I once had the privilege of being told why another person had not been ordained.  I was not told this person's name, so there were no confidentiality rules being breached.  It was simply a "word to the wise," as my professors were so fond of saying, as though the members of their classes were generally wise individuals, but that's another story.  I was told that there was an individual who went before the ordination board of a certain Wesleyan-Arminian denomination after completing his studies at a more charismatic-leaning university.  He had satisfied all of the questions that the board had for him when one older gentleman on the committee gave a straightforward query: "Do you believe that speaking in tongues is evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit?"  Having seen this man's college transcript, I'm sure this question was a litmus test, and the man's answer single handedly decided his ordination- he said "yes" when the "right" (denominationally acceptable) answer was no.  He was denied his minister's license (a precursor to ordination), and asked to step down from his position of leadership in the church.

I would like to establish that this man's answer was not inherently wrong.  First and foremost, let us discard the phrase "speaking in tongues."  When individuals spoke in tongues in Acts, they were speaking other human languages that they had never learned, or at the very least they were being heard in those languages.  The specific type of tongues that is being referred to is "Glossolalia," which is from the Greek/latin for "speak in tongues" but is the official moniker for the tongues of angels referred to in the book of 1st Corinthians. 

Second, let's toss out the phrase "baptism with the Holy Spirit," as it is very ambiguous, and replace it with the Wesleyan-Arminian term "Entire Sanctification."  In Wesleyan circles, the two are interchangeable, but the latter has a narrow definition which more easily carries over into other traditions.  We'll keep the definition simple- the process of Entire Sanctification is the process of total surrender to God, and the movement toward love of God and others as the motivation for all actions.  In effect, Sanctification is what sets the "nominal Christian" (Christian in name only) apart from the practicing believe, and Entire Sanctification is essentially the finished product (though I take a process view, that's another story).

Let's re-examine the question:  Is Glossolalia evidence of Entire Sanctification?  Well, Glossolalia is speaking in the Heavenly tongue, so one can logically assume that the speaker would have some connection to Heaven.  And what better connection than Entire Sanctification?  The Church of the Nazarene Manual states quite clearly that there is a difference between Entire Sanctification (perfection of the heart) and a mature character.  So a Christian needn't be mature to be Entirely Sanctified, they need only be entirely devoted to Christ.  Let us keep in mind that one can be entirely devoted to Christ in one moment, and not so much the next.  In fact, most Wesleyan traditions affirm that Entire Sanctification can be lost, and I would not be surprised if it is attained and lost quite frequently.  So, I have no difficulty inferring that at the point where individuals had the gift of Glossolalia, they were entirely devoted to Christ, and I think the Scriptures would affirm it.  Therefore, I think it is resonable to conclude that the answer to the question is yes.

The problem comes in that certain Charismatic and Pentecostal movements have taken to affirming the Consequent (Glossolalia is evidence of Entire Sanctification, therefore everyone who is Entirely Sanctified must have the gift of Glossolalia).  In response, many individuals and denominations have taken to rejecting it as a sign whatsoever.  In all actuality, those individuals and denominations have simply taken to affirming a logical fallacy.

There are many evidences of Entire Santification.  Glossolalia might certainly be one of them.  Jesus, as well as several of the biblical authors, affirmed that we would know trees by their fruits, and that followers of Christ would bear good fruit.  Glossolalia might appear to be bananas, but bananas are good fruit.  I think the better question to ask is "what evidence do you have?"

Before you read this entry, go here and take the quiz.

For the record, I got "Small government Centrist," which is the upper portion of the circle around the Centrist circle.

Now, ignore how far you deviate to the left or the right, just focus on whether or little dot is above, below, or even with the center of the graph.  In other words, are you Authoritarian, Libertarian (not the party, the philosophy.  The party is strangely authoritarian about being libertarian), or moderate?  I'm going to go Bud Light right now and invent a characteristic- Conversability; the ability to engage in healthy and respectful conversation.  Furthermore, I'm going to propose that where you fall on the Authoritarian-Libertarian scale is far more indicative of conversability than your position on the liberal-conservative scale, and this extends to arenas beyond politics.

In general, a person who falls on the libertarian side of the scale believes that his or her convictions should not be applied to others without their consent.  The philosophy does have some basic rights/responsibilities which it applies to all of humanity which separate it from all-out hedonism.  For example, a Libertarian would say that any action by an individual in which someone does not give their consent is a wrongful act- this would include murder, rape, theft, assault, et cetera.  Having established those ground rules, the Libertarian view says that what my neighbor does, says, or believes is entirely up to my neighbor, and although I may disagree, it is not my place to force my views on my neighbor.

The authoritarian view is that there are things worth forcing on people.  Depending how authoritarian you are, that may be as severe as forcing everyone else to be exactly like you, or simply enforcing some moral guidelines that may not be universally held.  The Authoritarian would generally agree with the Libertarian about non-consent being a valid limit, but along with that comes a set of moral views which the Authoritarian believes should be enforced upon society.  This could include things such as censorship, marriage regulations, substance control, and education standards, among others. 

There are certainly some borderline things when it comes to a matter of consent versus a matter of preference.  For example, public indecency could be a matter of preference (I like to walk around naked) or a matter of consent (I don't like it when my children see you walking around naked).  Abortion is particularly sticky, as views on whether an unborn child is a person dictate whether that child has a right to consent or not.

Now that we've gotten through the definitions, here's my thesis:  Libertarian views are more conducive to Conversability.  As you can see in the above image, I am not a mega-libertarian, nor am I particularly right wing or left wing.  It might surprise some to see a Christian Pastor's dot in the upper left quadrant of the map, but I really didn't need this quiz to tell me this is where I fall.  I've been a moderate most of my life, and so I've been able to watch both the left wing and the right wing tear one another down and try to avoid getting caught in the crossfire.  For a long time, I thought it was my moderation that made these people look crazy, but recently I've realized that the hard core advocates on both sides of the left vs. right debate have something in common- they're very authoritarian.  Whether you're a Liberal whacko who wants to make it illegal for a minister to deny a gay couple a marriage or a doctor to refuse to perform an abortion, or a Conservative headcase who would like to see sodomy laws made stricter and more enforced, you are still trying to use government power to push your beliefs on the rest of the nation.  Anybody who's spent time on the internet knows what happens when you put an authoritarian Liberal and an authoritarian Conservative in the same room- even if it's a virtual room.  Insults, embellished statistics, and furniture are tossed around the room until the combatant's mouths are too full of blood to continue speaking intelligibly, and yet they continue the brawl.

Do you know what happens when you put a libertarian ultra-conservative and a libertarian mega-liberal in a room together?  I have had the pleasure of experiencing this multiple times, and each time the conversation turned to politics, religion, or morality, something miraculous occured- there was intelligent dialogue about the subject matter, and the two individuals managed to identify their common ground while respecting one another's differing views.  Tossing yours truly in the mix did nothing to change that dynamic.

After examining this phenomenon multiple times, I've concluded that those who are not willing to force their views upon others tend to be far more willing to listen to the opposing view point.  Being the Jesus freak that I am, I truly believe that this relates to Jesus' command to "love one another as I have loved you."  There is no doubt that Jesus had some strong moral convictions- in fact, for those of us who believe he was God, there is the implicit view that Jesus was the source of all morality.  And yet, when he had the ability to punish individuals for breaking the law he established (Woman at the well, Woman caught in adultery, disciples working on the Sabbath, etc.), he instead spoke with them, encouraged them to stop what they were doing, showed them love, and let them go on their way.  Was he forceful in his beliefs?  Yes, but to a specific group of people- people who claimed to hold to the same morals as himself.  I am fully comfortable speaking harshly, but lovingly, to another who claims to be Christian yet does not live by that claim.  If somebody tries to turn my house into a place of debauchery and theft, you'd better believe I'm going to ask them to leave and then drive them out if they will not listen.  But when it comes to individuals whose views, beliefs, or lifestyles are contrary to mine, I feel that the most Christlike thing to do is respectfully and lovingly disagree with that person, present my opposing view, and then wish them well.

Conversability- try it out.

Welcome to the transition zone, ladies and gentlemen.  For the last twenty years, the volcano of revolution has been giving warning signs of eruptions, and we've been happy to ignore it.  Now, postmodernism is upon us, and we are not ready.  The modern culture is Pompei beneath Vesuvius, a week before she blew her top, and nobody is planning an evacuation.

What on Earth am I talking about?  I'm talking about Philosophical revolution.  These things show up from time to time.  Among the more notable are:

The Christianization of Western Society c. 300 CE.
The Rennaisance.
The Protestant Reformation.
The Enlightenment.
The beginnings of modern science.

And now, Postmodernism.  What is postmodernism?  It's about as easy a word to define as modernism was before it.  In fact, I'm not even going to bother trying to define it, because the philosopy covers such a broad spectrum that any definition I could give in one post would be truncated and incomplete to the point of inaccuracy.  The reason postmodernism is gaining so much attention is that we are on the hinge point between modern culture and postmodern culture, and people are as restless now as they were amidst the Reformation.  Traditional beliefs and values are being challenged and deconstructed, and traditionalists don't like it very much, especially in the church.  I'm not going to spend too much time on philosophy, because this post is of a far more Theological nature.

For the past 500 years, the Christian Church has mostly operated within the context of the modern world.  Our evangelism is accomplished through things like "the four spiritual laws" (intentionally written for comparison to Newtonian physics) and Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a verdict.  The Church has had to adjust to modernism, and it has done so quite nicely.  Christianity, which started as a near-eastern religion, heavily influenced by Judaism, has been morphed into a modern, Western religion, heavily influenced by enlightenment philosophy and other modern constructs.  And for 500 years, this approach has served us well.  So well, in fact, that most Christians look at modern Christianity as the only true form of Christianity.  We read Jesus' sermons, Paul's letters, and the other writings of the Bible as though they were simple, propositional statements leading us to a rational conclusion.  It works, it's easy, it must be the way that the Bible was intended.

Unfortunately, in postmodern culture, propositional statements and evidence which demands a verdict is a moot point.  Claiming to have all the answers is not simply ignored, but is viewed as insulting.  So, in the rich heritage and tradition of Christendom, the Church as a whole has decided that the postmoderns will simply never get it because they are philosophically askew, and the best thing for them is to continually bring them the truth of Scripture until they accept it.  This approach has been largely unacceptable, as we find that our standard paradigms for evangelism are useless outside of a modern construct.  Lesson number 1:  Scripture is not modern, the Bible is not modern, and our modern interpretations- however accurate they may be- do not represent the final statement on what Scripture means.

In recent years- some would date this all the way back to the desert fathers, but we're going to go with the 1980s as our starting point- there has been a small but growing movement to reach out to postmoderns where they are, rather than trying to bring them to where the Church is.  This movement has been most commonly called "the Emerging Church," and it has been treated with about as much hostility as the Protestants were at the dawn of the Enlightenment.  Why is the Emerging Church rejected?  Because it seeks to reclaim the mystery of Christianity- which is where the Desert Fathers come in.  As a near-Eastern religion, Christianity has had a long succession of mystics.  They have employed all sorts of practices in order to grow closer to God.  One form, known as Contemplative or Centering Prayer, has gotten a lot of press lately, as individuals opposed to Emerging thought have attacked it as nothing more than Transcendental Meditation.  In all actuality, the Desert Fathers based their meditative practices on what they understood (thanks to the Qumran community) to be the Jewish form of meditation that is referred to throughout the Psalms- a quick look at Psalm 1 will tell you that meditating on Scripture is a good thing, but nowhere in Scripture do we find a blueprint for doing so.  Mystery after mystery lies within Scripture- the mystery of how Jesus can be both 100% man and 100% God; the mystery of how God can be three persons and yet one; the mystery of iniquity; the mystery of the atonement; the list of mystery goes on.  Our faith is, at its heart, based on these mysteries, and any faith based on mystery is by definition a form of mysticism.  This fact is one that was avoided during the modern age, and has come to be outright rejected by the majority of Protestants.  Any time a person wishes to engage in spiritual practices is met with hostility for either 1) using means that are not in the Bible (sort of like guitars in worship are not in the Bible) or 2) trying to gain salvation by works (simply not true).

However, the reason the Emerging Church has embraced once more the mystery of our faith and the practices of the early fathers is because they wish, as Paul before them, to become all things to all men.  You see, postmoderns (some may, but with such a large group, generalizations are necessary) do not reject truth- they reject the idea that any one person can actually know the truth in absolute terms (the Bible says we know in part, so...).  Postmoderns do not reject reasoning and logic, but they reject the idea that reasoning and logic are all there is.  Postmoderns want to verify claims through experiencing their truth.  They want not only to hear the truth, but to see, feel, taste, and smell it in a very real way.  So the EC seeks to bring that experience to them.  Not in a hyped up, disingenuous, Charismatic Church kind of way, but in honesty and in simplicity, the EC approaches postmoderns with complete faith that they will indeed be able to "taste and see that the Lord is good."

Another problem confronting the Emerging Church is the convenience of ignorance.  Since the movement covers such a broad spectrum of beliefs, it is not hard for their opponents to place everything about the Church they disagree with into a barrel labeled "Emerging," and discount the movement entirely.  Concepts like Theistic Evolution, Open Theism, and a low view of Scripture are all attached to the Emerging Church.  It is certainly true that the first two are held by many within the EC, but it is also true of many non-Emerging individuals. 

Theistic Evolution is a belief that is allowed for by nearly every one of the 33,000 denominations that are reported to exist in the US.  You are welcome to believe in a literal 6 day creation, but the question of origins is simply not an essential of faith, and so long as a person holds that God is responsible for existence, they are within the realm of orthodoxy.  After all, God told the ground to "bring forth" living things, but He never said how.  Genesis 1 and 2 are written in the style of Hebrew poetry, rather than in the style of Hebrew history, and are clear refutations of the various religions with which early Judaism was competing.  Perhaps I should devote a whole post to this, but I'm just going to recommend Dr. Karl Giberson's Saving Darwin, because he says it better than I ever could. Suffice it to say that there are many theistic evolutionists in the church, and the belief is well within the realms of orthodoxy.

Open theism is the belief that God is influenced by the prayers and actions of humans.  If you have ever prayed to God and expected a response, you are an open theist.  When taken to the extreme, this belief makes it impossible for God to know the future, but that just indicates we should not take things to the extreme.

The "low view of Scripture" argument is really just a thinly veiled attack on all non-fundamentalists.  Anyone who takes a particular story as allegorical, or seeks to find meaning in the text beyond what is plainly written, is accused of having a low view of Scripture.  I've found that most literalists do not truly read the Bible literally, and are simply applying false litmus tests to make others seem less Christian (if you don't believe me, read Revelation 7, then tell me what shape the Earth is.  And no, the word "Corner" there can not also mean "direction." they are two different Greek words).

And, as I said before, mysticism is blatantly attacked when it is simply not heretical.  Meditation, the use of beads for prayer (not the rosary, but beads which are used as a reminder, just like when you make a list before you pray), Lectio divina (a form of Bible Study), Contemplative Prayer, Prayer labyrinths (another prayer aid, same category as the beads), and so forth are not condemned by Scripture.  When these practices are devoted to God, they can be embraced.  When they are devoted elsewhere, they cannot be.  Sounds an awful lot like Rock Music in church, to me.

There is one final argument against the EC that I've heard.  Actually, there are two, but I don't have the time to address the fact that Roman Catholics are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and just because something is Catholic does not make it evil- oh wait, I just did.  anyway, the final argument is that against moral relativism.  I think the best way to respond to this is a quote from Brian McLaren's The Church on the Other Side.  For those unaware, McLaren is generally heralded by those opposed to the EC as its leader, and descried as an evil heretic, mostly for his use of hyperbole which is generally interpreted as earnestness.  Anyway, the quote:

"I am not recommending that we affirm absolute relativism (which is logically an absurdity), but rather honest, limited relativism.  Postmoderns have been reared under the post-Einsteinian, quantum knowledge that even time and space are not absolute, so they are just as skeptical of absolutist claims and understandable sensitive to moral ambiguities, including some found in the Bible.  Is it absolutely wrong to kill your own child? (Abraham was commanded to do so.)  Is it absolutely wrong to worship in an idol's temple?  (Naaman was given permission to do so.)  Is it absolutely wrong to visit a prostitute? (Hosea was commanded to do so.)
...
Dare we acknowledg e that many moral issues are relative to their situation- under God?  Perhaps if we were more honest about the number of moral ambiguities in the Bible and in life, non-Christian postmoderns would be more open to some of our claims of universal (a term I think would be better understood than "absolute") truth."
-pp.174-175

Moral relativism is not the issue here- false absolutism which has found its way into our faith even though it is not so cut and dry in the Bible is the issue.

So, PastorSZ, if you love the Emerging Church so much, why don't you marry it?

The answer is simple.  I too wish to become all things to all men, and right now my ministry is within a group of people who are firmly within the context of a modern worldview.  Most members of my church are middle-aged or older, and firmly entrenched in the conservative, literalist, Republican form of Christianity which is common to that generation in this geographic region.  So I seek to meet them where they are- to be the postmodern missionary to the modern culture, not imposing my philosophical views on them, but embracing them where they are and trusting that the Good News is great enough that it has no cultural barriers, even if we do. 

So there you have it, a reasoned defense of the Emerging Church, as written by a man who is not an active part of it.  I'd be glad to field any questions, but I'm concerned that doing so will turn the comments section of this post into a flame-war, so know that I reserve the right to delete any comments which direct insults at any person or group of people, Emerging or not.