Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Moving to the RCC or EO?
Scot McKnight posted an interesting response to a letter he received inquiring as to why he has not left evangelicalism in favor or the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It's worth the read. Click here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I had already read it a few days ago, but thanks for the post.
I too have no desire to become RCC or Orthodox. But that said, I don't foresee myself lasting long in evangelical Protestantism in its current form.
A radical reformation is called for and I'm not sure how to push for it or what kind of leadership is needed. What made Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Wesley, Knox, and others spiritual leaders? How did their movements get going?
Is it best to reform an existing church or plant new ones and form a new movement?
The Baptist General Conference has recently changed its name to Converge Worldwide to move away from denomination and embrace "movement." I like this in theory. A LOT. But I wonder what the practical outworkings will actually be. I don't see a lot of the BGC/CW churches hopping on board. Is this a leadership failure?
I'm now seriously wondering if I need to take a greater responsibility in leadership. Ugh! I'm ever reluctant to do so, but...
REV
"Reformed and always reforming," said Luther. But interestingly our typical approach is "Reformed and no longer reforming." After all, we like the point that we have arrived at after our first reformation. Why change again?
I have to say, however, that I don't really know what a "movement" is. Is it organic (ie. grass roots, local church driven) or is it organizational (ie. leader driven, large organization)? How does a former quasi-denomination that was not really moving anywhere reform intself into a dynamic global movement? Sounds like a semanitic shift rather than a substantive reform.
So REV, as you consider your possible role as a leader in this 'movement' can you shed some light on what exactly you would be leading?
Thanks...
Hey.
I agree with you. Thats why I said I like this "in theory." And the theory I like a lot. A denomination has the connotation (to me) of "fixed, doctrinal, set, tradition-bound etc." Whereas a movement, yes, to answer some of your questions DOES have leadership and organization, but its less about "fixed, set, tradition-bound, etc." Instead it has to do with "what will actually work."
Take civil rights. MLK Jr. and others led a movement. They didn't have an organization they were running and managing, however much there were organizations that backed the movement. Rather the movement itself took many forms: protest marches, boycotts, lobbying, sermons, vigils, etc. The movement utilized organizations but itself was not an organization.
If Converge is a movement - as the leaders are espousing - then organizations (districts, churches, etc.) merely "work out" different expressions of the movement (just as the civil rights movement did in relation to organizations). The organizations simply accomplished the mission of the movement.
OK... if thats the new working paradigm, and if you're still hanging with me, then tradition is relatively meaningless. Doctrine matters only in so far as whatever unifies the movement. It didn't matter whether or not MLK Jr. had a mustache or not - that was trivial to the movement. But if a member of his non-violent movement advocated violence against whites, that would be against the "doctrine."
The big trick in Protestant Christianity will of course be convincing churches of this (nearly impossible apart from God!) - to drop their sacred traditions for the sake of a movement... ha! I'm laughing even thinking about it! What a monumental task the Converge leadership has before them! Which makes me really question whether or not my role in stepping up in this kind of leadership would pay off at all. Hmmm... Or would it just result in headaches and heartaches?
Dunno. "A great calamity is not to have tried and failed but to have failed to try." OK, I kinda get that. Reluctant leadership, here we go!
More to come soon. Keep asking questions.
REV
Okay...but does a movement start because it has formal leadership and goes around asking organizations to join it? Or is a 'movement' more organic in that it is created by more than one person/organization becoming passinate about an issue?
For example, I could decide to create a movement for the consumption of brusselsprouts. I could rent an office and hire a support staff. And then we could begin sending mailers to various food distribution companies asking them to join our movement. Is this the way to start a movement? Or should I first seek to make friends with all the brusselsprout lovers that I can find - enjoy each others company and bad breathe, and then see what movement emerges from our joint passion?
Does any of that make sense in the context of the so-called Converge movement?
Post a Comment