Two reactions to your fine post, and thank you for delving deeply into this.
First: I'm reminded of an incident some years ago when I was pastoring within the denomination (although they rejected the idea that they were such) in which I grew up. I was being considered to take their pulpit, and someone asked me if I leaned more liberal or conservative. I said something along the lines of such labels not being very useful, and that we should all seek simply to follow Jesus. He said, "So, liberal then." [sigh]
Second: Not intending to label my former fellowship, but just for context about a realization of my own. Most of them explicitly followed a sort of remnant theology—and I'll bet you know who the faithful remnant was! I "understood" 1 Corinthians 1 (along with my fellows) as affirming that only "we" were correct.
"10 Now I encourage you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Agree with each other and don’t be divided into rival groups. Instead, be restored with the same mind and the same purpose. 11 My brothers and sisters, Chloe’s people gave me some information about you, that you’re fighting with each other. 12 What I mean is this: that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” “I belong to Apollos,” “I belong to Cephas,” “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in Paul’s name?"
So those Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians were all wrong, and they should only identify as following Christ. It is only in recent years that I realized, in the Corinthian context, even those who simply said "I belong to Christ" were ALSO being divisive, as if they were superior. Coupled with 1 Corinthians 12, I think I have drawn the lesson that you can have your preferred way of following Christ, and that you may have favorite teachers, but don't look down on those others.
Thank you for the proper focus. May we get beyond our labels, even (speaking to myself) labeling some people as people who label others.
Donn, thank you for reading and reflecting. You’re absolutely right, it seems that even in our attempts to remove labels that we inherently received them from those who insist on keeping them.
I appreciate the open-heartedness of your post. And rather than disagree I’ll just add my own comment alongside it: I feel the need for labels. I don’t want to have labels, and I’ve never needed to distinguish my faith from any other denomination or tradition, but I do need a public way to say that I’m not, that my parish is not, evangelical. It feels to me that there’s just too much difference, and since evangelical Christianity has taken over the public’s perception of what all Christians are like, I have to be intentional about saying that our Christianity is different. I wish that what you say were true, but for me it’s just not.
I hear ya, Amy. And I completely understand the need to define what a congregation is and what it is not. Reflecting on your reflection, my response would be that perhaps the labels we tend to first apply to our congregations (liberal, conservative, progressive, evangelical) should reflect the gospel and not the political/cultural markers.
On a separate note, I saw in your Notes that you and your congregation are in LA. Please know that you are being held in prayer. I am so sorry for what you are going through.
Yes, I agree. I’ve wondered whether the label we should use is ‘processive’ — making up that term, based on process theology — rather than progressive. But that would be just one more way to use a church-speak word which no one outside the church would understand. So, I’m still mulling.
I've become more grumpy about the term "evangelical" being co-opted into a political marker rather than the heart of the ministry of the church. I want to be an evangelical in the true sense of the word. But I guess that's not how the world works.
I follow the Lamb!
One of my favorite pieces of art is by Scott Erickson, "The Lamb Who Was Who Is And Is To Come" (https://scottericksonartshop.com/collections/everything/products/the-lamb-who-was-who-is-and-is-to-come). The piece highlights the nature of Christ's lordship as the lamb.
It’s interesting - thanks for sharing!
Two reactions to your fine post, and thank you for delving deeply into this.
First: I'm reminded of an incident some years ago when I was pastoring within the denomination (although they rejected the idea that they were such) in which I grew up. I was being considered to take their pulpit, and someone asked me if I leaned more liberal or conservative. I said something along the lines of such labels not being very useful, and that we should all seek simply to follow Jesus. He said, "So, liberal then." [sigh]
Second: Not intending to label my former fellowship, but just for context about a realization of my own. Most of them explicitly followed a sort of remnant theology—and I'll bet you know who the faithful remnant was! I "understood" 1 Corinthians 1 (along with my fellows) as affirming that only "we" were correct.
"10 Now I encourage you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Agree with each other and don’t be divided into rival groups. Instead, be restored with the same mind and the same purpose. 11 My brothers and sisters, Chloe’s people gave me some information about you, that you’re fighting with each other. 12 What I mean is this: that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” “I belong to Apollos,” “I belong to Cephas,” “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in Paul’s name?"
So those Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians were all wrong, and they should only identify as following Christ. It is only in recent years that I realized, in the Corinthian context, even those who simply said "I belong to Christ" were ALSO being divisive, as if they were superior. Coupled with 1 Corinthians 12, I think I have drawn the lesson that you can have your preferred way of following Christ, and that you may have favorite teachers, but don't look down on those others.
Thank you for the proper focus. May we get beyond our labels, even (speaking to myself) labeling some people as people who label others.
Donn, thank you for reading and reflecting. You’re absolutely right, it seems that even in our attempts to remove labels that we inherently received them from those who insist on keeping them.
I appreciate the open-heartedness of your post. And rather than disagree I’ll just add my own comment alongside it: I feel the need for labels. I don’t want to have labels, and I’ve never needed to distinguish my faith from any other denomination or tradition, but I do need a public way to say that I’m not, that my parish is not, evangelical. It feels to me that there’s just too much difference, and since evangelical Christianity has taken over the public’s perception of what all Christians are like, I have to be intentional about saying that our Christianity is different. I wish that what you say were true, but for me it’s just not.
I hear ya, Amy. And I completely understand the need to define what a congregation is and what it is not. Reflecting on your reflection, my response would be that perhaps the labels we tend to first apply to our congregations (liberal, conservative, progressive, evangelical) should reflect the gospel and not the political/cultural markers.
On a separate note, I saw in your Notes that you and your congregation are in LA. Please know that you are being held in prayer. I am so sorry for what you are going through.
Oh and thanks for the prayers. Our city needs them.
Yes, I agree. I’ve wondered whether the label we should use is ‘processive’ — making up that term, based on process theology — rather than progressive. But that would be just one more way to use a church-speak word which no one outside the church would understand. So, I’m still mulling.
I've become more grumpy about the term "evangelical" being co-opted into a political marker rather than the heart of the ministry of the church. I want to be an evangelical in the true sense of the word. But I guess that's not how the world works.
IKR?