contradictory, perspectives on the future of the Evangelical church.

In The Future of Faith, Cox departs quite significantly from a standard, conservative understanding of the Church's future (evangelical or not). He suggests a future for religion where people no longer adhere to creeds, councils, or any type of dogmatic assertions about God. Instead, he argues religious folk are beginning to prefer expressing their spirituality in unique, personal ways. Cox labels this amorphous epoch of religious expression as the Age of the Spirit - he is unclear whether this refers to the Holy Spirit or just a vague idea of Spiritual worship. He alludes to the fact that this 'Age of the Spirit' is indiscriminate toward religious preferences (Muslim, Christian, Buhddist, etc.). No particular organized religion has preeminence over another regarding style or method of worship.

In Common Roots, Robert Webber offers a parrying prophetic word for the Evangelical church. While recognizing the significant flaws of the Evangelical mindset, Webber suggests a more hopeful project of uniting the Evangelical spirit with historic substance. This consists of a rediscovery of information from the Ancient Church regarding Church identity, worship, theology, and mission. So, instead of unleashing the church on an untethered, free-for-all discovery of the Spiritual experience, Webber claims that the Evangelical Church needs a reintegration of historical thoughts (i.e. creeds, councils, etc.) with contemporary issues.

Given the nature of this blog, you probably can guess which position I find more tenable. However, I would like to suggest a conflation of these views as a third future for the church.

While I appreciate the free-spirited nature of Cox's project, the unguarded expression of Spirituality seems incongruous with Wisdom's instruction. What the church needs is not a further license to split into ever increasing denominational divides - something Cox's view inevitably endorses - but a reformulation around structured, defining ideas. The Evangelical church needs to be informed about what the church is supposed to be. What should she be doing? What should she be thinking?

On the other hand, I think Webber's project could be unfortunately misconstrued and misappropriated. What we don't need is to start thinking that historical forms and methods of theology/worship can be applied wholesale to the contemporary church project. This would lead to further confusion and frustration. There must be an honest integration of historical substance with the present state of the Evangelical church.

So, I argue two things. First, for a zealous investigation of the historical church to mine out the gems of theology/worship that can speak to contemporary situations the Evangelical church faces. Second, for a Spirit-filled and guided (Holy Spirit that is) appropriation of that knowledge to the Church's mission and life. I think this view holds the best of both Cox and Webber. It limits Cox's unbounded experience of 'Spirit' by keeping within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but it allows enough room to be led in the Spirit's current work and not perhaps fall into the delusion of the 'historical save-all'.

The Chicken or the Egg?

Which really does come first - the chicken or the egg? While I'm sure you've heard this proverbial question posed a million times (now a million and one - you can thank me later), I think it might actually speak to a potential methodological issue currently found within the bounds of Christian thinking. For the purposes of this entry, lets have the chicken metaphorically represent reality while the egg plays the role of our understanding of reality. Further, to tailor this discussion more specifically to the Church, I suggest we take 'God' as our particular object of reality and 'theology' or 'doctrine' for our understanding of that reality. Now hold on to those categories and let's jump in.

I'm sure I am not the only one who sits in church every week hearing over and over again from the pulpit what I should believe; perhaps you might oblige me to call it the 'Content of Christian Cognition'. I know that Jesus loves me (and all the other little red, pink, purple, green, and blue children for that matter). I know that God is good. I know that there is a Holy Spirit. Frankly, like many of you, I have gorged myself on all varieties of farm-fresh 'eggs', but have I so far failed to properly consider the the generative source of my nutrition?

The Evangelical church pushes for understanding that has only a vague correlation to the underpinning reality. We are taught to cram all this 'Content of Christian Cognition' into our gray matter in order to be a good Christian, but we all honestly doubt if it has any actual relevance to reality. Subsequently, I would like to suggest that understanding divorced from Reality produces cognitive dysfunction. And I think this dysfunction is evident in our churches - people living two distinctly separate lives (religious vs. 'normal').

You see, when theologians of the past formulated the great Orthodox creeds and doctrines of the Church, they did it not bifurcated from a dynamic interaction with the Divine reality behind the theology (the chicken behind the egg if you will), but wholeheartedly immersed in the process of loving God and seeking to understand Him.

Unfortunately, the years has distilled this approach to thinking about God down to fact-transfer. Now we are often guilty of merely passing on information from one generation to another completely void of any life-giving vitality. This methodological misfire needs to be addressed because it is seriously damaging the health of Christian integration.

So, I say knowing proper doctrine is no substitute for experiencing proper doctrine. Every piece of Orthodox theology that you know didn't appear in a vacuum. It evolved from potent interaction with the Divine reality. I encourage you to discover that reality for yourself. Bask in the wonder of our God. Speak with Him. Learn from Him. Let His Spirit permeate your heart. Sit with Him and let Him integrate all that 'Content of Christian Cognition' with the reality of His presence.

What am I trying to say? Put succinctly, understanding follows after reality (the Chicken before the Egg). Christians need to be reminded of the Reality that gives cause for their understanding. When this begins to occur, Christian theology will again find its lasting and affective foundation individually and corporately. Only then will we determinately stick with Eggland's Best and not accidentally switch out to Ener-G.