Jimmy Spencer
Ian David Philpot, ccPublishing’s Web Editor, has been reading about a possible division in the Christian faith and shares his thoughts.
Jimmy Spencer, a friend of mine and of Relief, wrote a note on Facebook recently that got picked up on a blog. It was titled The Coming Evangelical Split? Feel free to click on the title to read it, but for those of you who prefer a summation, here you go: Jimmy believes that Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, is either starting or bringing to light a split between hardcore conservative evangelicals and progressive evangelicals. Jimmy doesn’t know if it’s good or bad, but he know’s it’s coming, and it is, in large, thanks to the Rob Bell controversy.
When I read that, I didn’t want to believe it at first. Religion feels so global to me. And do people in other countries really care about what some guy in Grand Rapids, MI, is saying about whether Ghandi is in heaven or hell? Would that really cause all of us to pick a side and split?
But Jimmy’s a smart guy. If he’s sure it’s coming, then why I am trying to think he’s not right.
Later, I saw Evangelicalism Won’t Split, It’s Erroding–a response to Jimmy. (I’d sum up, but you can get the basics from the title.) Then I read about a pastor in North Carolina who lost his job after writing something on Facebook in support of Love Wins. No joke.
Historically, the Christian church goes through something big about every 500 years. In Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence, she points out events of the past that show a pattern. Going back from present day, there’s the Protestant Reformation in 1517 (thanks to Martin Luther, some paper, and a nail), the Great Schism in 1054 (when the Greek Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church excommunicated each other), the fall of the Roman Empire in the late sixth century which greatly affected the Roman Catholic Church (aka (basically) the only church back then), and the apostles work in the first century. So there’s a decent pattern there. And Tickle believes that we’re on the edge of the Great Emergence–a change in the church that will link religion and culture in a way that changes Christianity. (I don’t know if I believe it, but she does.)
So, my guess is that Jimmy is predicting that we are nearing, what I will call, the Great Contest–where either love wins or conservative evangelicalism wins, depending on which side you’re on.
I, personally, think Jimmy’s right. I think we’re close to something. I just don’t know if it’ll be something we notice, or if it will be something that takes a decade to settle before we realize that we’re not as close in doctrine with as many denominations as we thought.
Do you think we’re nearing a split in Christianity and/or Evangelicalism? Can Christianity stand to take another split or is it too close to obliteration (or marginalization) as it is?
Jimmy Spencer started Love Without Agenda, a nonprofit organization with a simple yet compelling message: to encourage people to change the world–and themselves–one act of love at a time. Check out lovewithoutagenda.com where you can download a free copy of Jimmy’s new book, Love Without Agenda: My Journey Out of Consumer Christianity.
May I suggest a clarification on who wrote this post?
It might help for those of us sorting out what was said.
I have two problems (at least) with this post. First is the false dilemma set up by the “Great Contest–where either love wins or conservative evangelicalism wins.” It’s a fallacy of logic to assume that it’s as black and white as that, or that the two are diametrically opposed to one another (either choose the emerging forces of light, or the dark side of the Force: evil, hateful, Evangelicalism). It’s also terribly unfair to Evangelicals–a group with which, true, I no longer identify as much as I used to, but for which I have a lot of respect, mostly *because* of their love. Say what you want about the doctrine of Hell being hateful, but Evangelicals have over the last 200 years done an awful lot to spread the news of Christ’s love and mercy, and to show that love through the giving of their resources and the service of their hands.
My second problem is the seeming assumption that such a coming split might be a good thing. We’ve had split after split after split in the Protestant church since the time of Luther, and it’s gotten us nowhere but here, with, to quote a certain 1990s “poet,” this “broken Body, its joints at war.” I think, on the contrary, it’s become way too easy to just take our ball and go start another church whenever we find ourselves disagreeing with each other. Nearly every Protestant denomination has started this way, with dissent, followed by anger, and finally separation. It’s a very democratic and American concept, but it’s not very Christian. At least it’s not very much in line with the Christianity I read about in the New Testament. So I propose the opposite: that just maybe, instead of another split, the Christian Church is due for a little unity.
There’s a lot I like about emergent Christianity; there’s some I find naive (and perhaps even bordering on heretical). But if emerging Christians really want to influence the direction of the church, they may be more effective by parking their asses on a local pew and getting involved, looking for opportunities to both teach and to learn. Because, if history is any kind of model, as soon as any such suggested “split” occurs, the Emergent Church will become only one more among the hundreds of bickering, divided denominations.
Amen, Chris.
To add to the logical fallacies that Chris mentioned, I might add ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ to the list. Just because you can pick out a large event in Christian history every 500 years hardly seems to necessitate another schismatic event. The destruction of the second temple in 70 AD seemed to be rather formative for the early church. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD marked the first time ever that Christianity would be the state religion. 732 AD marked the end of Muslim expansion into Europe. 1962 AD is when the largest arm of Christianity moved to using the vernacular.
Also, does Bell really seem posed to be the next Augustine, Tyndale, Luther, or Hus? It is a solid institution, but does an M.Div. from Fuller really ready one to bring about the next ‘Great Emergence’?
It’s quite evident there’s already a split. It’s been verbalized more so behind closed doors via blog comments than it has face to face.
However, Christianity will never experience an obliteration, no matter what. Jesus is Lord no matter the division. He will still bring people to himself. And, the gates of hell, he said will never prevail against the Church.
If you’re not aware of the ongoing split/change/paradigm shift happening in Western Culture Christianity then you just aren’t very observant. Jimmy Spencer doesn’t even come close to the true reckoning facing Evangelicals et al. His assessment is correct, but his scope is far too micro.
Chris and Trevor – I won’t defend the ideas of Jimmy Spencer and Phyllis Tickle, but I do think that they are compelling at least. Now to defend my ideas…
Chris – My use of “love wins or conservative evangelicalism wins” was strictly a play on the Rob Bell book. Conservative evangelicals may believe in love, but they don’t agree that love wins in the end–which is Rob Bell’s very point. As for the split being a good thing, I have mixed feelings. If both sides believe in the gospel and preach it, then we should be fine with each other. But, if that’s true, then why do I continually meet atheists who grew up either Catholic or conservative evangelical and lost their faith amidst the rigidity? A lot of churches are trying to distance themselves from the ultra-conservative side so they can offer people something different. You can be a Christian if you’re a Republican who’s a member of the NRA and thinks the death penalty is awesome, but you can also be a Christian if you’re a Democrat who believes in government-run healthcare. Over time, that Republican and that Democrat may not want to associate with each other just because they have Jesus in common, because everything after Jesus, whether politically or theologically, is going to be very different.
Trevor – If an M.Div. from Fuller isn’t enough, what is?
B Crump – I think you might be right.
Ian – lectio, oratio, meditatio, tentatio. That is what is what Bell, and all theologians, need to complete their education. I just do not see Rob Bell as being in the same position as N.T. Wright or Desmund Tutu.
Trevor – When do we know that Rob Bell has completed that? Is there someone better poised than him? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t know if I believe that he is the modern day Luther, but I do believe that he can be a catalyst for this change.
Trevor and Ian: All I can think when I read the M.Div from Fuller is this: Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.
Right on, Michelle. Right on.
Well stated, but isn’t the referent there Christ?
Actually, not that I’m aware of. Here are the verses leading into and after the one I quoted:
Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.
Immediately preceding that Paul says, “For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Since punctuation, verses, and chapters are a much later invention, I am guessing that the ‘foolish things’ that Paul is talking about is Christ crucified and ‘despised things’ are followers of Christ.
Maybe it’s speaking to both? It’s a possibility.
I think what I’m getting at is that it doesn’t take a scholar to do God’s will.
Agreed!
Forgive me for giggling a little bit when Chris and Trevor started talking about logical fallacies. We are talking about people here, right? Since when were people EVER logical–in the marketplace, in the family arena, but especially in the Church?
History is a great indicator of the cyclical nature of human beings. Yes, there are definite patterns in human nature, and there have definitely been patterns in the Church, and drawing a conclusion based upon prior patterns is not only solid reasoning, but smart.
Case in point: Stock Market. Do I really need to say more?
Of course there’s a split. Protestant Evangelical Christians love-love-love the passage where Jesus talks about how He came to bring a sword, pit brother against brother and all that, and a lot of schism creators are happy to hang their hat on that verse.
When an assertion of “truth” is made by an individual, that very assertion creates an immediate split in the population of Earth, regardless of the validity of that assertion. Agree with it, awesome, you’re in my tribe. Disagree, and you’re excommunicated. Dogma and doctrine immediately establish tribal law–”I’m right, you’re wrong.”
The only question that remains in my mind about it is how “official” and institutional will this split be?
And who cares about an M.Div from wherever? Hang on just a sec:
“Hello Peter?”
“Yes, this is Simon Peter.”
“Hey Peter, this is Coach, got a quick question for you. Where did you get your credentials to head up one of the largest organized religions in the known universe?”
“Uh, well, I used to catch fish. But I had a lot of faith.”
“Cool, man, thanks, enjoy heaven. Bye.”
Ok, I’m done ranting.
About people being logical: A boy can dream though, right Coach?
And Paul was an ivy league fellow for his day; the rabbi he studied under was top notch. Luke was a doctor. But you are correct, John especially was a drifter, Kerouac type. God can use all whoever He wants to further His Kingdom.
Coach–you rock