I was recently introduced to one more of the many so-called (and self-proclaimed) “discernment” blogs that exist and was reminded of the many reasons why I believe Fundamentalism is one grand adventure in missing the point. The discussions that have been going on at that site and elsewhere (along with my friend Nic Paton) have brought to light some of the toxic tendencies and attitudes that can exist in Christian circles that espouse Fundamentalism. They have also served to show a sort of line in the sand that exists between emergent/post-moderns and the fundies. The two are often pitted against each other, one claiming more fidelity to Christ than the other.
As Nic rightly points out on his blog, fundamentalism served a useful purpose in its hay day as an alternative to the pervasive liberalism that the 20th century brought. Fundamentalists circled the wagons, creating what I have heard described as “holy huddles,” reassuring each other that all is well so long as they hold on tightly to their right thinking. The “right thinking” became a sort of litmus test that determined whether you were of this “holy huddle” (the true Christians) or not. The fundamentals that were deemed non-negotiable were:
1. The verbal inerrancy of Scripture
2. The divinity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth
4. The substitutionary theory of the atonement
5. The physical resurrection and the bodily return of Christ
What began as a way to distinguish themselves from the increasingly more liberal religious climate around them led to an ethos that pitted right belief (head knowledge) over and against matters of the heart. A relationship with Jesus Christ, a person, got truncated to a set of dictums that one had to either agree or disagree with. Salvation became less about what Jesus has done and desires to do for all of Creation but about your willingness to give mental assent to a set of codes. There was little synthesis between what we confess and what we live.
Upon reading that description you may be wondering why on earth I would want to associate myself with such a group by embracing a name like “FundaMergent.” Shouldn’t we be trying to do all we can to divorce ourselves from that sort of thing? Perhaps. But maybe we should not be so quick to divorce ourselves from them just as we would not wish to divorce ourselves from “the least of these” or the sinners and tax-collectors in our midst (or in our mirrors).
Is there some commonality between us? I don’t think I am entirely comfortable with pitting emergents against fundamentalists. Perhaps emergents can embrace a bit of fundamentalism - one that when lived into actually begets a new ethos, one that is radically different from the one described above. As such, I propose that emergents confess their own set of fundamentals. I offer this list:
1. Jesus Christ is Lord
2. Love God and neighbor
3. Love justice, seek mercy, walk humbly with our God.
4. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
5. Love wins.
One thing that should be readily obvious from this list as compared to the first list of fundamentals is there is an ethic attached to any mental assent. The question, “How then shall we live?” is answered in each of these fundamentals, unlike, for example, the 3rd fundamental of the Fundamentalists, “The virgin birth” which requires no transformation of the heart, mind, soul or body.
As a FundaMergent I believe passionately and radically these 5 fundamentals. However, in my confessing them I am also convicted of how I approach the other in my midst, regardless of where their head is. If I am radical about my fundamentals I must walk humbly in my dealings with others or else I am nothing but a hypocrite. I must root out those things which claim lordship over my life if I truly believe Jesus is Lord. I must wrestle with the question, “Who is my neighbor?” and at any time I draw a line in the sand that excludes another I must repent.
We have learned from our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters that there are indeed things worth believing and even dying over. We learn from them that what we believe in large part determines the sort of person we are becoming. It is not true that Fundamentalists are fundamentally wrong. It is true, however, that their fundamentals forgot the rule of love, thus creating a community that knows much but feels little.
FundaMergents can confess much and feel more. FundaMergents are fundamentalists when it comes to love, for it is only in love and by love that they shall know we are God’s.
grace and peace.
Share this Post
Filed under: Church, Essays, Theology | Tagged: Church, Emergents, Emerging Church, Fundamentalists, God, Grace, Jesus, Love
I see what you’re saying now. You’re shifting away from orthodoxy to orthopraxy. I agree that those “new” items you’ve listed are the real, ultimate core of the faith – the real essentials, the real fundamentals. If all Christians can agree on those things – praise God, if not – we have a problem Houston.
It occurs to me, that what you’re calling “fundamergent” is really the same thing as Progressive Christianity. I prefer that term.
Yes, I think it is the fact that the Fundamentals are primarily intellectual that makes Fundamentalism fundamentally modern. It is seeking to counter rationalism with rationalism. It rejected theological “modernism”, but tried to do so within the framework and mindset of modernity.
Roger,
I hear that. However, in attempting to find some commonality I fear words like “progressive” only strike fear in the heats of fundies. One of the critiques of emergents is that we despise fundamentals or “absolutes.” That just isn’t true. We have fundamentals they are just different from the 5 that are classically listed as THE fundamentals. And, our fundamentals require a change of heart and an ethic to live into, something the first list does not require or even examine.
Steve, agreed. Thanks for dropping by!
Good stuff. I have long claimed that I am more of a fundamentalist in that I believe in the fundamental necessities of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, most fundy Christians today tend to focus on the non-essential periphery of a moral and political code.
Chad
This is a great way to end this week.
I agree that nothing is absolutely evil, and that there are redeeming features in all things. We can emulate the passion that our fundy friends/enemies have, as well as their (attempts at) rigor and robustness.
And the gospel of Inclusion has it that we do not merely play the same game for the other side, but rewrite the rules.
And in your list of fundmentals you have done just that.
(One example from popular resistance culture might be how instead of letting racists own the term “nigger”, you just reclaim it and use it, thus devaluing its power.)
Fabulous work.
PS I’m away from the internet until Sunday – still want to catch up on your pastor post.
Thanks, Nic.
Always good to hear from you.
Be well and I look forward to catching up after Sunday.
peace.
Chad, I think I would add one core that might replace one or two on your list: Kingdom.
I personally think your list could be reduced to Love wins. But that’s just me.
Jonathan,
The beauty of being a fundamergent is that unlike the first list, this second list allows for discussion, even some disagreement in how they pan out.
I think Kingdom is very important but in my thinking that is expressed by “Jesus is Lord.” As for “Love wins” I am fearful of leaving it to JUST that. Love has to have an object and we have to learn how to love – we learn that through Jesus (as opposed to other “stories” that exist which claim our loves or tell us what and how to love – I’m thinking of the bumper sticker that reads, “he who dies with the most toys, wins.” This is a love misplaced. Like Augustine said, our problem is “disordered loves.” Left to ourselves we don’t know how to love very well).
thoughts?
I think Love wins is the overarching theme of the entire story. It informs everything. The rest are details. But good details.
Jonathan,
I’m curious how you see that working though. I think the details are more than just good but supremely important. I agree that love wins but as I said, if that was all we had to go by and the rest of the story was left out, how would we know what love looks like? How would I know that “love” doesn’t just mean whatever my heart desires?
I even agree with you that love wins is the overarching them of the entire story. But that story has important characters and plots and sub plots. If we say love wins but don’t insist, for instance, that Jesus is Lord, than what is to keep me from making whatever I love my lord?
Curious to hear your thoughts.
peace.
I deal with this sort of tension by reminding myself that within our lives there is a constant flow between complexity and simplicity, At one time we struggle with a chaos of factors, and at another we get the relived overview. But this prize is but food for the journey: we descend again into the valley of messiness, as we attmept to live out our new found principles.
So Jonathans simple comment “Love wins” represents a point on the way, while Chads, “But what does it look like” another point.
The Body metaphor is apt – some members are detail types, and others overview types. The truth emerges from the relationship.
All simplicty is arrived at at the price of struggle with detail, and all complexity is part of reentering life with our simple principles.
Jonathan,
There is an important reason why I am asking the above questions. Some of what I hear as critiques or concerns from people who wouldn’t call themselves “emergent” is that we don’t believe in anything. It’s all about love, they say, and we shy away from making any statements of faith.
Part of my purpose in writing this post is to say that emergents actually do believe in some pretty important things – such as the 5 I mention. Like the fundamentalists, these things are deemed very important and even essential if one is to call themselves “Christian.” To adhere to just and only “love wins,” though very important, I fear only plays into the critics hands and convinces them even more that we really don’t believe in anything of substance.
Now, perhaps I am mistaken to assume that emergents hold the fundamentals I list as important. This is why I think you (and Nic and others) can be of help to me. You have been involved in the conversation longer than I. I can learn from you. Would you say that the fundamentals I list, at least 1-4, are optional as far as most emergents are concerned? If that is the case, than perhaps I am less of an “emerging” Christian than I once thought.
It would be interesting to see what the folks at EV say about this list. I would certainly be curious.
What do you think?
Hi Chad – I was directed here from the EV twitter feed, so I’ll be upfront in my involvement withing the emergent conversation.
While I genuinely appreciate what you are trying to do here, I have to say that something about it just rubs me the wrong way. I can’t exactly put my finger on it, but I’ll try to say just a few things.
First, from an emergent perspective, the whole list should have the clause “subject to change” – a major problem with any list of fundamentals is that the person is saying that it is THESE things that I will NEVER change on. But we will all have different lists, and while “love wins” is certainly beautiful, it scares me that you mention dying for these beliefs, not so much that you would be willing to die, but quickly that mentality turns toward being willing to kill others (perhaps not physically, but still doing emotional/spiritual harm). With this approach, as Roger Wosley (comment 1) points out, if everyone doesn’t agree, “we have a problem.” Well not all Christians will agree, and certainly not all people. So we have a problem if we approach faith by lists, what then will you do?
Looking at this list reminds of a comment by Tony Jones when there was such a huge debate about defining what exactly was/wasn’t “Emergent” – he said if we focus on a definition we are missing it all and stepping back into a modern approach. IMO, the approach of making a list of this type seems to be more of a step backward. I think it’s ok if you have a personal list of beliefs that you would say define you, but to put out a list and suggest that everyone would agree? Hmmm….like I said it just rubs me wrong.
As a final point, I share a story from my personal emergent community. In the early stages of our formation we tossed around the idea of a “list” or a “covenant” as we wanted to call it. But quickly we realized that there wasn’t a need. We were committed to one another, so why feel like we had to write it down or force others to conform? It felt like we were trying to pander to the approach of the churches in which we had grown up, instead of boldly forging a new path of love – which cannot be reduced to a list or even a creed.
So my question for you Chad is, what are your motives for making this list? To prove to those who aren’t emergent that you “really do believe something?” Why?
Jesse,
Glad you came by. This is exactly the sort of conversation I was hoping to generate and I thank you for your inquisitive, probing questions. I hope you will stick around as we (and whoever joins us) talk through some of this.
At first blush I have to ask a follow-up question real quick. You said that my list should include a clause: “subject to change.” I am curious which aspects or items on my list you think could potentially change and why. I’m not asking you to predict the future, but is there something about “Jesus is Lord” that you feel uneasy about that could perhaps change given the right argument?
Or “love God and neighbor?” Or, “walk humbly with our God?”
My list, in my mind, is one that embodies an ethic, not merely a set of “ideas” or “doctrines” that must be assented to (like the verbal inerrancy of scripture- who cares???) Nor does my list allow for anyone to exclude another for to “walk humbly” and to “love my neighbor” demands that I accept and listen and learn rather than judge. Furthermore, the confession that Jesus is Lord removes my self from making claims upon you or another. It demands that I allow Jesus to judge, lest I myself be judged.
Let me pause here and await your initial response if you are interested. I really am curious which aspects of the list are “subject to change” from an emergent perspective and why that might be. Thanks for helping me think through this.
grace and peace,
Chad
Jesse,
I have some more time now to respond to the rest of your post…
Let me say what I should have started with above – I’m a friend of emergent and have been for years. I feel that a conversation about this is needed and in many circles sorely lacking. One issue I have with emergent is that I feel we have beaten the proverbial horse to death about why we are not like fundamentalists or why we are not stuck in static conservatism. I get all that. The break from many traditional forms of being and doing church is healthy and needed.
Where there is not enough dialog, however, is in the other direction. There is not enough work being done that speaks to the ills and failings of liberalism (and by this I mean the liberalism of the 19th and 20th century that began with Kant making the autonomous self absolute). There is not enough dialog that dispels the perception that emergents are just another branch of liberalism dressed in a newer, hipper experiential clothes. Emergent Christianity is not about (or should not be about) validating everyone’s personal experiences nor is it about just being full of love peace joy and hope (while good things, we are not seeking these virtues or experiences for their sake alone).
With that said, we are Christians. As such, we express a peculiar sort of love and hope and peace and joy in the world. It is not without an object (Jesus) nor is it without a purpose (the transformation of the world for the Kingdom of God). My motives for making a list such as this is to affirm just that – that emergents are not, contrary to the many critics I hear, just drinking coffee, talking about love and peace and can take or leave Jesus and/or scripture. My motive is to show that emergents are not just a reinvention of liberal religion in the West.
As for your fear that “dying for something” could lead to “killing for something” I can assure you such a thought never occurred to me. Jesus “died for something” and yet I would never say that Jesus would kill to make what he saw worth dying for come to pass. In fact, if we embody the list I entail than killing (or violence, for that matter) is not an option. How do we do violence if we confess that “love wins” (as opposed to coercion or violence) or that we walk humbly with our God?
Lastly, i understand the hostility or fear towards “defining ourselves” as Tony Jones points out. But I would argue that defining ourselves is not a step back into modernity (and if it is, who cares? We need not throw out the baby with the bathwater). In any event, we are defining ourselves by the mere assertion that we refuse to define ourselves. Our reality is that we are defined, whether we like it or not. I am defined by the fact that I am a father, a husband, a white heterosexual male in America, a pastor, a friend, a neighbor, a student, etc. What would be unfortunate, and what I hear you or Tony saying, is if we allow our definitions of ourselves to become stumbling blocks for others. We have a “story we find ourselves in” whether we define it or not. What I am hoping to do is give shape to that story – that is what my list intends to do.
Grateful for the chance to discuss this with you and others.
grace and peace,
Chad
Jesse,
Something I missed my first time reading your thoughts was this:
Well not all Christians will agree, and certainly not all people. So we have a problem if we approach faith by lists, what then will you do?
Can you help me understand what the problem is with disagreement?
I am not sure how Christians would or could disagree with the list I have made as fundamentals. I think if anyone is going to don the name “Christian” than they ought to have some sort of confession, wouldn’t you agree? Lets be honest – not everyone in the world is a Christian. Not everyone believes and lives as though Jesus is Lord. Not everyone loves God and neighbor as themselves.
You aren’t trying to say that the defining element of being emergent is that we don’t believe in anything so as to not exclude anyone, are you? I don’t think that is what emergents think. I’m curious what you mean by saying we have a problem since “all people” won’t sign off on the fact that Jesus is Lord. Does that mean we abandon such talk because not everyone agrees?
Hope you are still around – the sort of questions you raise are very instructive and I think very important.
peace.
Hey Chad
You are a real pastor. Coming back three times to clarify – that’s real dedication.
I mean it. I was thinking about virtue and trying to get beyond the cliches – love, peace, joy etc – and I came up with “holding” as a prime one. Concerns, pain, joys, questions, theres a lot of things that could easily just slither away.
Pastor, you are able to “hold”.
Hey Chad
You are a real pastor.
Sometimes I think it is a curse… Always worried about other people’s lives. Lying awake at night about other’s problems. Eish!
lol Eugene.
Actually, I sleep like a baby
Chad,
How/where would mission be within your list? I thought it would fit well with do justice, love mercy, however, with such a major emphasis on the mission of the church within the Emergent movement, I wonder if it should have its own category as a fundamental? Great idea btw.
Joe,
Fantastic question. I want to chew on it some more and may conclude that it does need its own category. I could be persuaded.
At the same time, however, I intend to show how all 5 of them are mission focused/oriented. It is what I mean by an “ethic” being attached to each.
But I am not opposed to the idea of being more direct, so long as it doesn’t give the impression that the others don’t have anything to do with mission. By not using the word “mission” in one I have the freedom to make all of them about mission.
Lets say I change the list to include one specifically about mission though. How would you word it?
Chad,
I am immediately reminded of the commandments of the exodus people. God began the commandments with an overall precursor, that which will inform/drive each of the commandments about to be listed. They did not begin with: Do not have any other gods before Me. Instead, as Ellen Davis tried to beat into our heads over the course of a whole year of OT, God began with, “I Am the Lord your God.” This phrase, to Davis, is the ethos of the commandments. Why should we love our neighbor, because I AM is our God. You get the point.
What I think, therefore, is possibly before any ‘fundamentals’ can be listed, is that there must be a clear precursor, informing/driving each point of the list. Now, you began with Jesus is Lord, to which I would add Christ (simply to remain scriptural, however, also this one word contributes to the most basic of all Christian affirmations in such a weighty way that its exclusion could have disastrous theological implications later down the line). If com/mission is indeed the telos of the entire list, perhaps its mention before the list begins is an important move. For example, Jesus [Christ] is Lord because Jesus gave us this com/mission from the Father. Or, love God and neighbor, because it is the com/missional calling of each and every Christian.
What do you think?
Joe,
Good thoughts. I like how you tie in the Torah (Dr. Davis will be so proud).
So you know, I adjusted the 1st one to read: Jesus Christ is Lord. And yes, I think it serves well as the first in that it, like the OT, drives the rest. The mission that comes from each is because of who is Lord.
**FULL DISCLOSURE**
I have just submitted this as a book proposal. Title is “FundaMergent” I hope to continue a discussion here and also hear critiques from all sides. However, please know it may go into the book. I’m working up a draft even now.
I appreciate the interest that has been shown about this.
Forgive me, I meant to say in the first paragraph: “This phrase [I Am the Lord your God] is the TELOS of the commandments.” Not ethos.
[...] #1: Chad Holtz on being a FundaMergent. [...]
Chad -
I know this is way after the conversation but your new post on your book pointed me here. I missed this the first time.
You’ve seen my comments in the past and some of my posts and know my struggles with seeing the attractiveness of the emergent desire for community and love of others but being put off by not finding any emergent statements of what is true. The points Jesse were making are the ones from the emergents that I struggle with. He never came back on this post – if you guys picked this up on another post let me know where.
Labels are hard because most of don’t fall completely under one or another. I listen a lot to Piper, Driscoll, Chan, just to name a few. They are definitely not emergent but I would bet they would put a check mark next to each item on your list and say they agree. I hope that doesn’t taint your list.
Your Fundamergent concept is a great bridge to help my Reformed mind connect.
And I agree with Nic – you are a real pastor. Your love comes out in everything you write. That’s why I love reading you blog even when I don’t agree.
Tony-
Thank you for your comment. It blessed me.
You named exactly the sort of problem I am hoping to address in this book. One of the most common critiques I hear of the emerging church is that we don’t believe in anything. Or we don’t have a defined “statement of faith.” Every time I hear that I think to myself, “Wait a second. I do believe in stuff. And yet I consider myself a friend of emergent and part of the conversation. What gives?”
I think part of the problem comes from how we understand a “statement of faith.” My fundamentals that I list are what I believe to be core to what it means to walk with Jesus. I think most of the hang ups emergents have with statements of faith is that they are mostly meaningless insofar as transforming a life. While I affirm the Virgin Birth I do not see it as something that must be in my fundamentals. Believing in the virgin birth is not going to change my life in the same way that acknowledging Jesus is Lord will. I hope this book can bridge the gap you are speaking of.
I gotta run for now. I’d love to chat more about this with any who are still willing. It will help me as I push through this book. Tony, thanks for your words. They were needed.
grace and peace.