I’ve often wondered two things… why was the prohibition at the center of the garden? and why was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil prohibited?

Gregory Boyd makes a brilliant observation… he states that “Things are good or evil insofar as they align with or oppose God’s will, not our wills.” When we take our moral compass out and use that to judge others, we do so with an finite and limited capacity. We are in a sense, trying to be God-like in our wanting to judge without the proper ability to do so.

“We critically asses and evaluate everything and everyone from our limited, finite, biased perspective. Instead of simply deriving life from that which is given at the center of our existence, we try to derive our likeness of God, our life and worth, from that which is forbidden at the center of our existence.”
– Gregory Boyd

To have partaken in the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, is to have invaded God’s domain. We place ourselves in the center and judge that which is around us… from our perspective. Since we were not created to function in the center, we create havoc around us. To judge others around us makes us feel good about ourselves… for a moment, we are deity… we are God-like.

why the “no trespassing sign” in the center of the garden? because we don’t belong there. The prohibition wasn’t a limitation for us knowing what is good and bad simply for the sake of knowledge, it was a limitation for us in using ‘good and bad’ from our perspective.

“The middle has been entered, the limit has been transgressed. Now man stands in the middle… now he lives out of his own resources and no longer from the middle… Now he lives out of himself, now he creates his own life, he is his own creator.”
–Dietrich Bonhoeffer

In last week’s sermon at emergence, David Fuquay gave an example of the importance of the faith object relationship. He stated that if you are asked to climb down a cliff holding on to a rope, your trust in doing so is essentially dependent on the person holding the rope. So if it is a stranger, you would question wanting to climb down, but if it was somebody you really trusted, like perhaps your father, you would be confident in climbing. I like this example because it portrays the relational aspect via acts of faith.

When we face those moments in our lives where we step forward (act of faith), it will be the confidence we have gained in our God-relationship that gives us the courage to do so.

Let me start off by stating that I understand the skepticism towards these kinds of claims. I’ve wrestled with this, and certainly agree that there is a degree of faith required. Perhaps the best way to write this post, is to share my observations and why I do believe the Bible’s miraculous claims.

At some point in my Christian journey, my first realization of Biblical miracles came with the understanding that just because I may not believe something to be possible, does not mean that it isn’t possible. I came to understand that I am living in a specific point of history making observations about past historical events, and my ‘personal’ experiences along with living in a modern materialist culture, would certainly influence my beliefs.

Of course because something is possible, doesn’t mean it is probable. So my next step came when I heard G.K. Chesterton. I don’t recall the exact reference but he wrote about ‘lost wonder.’ When we are children, we have the beautiful awareness of wonder, like a boy who dreams about worlds with Dragons, and a girl who dreams about Princesses. But when we grow older, we allow hard materialism to jade us from wonder, and we become skeptical of anything beyond the natural world.

“The things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things called fairy tales. They seem to me to be the entirely reasonable things. They are not fantasies: compared with them other things are fantastic. Compared with them religion and rationalism are both abnormal, though religion is abnormally right and rationalism abnormally wrong. Fairyland is nothing but the sunny country of common sense.“
– G.K. Chesteron, The Ethics of Elfland

I am finding that as I grow older, I see the world as highly more complex. And like Chesterton, I don’t disregard the miraculous as mentioned in fairy tales.

My final observation came when I stopped reading the Bible as a collection of propositions, and began to read it like a narrative. In this fashion, the miracles function like the glue that sustains the events. It fits. Sure, I can question what seems “fantastic” but the miraculous events don’t stand alone. They fit within the narrative.

Chesterton continues with lessons learned by Fairy tales:
“…If I were describing them in detail I could note many noble and healthy principles that arise from them. There is the great lesson of “Beauty and the Beast”; that a thing must be loved before it is loveable. There is the terrible allegory of the “Sleeping Beauty,” which tells how the human creature was blessed with all birthday gifts, yet cursed with death; and how death also may perhaps be softened to a sleep. But I am not concerned with any of the separate statutes of elfland, but with the whole spirit of its law, which I learnt before I could speak, and shall retain when I cannot write. I am concerned with a certain way of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since been meekly ratified by the mere facts.”

If you live in the world of hard materialism, you may have lost the wonder, but the Biblical narrative tells you that there really is true evil that desires to devour you, and there really is real goodness and honor; there really is a rescuer that comes to save you from your plight and awakens you with a kiss from your slumber; You will indeed live forever and fly one day. The wonder is rediscovered. Do you believe it?

EDITORIAL: While I am on a diet, this blog post does not describe me. Yes, I love DD. I also love nutrasweet. I am ok with the fact that my body does not know how to digest it. It will learn. What it refuses to learn, I'm sure I will pay the consequences for at some point.

Ryan had a salad today for lunch. Huge props to him. It didn't even have ham and cheese on it.

Just a side note for those of you on a diet: The no sugar added ice cream at Curly's is your friend. Though if you eat too much of it (don't have two larges) it will hurt. You have been warned.

- Steve

Not too long ago, Ted Haggard, pastor of a 14,000 member Evangelical Church in Colorado Springs and one of the heads of the National Association of Evangelicals had being accused of having sexual relations and doing methamphetamines with another man for three years. Another high-profile Christian leader has been caught swimming in the waters of hypocrisy.

When we look at the current news of scandalous priests, and fallen pastors; when we look at history and see crusades, and witch-hunts, and imperialist wars; what are we to make of this?

Repentance
In Donald Miller’s book ‘blue like jazz,’ there is this great part where he and his friends set-up a confession booth in their college campus. The confession booth however, is not for others to come in and confess their sins, it is for others to come in, and hear Donald Miller and his Christian friends confess to them, as representatives of Christianity. There is an appropriateness to this; to ask for forgiveness for the atrocities committed in the Christian name.

As Christians, we can sit back and say that it is not us that committed the crime, it must be those false Christians, but if we do so, we too are deceived in believing that we are morally superior. Watch out! the Bible is filled with people who have walked with God, and fell hard under the power of corruption. Lest we think we are above that, we should pray that temptation not come our way.

The Jesus Community
For those who think that this argument is a good reason to discard Christianity, I would ask that you to think through this better. There is a difference between ‘Christendom’ and Gospel centered Christianity; one is about the relationship of power and the other, about love. The misdeeds of the misguided do not falsify the claims of a worldview.

During the same time the Haggard incident was made public, another news story echoed a different tune, a community that responded with love in the face of tragedy. An Amish community who in the wake of losing five of their children, responded by forgiving the accuser and praying for his family. One of the five children who died, a girl stood before the shooter and asked that her life be taken in place of her friends. Unlike the image of hypocrisy, this is the image of true love… I would argue, the image of Jesus.

My point in mentioning this, is that every story that details bad Christianity, there is always many others that detail good Christianity. It would be a mistake to base truth claims on the examples of bad representations.

Preliminary observations:
Suffering is a state of a person; a feeling of pain or distress; sustaining loss; injury, harm, or punishment. Suffering is what a person experiences.

Suffering appears to be random, It doesn’t matter who you are or what you did in life, you could suddenly experience extreme suffering at any time.

Good Suffering
Let me just start off by saying that the argument that people raise about suffering (mentioned above) can also be stated as ‘why does God allow bad things to happen to people?” People do equate suffering (experiencing suffering) with tragedies and disastrous circumstances. If someone has suffered in life, it is a bad thing.

I could understand that, but I would say that suffering is also much bigger than that. Everyone knows someone who has suffered and perhaps if you ask them, they might say that they are a better person today having gone through that suffering. For example, nobody wants Cancer, but I am amazed when I hear people say (example: Lance Armstrong) that they value having gone through cancer more than anything else in their lives. They… more than anyone else, are endowed with the gift of being able to help others who follow with similar struggles.

So, In many ways, the trials and struggles we encounter will lead to better things. Our character is strengthened, and we become better human beings. There is this element in suffering then, that we might value as good. However, to say that all suffering is eventually the result of a greater good is too simplistic. What about the child who encounters a tragedy, suffers greatly, and then dies at an early age. How has the suffering of that child made him/her any better in life?

Christian response to Suffering
Why then, does God allow suffering?
Let me just say that for some reason as I grow in my faith, I find this to be less and less of a problem. Sometimes, when my kids ask me questions, I can’t really answer them because I know that they would not understand the answer. I get the sense that this is one of those issues. If God is really in-control of things, then there is some reason for why he allows suffering to continue.

Nevertheless, since we are dealing here with Christianity in relation to suffering, we may not know the answer why? But we do know that God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he is willing to get involved with it himself. As Tim Keller mentions in his sermon regarding this topic, you can’t take this question of suffering to the cross and ask if God doesn’t care?

Example:
“The problem with Christianity is this claim that Jesus is the only way to God. In this age of diversity and multi-culturalism, it is ignorant to think that there is only one truth. All religions teach us about God, and are all different ways of knowing God.”

Those of you that know me personally, know I am not confrontational. I don’t like the idea of telling people that their truth, their way of knowing God is wrong. Honestly, I would prefer to believe that everyone’s views about God are equally valid and equally true. In some ways, I have tried to believe this in the past.

This viewpoint, also called religious pluralism is very popular today; you can read about it and hear it everywhere. Partly because on the surface it seems so tolerant, and so multi-culturally hip; it’s non-confrontational and accepting. However, I would like to share with you why I do not hold this viewpoint.

Every Belief is Exclusive
The first point to mention, and for some reason people who hold to religious pluralism don’t seem to get this, is that every viewpoint about God is exclusive. For example, let’s take this statement by Oprah Winfrey:

“One of the biggest mistakes people make is to believe that there is only one way. Actually, there are many diverse paths leading to what we call God.”

Oprah has a point-of-view about God; she believes that God can be known by many diverse paths. Therefore, Oprah’s point-of-view about God excludes millions of people in the world who believe differently (Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc…). Oprah has every right to believe in what she wants, but she is mistaken if she thinks it is an all-inclusive belief.

The real issue, is not what worldview is inclusive or exclusive, because they all are exclusive, but rather, what worldview gives us the most coherent picture of the world? What worldview has an answer to the problem of evil? an answer to why we are here? our purpose? our innate desire to live eternally? etc…

The Inclusive Christian
If you are a Christian, then you know that you are transformed solely by the grace of God. You cannot by any means, treat people with any less respect. You are not a Christian because you somehow deserve it, or have worked to gain favor with God, you are a Christian because you have accepted his provision. Therefore, you are not morally, intellectually, or in any way superior to anyone else. As Martin Luther stated, ‘you are but simply a beggar telling another beggar where to find food.’

If you are not a Christian, and you have met Christians that made you feel inferior; or have treated you with less respect because you believe differently, the only thing I can say is that those Christians do not ‘get’ the Gospel.

The Relational Way
Unlike any other religion or worldview, the ‘way’ to truth is not simply a proposition, or a teaching, or a philosophy. It is a person. As I mentioned earlier in the post, I would very much like to be a religious pluralist, but I cannot. I find that I am taken hold of, by this very special person in a relationship. And believing otherwise is very much like being unfaithful to a spouse or dishonoring a best friend.

Being ‘in Christ’ is more like being in a marriage than simply believing a set of truths. When you think of it in these terms, in this context, then religious pluralism just doesn’t make sense.

There have been some recent events in my life that have led me to conclude that I have been leading a wonderfully comfortable, safe and satisfying life. However, the fact is that God doesn't call us to comfort, safety or personal satisfaction, at least for their own sake.

Ripping off a little of my pastor's recent series of sermons on Ecclesiastes (my favorite book in the Bible), most of what we do, just for the sake of doing it, is meaningless. We get up, shower, get dressed, eat some food, drive to work, get annoyed, drive home, eat some food, watch TV, go to sleep, lather, rinse, repeat. Yaaaaawwwnnn.

When you look at it this way, that's a pretty meaningless existence. We have a limited amount of time on the planet to live, to make a difference, to affect lives, to use the gifts God's given, to plow a counterculture. How much time can we really devote to the mundane 9-5? How interested is God in this kind of life?

There comes a time when you have to start putting things on the line. Mundane efforts get mundane results- they put food on the table and buy a few creature comforts but little else. Radical risks can result in radical rewards or, of course, radical loss, God willing. Either way, it sure keeps things interesting.

Up until very recently, turning 40 meant resigning myself to comfy, safe and satisfying, which didn't seem SO bad. But now, today, that has changed. I am determined to make the next 10 years a decade of impact and personal transformation. I have been placed in some very unique leadership roles and presented some very unique opportunities. It is time to capitalize on these things. It's time to take some chances and see what God does with it.

I know that many artists and friends read this blog, and I'll let you know, too, that I will not be stopping with myself. I will be extending my personal challenge to those around me, to see what a difference we can make together. We're going to do some crazy things, and then we're going to kick back and watch what God does with it. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

In a nutshell: I am 40.

Youth is wasted on the young.

So I'm stealing some back.

Two weeks ago at emergence, Justin gave a sermon on the beatitudes, and it prompted my thoughts on the subject of mourning. Jesus’ words here are both intriguing and necessary.

I don’t think, that what Jesus meant was that one should seek mourning, as if the intent is a mournful life. Nor do I think, that mourning is simply an outward expression of a inward feeling. Mourning is deep-seeded. It is the natural response to the way the world is. When we look at the world… the way things are… it is appropriate to mourn. However, It’s not just about observing the oppression throughout the world; the wars, the sickness, the sad condition in third world countries. It’s also about the cancer that your neighbor is fighting; the senseless acts of violence around your neighborhood; the tragedies in your family.

What if, what Jesus meant by mourning, was not an individualistic perspective on ‘how I should mourn about things in my own life” but rather ‘how we, as the Jesus community” need to mourn. You see, when I look at my life right now, it’s actually not that bad. But if I am in community, then I am participating in the suffering that those within my community encounter. Mourning is relational, and it is a necessary condition for the Jesus community.

I am not very good at mourning, but I am learning. As the whole creation eagerly awaits her liberation from bondage to decay, in a state of groaning… I participate with her. Mourning is the natural response of a dying world waiting to be redeemed. Mourning is not the opposite of joy, but sits alongside joy, and those who participate with her, who both love and mourn together, are called blessed.

According to Wiktionary, fundamentalism in a religious sense means:
1. The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts.
2. The beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

When someone commits to a religion, they are therefore committed to a set of beliefs; fundamentals they adhere to be true. But as Tim Keller mentions in his lecture in Berkeley, there is a form (type) of religion that can be derived from this simple commitment of belief… to an oppressive form of religion. It is a slippery slope of the heart that is indeed problematic and we should recognize it. These are the stages that Keller defines (paraphrase mine):

Stage One: Recognition
The first step is a recognition that I have the truth, and because I believe it within my religious system, those who do not, are less inferior. This then begins to translate not only in belief, but in deeds… so I am morally in better stature than those who do not believe as I do.

Step Two: Separation
Because I am in better stature morally, I begin to separate from those different than myself and hang out in my own community belief groups. Since I find less in common with others, I begin to separate with them… they are impure to my standards.

Step Three: Caricature
Since I see those unlike me as “others” or “outsiders,” I begin to caricature them. They are not real people, but personages that believe, act, and behave wrongfully. They are on the other side of the fence.

Step Four: Aggressive or Passive Oppression
Finally, I may act either violently, or act passively (ignore, gossip, disdain) which leads to oppression towards others.

This is not uncommon, when I first came to the Christian faith, I found myself in these various stages and had to pull myself away. I have to continually check myself, to make sure I don’t slide into any of these stages. Simply put, there is another form of ‘religious fundamentalism’ which is profoundly different from the type just mentioned. Once again, I must reference Keller’s Berkeley lecture, and he describes these differences as two viewpoints: (1) the moral performance narrative, and (2) the grace narrative.

The moral performance narrative is a religious presupposition that we (the person, the believers, the group) are doing something both morally and intellectually that elevates our stature above others. In contrast, the grace narrative states that we “are what we are” solely based on God’s grace, and any sense of superiority should be disregarded.

If we operate on the Grace narrative, then stage one in the slippery slope is held in check. Yes, I feel good about myself in what I believe and how I am expected to behave morally, but I should not view others as inferior to myself. I am operating as a recipient of God’s loving grace, and there is no room for self-pride. To quote Martin Luther (paraphrase mine): God in his Grace, has shown me where the food of life is (via Jesus), and I am just a beggar telling another beggar where to find that food.

Religious fundamentalism is indeed a big problem in the world today, but let’s be clear on what we mean by that term. What exactly are the fundamentals we claim to be the problem? that is the question we should be asking.

The problem with being too critical of yourself, is that you take less risks… and less risks means less success. it’s my observation that risk takers achieve their goals more often. Another problem is that taking risks is not something you do ‘better’ as you get older. now that I have a family (wife and kids), I’ve become more conservative in my efforts. So where does this leave me?

The first thing to consider is that failing is not necessarily a bad thing. It is through failure that we improve as people. God uses your failure to shape you as a better person. The second is that taking risks involves courage, and courage can be practiced in small steps. Being courageous during the small events in our lives helps us when we encounter the larger challenges.

The objective then is to see the success in the failure; the strength in the weakness. Rather than getting angry when I fail; it is an opportunity to see the improvement that follows.

______________________________________________

Steve's Note: Some of the best steps the Chapel has taken over the past years, including starting Emergence, have been huge risks.

We all need to take risks in order to open ourselves up to what God has for us. Sometimes we call it "walking by faith". Faith is always a risk, because by definition, faith is believing in something that you can't yet see.

At Emergence, we have complete faith that God wants to do something in North Jersey. He wants to do it through our friends in churches all over our area. He wants to do it through Emergence. It won't be easy, though--and it will involve risk. We look forward to seeing what will happen as we take steps of faith expecting to see Him work through it.

Reason 5: Creativity
Let me start off by saying that creativity is by no means a necessity or essential aspect on living the Christian life, and this last reason why I would consider myself an emerger is probably more of a selfish preference. However, it is important that I clarify what I mean by creativity.

Creativity is not simply about being artistic or having a specific talent. When you put a color of paint on your wall, or write a letter to communicate your ideas, you are embarking on an artistic endeavor. Human creativity is an aspect of the Imago Dei (image of God) and therefore everyone is creative. Some people are gifted with specific talents which may elevate them in our culture as creative people, but even a person who fixes his lawnmower by troubleshooting a gadget is dwelling in creativity.

In terms of worship or church, being creative is more than having a cool audio/video display, candles, and hip paintings on the wall. It is about being inventive and original as the Jesus people. One example that comes to mind, is last spring at the main Chapel service, the congregation was asked to write their offenses (sins) on a card, and then at the end of the service, each of us nailed the cards on a wooden cross. This was a beautiful and participatory display of the Gospel message… it was truly effective in many ways.

Although there are many churches and Christian organizations that are doing very creative things, I find that the emerging church is particularly good at creativity. Here are just several examples:

1. Taking ancient forms of worship like Celtic and liturgical customs and incorporating them back into services.
2. The use of technology as a form of communication such as blogs, wikis, and social networks.
3. Allowing unstructured ecclesiological movements like local house churches to help shape the church community.
4. Placing art, music and poetry as an effective means on telling the Christian story.

Sundays were Sundays,
with the rest of the week largely detached,
operating by a different set of rules,
can these two worlds that seem so separate ever merge?
– John Beckett

In a modern paradigm, the idea of a split between reason and faith has led to religious views being privatized and distinct from what one may deem as factual truths. Because of this so called sacred/secular divide, one finds that he operates in the dual world of personal beliefs apart from the ‘real world’ of public life.

One aspect of the emerging church that is noteworthy in terms of breaking this divide, is the idea of ‘doing church’ rather than ‘going to church.’ The sacred life is not a private life, but one that is meant to be lived in all corridors of life. Therefore, movements spawned on ‘doing church’ in coffee shops, pubs, and night clubs… also commonly known as missional living. The idea of course, is that the church is in the culture, and in fact shaping the culture, rather than being considered as a safe haven from the culture.

What I like about this viewpoint is not only the missional aspect to it, but the holistic approach that everything is part of God’s world. Worship can be as relevant in a pub as it is in a monastery, and elements like music, art, languages, stories, movies, books, dining, dancing, work, can all be celebrations of God’s good creation. A personal example of this is after watching the ‘Planet Earth’ series with my son, I found that we experienced a bit of God’s majesty through it. Something doesn’t have to carry a religious label to be sacred, as there is no sacred/secular split. Rob Bell is right when he states that… Everything is spiritual.

The objective is for the Christian to move towards a more holistic approach to faith; Finding ways to allow worldview beliefs to govern aspects of life within the culture, and moving away from a separatist approach distinctly different in style and mode. This is not a move to conform to culture, but to embrace what is good; change what is bad; and reshape and influence new directions.

“We have to reject the division of life into a sacred realm, limited to things like worship and personal morality, over against a secular realm that includes science, politics, economics, and the rest of the public arena. This dichotomy is the greatest barrier to liberating the power of the gospel across the whole of culture today.”
– Nancy Pearcey

Nowhere did this become more evident than in my reading of scripture. Although it is apparent that the Bible is sequentially a story, I found that I was reading it more like a textbook. ‘Do you want to know how to invest your money? here’s a verse for you’; ‘Are you an alcoholic? here’s a verse on page 246 that will take care of that.’ The Bible became more of an index and glossary book to guide my life, rather than what I think it to be now… the story of the kingdom of God, in and through history.

Honestly when we read the Bible like a textbook, we can make it say anything we want it to. We can throw all sorts of verses together and create some very creative and interesting conclusions. In a narrative theology, the reading of scripture is a bit more complex, it is not as simple as reading a guide book, pulling together a set of abstract ideas that God wants us to live by. Sure, I do believe scripture to be God’s revelation to the church and there are certainly principles to work through as a community, but a good deal of care needs to be given to the cultural context, praxis, and concerns the authors dealt with in their writings. Paul’s letters were written first and foremost to the communities in the First Century, and we in the 21st Century are continuing the story… we allow that which was written to shape our lives… and we live in the continued drama of God’s Kingdom being manifested.

Interestingly, in today’s postmodern age, there is a re-emphasis on the importance of narrative. People resonate with stories; they see their individual lives as a story; and it is a story paradigm that shapes their worldviews. Understandingly, there is a huge discussion about how ‘truth’ pertains to story, and how people’s narratives interface in community. Apart from the debate about the meta-narrative and the skepticism of absolutes, it would be a mistake for the Christian to regard postmodernism as an evil ideology or something that sits outside of reality.

This leads me to the third reason why I consider myself an emerger. In my opinion, the emerging church is in the forefront on emphasizing the importance of a narrative theology. Unlike the modern paradigm, truth does not come simply in the form of propositions or scientific formula, but through a person; in a story; in a mystery. In my opinion we need to stop packaging everything and just let the story of God shape our lives.

“Where are you going? Without looking up, the traveler quietly replies, ‘Away from here.’ After a short pause his friend repeats the question, and again the traveler responds by saying ‘I am going away from here.’ Finally the friend exclaims, ‘I already know that you are leaving us, but what is your destination?’ In response the traveler stops what he is doing and looks directly into the eyes of his companion. ‘I have already told you my destination, dear friend. It is away-from-here.”

What Rollins is describing here is journey as a type of destination. The idea of ‘becoming’ rather than ‘having arrived’ is a common theme in the emerging church, of which I resonate with. The modernist approach tends to separate the mind from body… “I have sound thinking and my beliefs are complete, now I just need to work on my behavior.” However, the emerger tends to emphasize mind and body, thinking and doing, both in need of cleansing.

Knowledge as Journey
But isn’t it spurious to suggest that beliefs are a part of journeying, and are therefore incorrect? The process of discovery in beliefs does not entail initial beliefs being incorrect, but rather incomplete. In the process of ‘becoming’ the Christian is in a state of transformation which also includes knowledge. The knowledge however, unlike scientific knowledge in the discovery of facts, is more relational in nature. Scripture regards becoming as personable… becoming Christ-like.

Isn’t journeying another way of describing ‘sanctification,’ which is certainly emphasized in mainline churches? I think the answer to this is yes and no. The distinction is that sanctification comes in a theological package… you have justification, sanctification, glorification, etc… which btw, I am not saying is an incorrect view. However, journeying is neither systematized nor granular. It is perceptually more narrative than propositional, and encompasses ‘process’ as broad, as well as enveloping all aspects of the human condition.

The obvious question for the emerger is what are you emerging to? But the answer may be as simple as ‘away-from-here,’ for the destination in this lifetime is the journey; the sacred life is the emerging life. It is as I see it, a state of continual movement.

A couple of introductory points are needed:
First, it is possible that the five reasons I will list are also found in some of the mainline and traditional churches as well, but it has been my personal experience that they are not. I certainly am not a church guru, but some of the churches that I attended and have been a member of include Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Episcopalian, non-denominational, Lutheran, and Pentecostal. So I do have some familiarity on differing doctrinal and ecclesiastical practices.

Second, by ‘emerging church’ I am not referring specifically to the emergent village crowd, but a much broader characterization of the movement. Essentially, I define the EC as a way of being Christian; doing Church, and practicing Christianity within a postmodern context and framework. Although the gospel transcends culture, I do not believe that someone can “be” or “do” Christianity outside of culture. I would be interested in any feedback if you differ on this point.

Reason 1: Label –less
I understand why there are different denominations. I do know some of the distinctions and doctrinal differences, and I respect those who hold to them. Some of my best friends are Reformers, and my favorite pastor of all time is a Reformer. I love the traditions that you find in many denominational churches.

However, and this is where I get myself in trouble, I would prefer that churches were not denominational. I believe a gathering of Christians in worship should be trans-denominational; and espouse openly to what C.S. Lewis would call a Mere Christianity. That is not to say that each of us individually cannot hold passionately to secondary doctrinal differences, but if ‘Joe Somebody’ is a Baptist, there is no reason why Joe and I shouldn’t openly worship together. In fact, there is a generous inclusivism to doing so, for both missional and participatory reasons.

Note… I am not referring to styles, I know that some people would prefer hymns and others grunge music. I also am not referring to dismantling essential Christian doctrine. I suppose a post would be necessary as to what I deem these to be, but for right now, let’s just say it’s the Apostles Creed.

The point I am making is that labeling ‘true’ Christianity as a specific denomination; as Democratic or Republican; Fundamentalist or Liberal; Calvinist or Arminian; is detrimental to that of ‘being’ Christian.

But isn’t the emerging church a label? It can very well become one, and perhaps there is a bit of self-refutation to be said of my post, but I do think that the message right now from the EC is one of anti-labeling, and I think that to be the correct view. One of the things that really annoys the critics of EC is that emergers are hard to define, but that’s precisely the point. There is an effectiveness, a truism, to being label-less.