The End of Evangelicalism 7

May 23, 2011 @ 0:04 By 23 Comments

My friend David Fitch, in The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission: Towards an Evangelical Political Theology (Theopolitical Visions) , observes that the new forms of evangelicalism are a witness to some form of discontent. He includes the emerging church, the missional church, neo-monasticism and the organic house-church movement. These, Fitch contends, are the “contours of the post-evangelical landscape” (179).

The questions we need to face are these: What forms of evangelicalism do you think will be most vibrant in the next twenty years or so? Is evangelicalism itself changing, or are these splinter groups with only a few years to survive? Do you think the NeoReformed/NeoPuritan movement is another witness to discontent?

David Fitch focuses on three groups in this time of discontent who are providing plausible, yet inadequate, visions for the “birthing of a renewed Christian political presence for our time” (179).

He takes up his three themes again (Inerrant Bible, Salvation, Christian Nation) and sketches how seminal young post evangelicals are proposing ideas: Peter Rollins, Brian McLaren, and Alan Hirsch with Michael Frost. By the way, Fitch thinks James Davison Hunter’s proposal of “faithful presence” is a form of NeoAnabaptism, and I completely agree.

With each of these young theologians, Fitch sees both promise and problems. So, Peter Rollins: while Rollins clearly points us to the capturing of God in Bible and while he pushes us into apophatic theology to remind us that the infinite God cannot be contained by human words, and while he wants us to focus not so much on believing the right things but believing in the right way, Fitch says Rollins is in danger of de-incarnationalizing the Word of God. The Christian is called both to affirm the centrality of Scripture as the place where God has spoken and to land in particular ways in particular settings. For Rollins Scripture can become another Master-Signifier without content. He also thinks his liturgies run the same risk.

Brian McLaren points out the problem of a too otherworldly salvation and of a decisionism that does not lead to transformation and Brian also points to the need to focus God’s mission in kingdom theology and to do all of this in the now, but he thinks McLaren is in danger of de-eschatologizing the kingdom by separating it too much for a robust christology or ecclesiology and a future eschatology. He thinks Brian is too close to seeing Jesus too much as guide and exemplar away from the ruling Lord and Christ. Kingdom too easily can become another nebulous Master-Signifier where advocacy for justice loses its trinitarian and eschatological bearings.

And he sees much of value in Hirsch and Frost in their pushing against the consumerist and attractional church, and their advocacy for organic missional work, and for a dispersed church but they run the risk of de-ecclesiologizing the church’s relationship to society. (Too much missional claims do this.) The practices of the church are too separated from the mission of the church. Which practices? eucharist, baptism, preaching, fellowship, gifts, etc.. Their claim that the proper order is christology, mission and then ecclesiology runs the risk of a Christ too separated from the church and its practices, and can suggest too individualistic of a soteriology and mission.

Thanks David. Good job. Much to think on here.

Filed Under: Evangelicalism 23 Comments
About Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author of more than thirty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL.

  • Watchman

    As a discontented Evangelical (big E) Fitch’s assessment really resonates with me. I would also add to the list of post-Evangelical theologians/teachers: Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Rob Bell, and Gregory Boyd. Claiborne and Boyd are both seemingly Anabaptist in their theology. But, I do believe the Emergent Church along with the Anabaptist tradition will become the most inclusive and effective movements over the next 10 years, along with progressives. I believe the Reformed tradition is losing its steam because it no longer has anything to reform, it’s essentially just another denomination with a specific theological angle. With everyone firmly planted in either the Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox traditions, there is really nothing left to reform. Furthermore, I believe Evangelicalism has come down to a battle of ideologies. And, the question remains, who will be the victor?

  • Joe Canner

    I don’t know about the others mentioned, but Brian McLaren is neither young (mid-50s) nor a theologian (at least in the traditional sense; he was an English professor and then a pastor). This is a small quibble, I know, but I thought it was worth mentioning at the outset, lest anything think the post-evangelical movement(s) can be dismissed as the fickleness of youth or the disconnected theorizing of an ivory-tower academic.

  • http://communityofjesus.wordpress.com/ Ted M. Gossard

    I have to admit from my limited perspective as one watching fairly closely the Rob Bell “Love Wins” controversy from here in Grand Rapids, I am concerned over Peter Rollins, who has spoken in that church more than once. Rollins in the end seems to be saying, yes-we believe in Easter, in Christ’s death and resurrection, and that death and resurrection(?) is the undoing of anything else we believe. We can’t think we get it in any way. All is deconstructed. That is a far cry from what scripture plainly says. You can say those are words which we do well to recognize our limitations in grasping the realities behind them, and that is true. But they give meaning, whereas Rollins’ position seems to undermine that there is meaning to speak of, at all. But that’s my take.

  • Watchman

    Ted #3 – I agree with you. Some of Rollin’s stuff is concerning even to an emergent/progressive like me.

  • http://differentcloth.blogspot.com Jeff Stewart

    The efforts at “relevance” are still being filtered through conventional methods. No one is listening to Reggie McNeal. The “come and get it” is not really working today. I don’t think it will as long as the church hangs its proverbial hat on one place, one day a week, for a limited time frame. We will simply not connect with the world (which God “so loves”). Add to that the addiction to using the platform/pew; performance/passivity mo, where only a limited number of body members can exercise their gifts.
    How many are willing to put the job security issue aside for the sake of Kingdom expansion? The incremental and more patient approach in Matt 13 is overshadowed by academic and vocational persistence. “just sayin’ “

  • james petticrew

    I am not sure that I agree with his criticism of Frost & Hirsch.

    How can arguing that theology, missiology and ecclesiology must be intrinsically and organically linked lead to Christ being separated from the church?

    To me the implications of that approach are the exact opposite, Christ is restored to the church! Or maybe I am just not smart enough to understand what he is getting at? Does he explain how he thinks this happens?

    Similarly when Frost & Hirsch make a real emphasis on “communitas” and spell out that community doesn’t exist for itself or even simply to better the lives of those who participate it, but to be involved in a purpose greater than itself, how can he argue that it in fact encourages individualism? Naively I tend to think of this emphasis on communitas as an antidote to individualism rather than a conduit for it. Again does he describe how this process happens?

  • Josh

    I think the criticism on McLaren is pretty much correct. I really enjoy McLaren’s work and he has been highly influential on my theology; however, I take issue with his propensity to believe that we can somehow live lives good enough to bring the consumation of the Kingdom of God by ourselves. I take a much more neo-anabaptist view of church as witness over church as midwife. I must say too, though, that it is not as black and white or cut and dry. I do believe that we have reason to believe that the church plays a bit of both roles. I take issue with a theology that, as far as I have interpreted it, focuses on our works in the bringing of the Kingdom over the grace and reign of Jesus over the earth.

    I take issue with the way that Frost and Hirsch have been interpreted in this post because I don’t believe they place Christology first in some sort of heirarchy. I believe they are saying that if we get our Christology wrong, if we misunderstand or misidentify who Christ is and his importance for our church, then we can’t help but form an erroneous missiology and a disempowered ecclesiology. They are calling us back to a proper Christology because they know that the entire Christian life, our identity as a church and our mission flow from knowing him.

  • http://downshoredrift.com Alan Cross

    I don’t want to speak for Hirsch and Frost, but I’ve read most of their stuff and I don’t think that perspective leads to a separating of Christ from the church. If anything, I see communitas as a form of church, with the person of Christ developing mission and mission shaping the church. The church is just the people of God formed by Christ and shaped for mission, engaging in it together. The ideas of communitas and liminality shape the people of God so much that it gives them their form and purpose in the world. I have a pretty strong ecclesiology, though, so maybe I am reading too much into them and do not feel the need to see church as what happens in a building on a Sunday with a full time pastor and official sacraments. As long as that is the default for how we see church and we keep reacting against that construction, we will always wonder if others are saying enough in their formulations.

  • Tom Burns

    As a practitioner embraceing Hirsch & Frost over the last five years, I understand Fitch’s point. Too often organic, missional church practitioners major in christology and missiology but give little if any attention to ecclesiology. I think we misunderstand Hirsch & Frost though. They do not propose a step sequence to building church. They teach that Missiology is informed by our Christology, and Ecclesiology by our missiology. But I would borrow Jim Collins (Good to Great) concept of teh “Flywheel” to help here. It’s not one single movement through the steps (“Doom Loop”) but a continued great effort through many revolutions that build momentum to points of breakthrough. the flywheel is hard to move at first (and accomplishes little) but with each continuous revolutionpicks up momentum. Applied to Hirsch & Frost, as we intentionally and diligently cycle through Christolgy to Missiology to Eccesiology in our practice we remove teh risk Fitch warns of.

  • John W Frye

    If anything Forst and Hirsch have isolated Christology from ecclesiology. In the present, post Pentecost era ecclesiology precedes Christology. The two are identical if the Risen Christ’s words to Saul of Taurus are correct, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Some may not cotton to this idea, but I think ecclesiology begets Christology begets mission. Imagine the Trinity as ecclesiology, i.e., that reality, that life that the human church is to mirror on earth. From that ecclesiology we discern the centrality of Jesus Christ in and for mission. “Just sayin’”

  • http://www.reclaimingthemission.com David Fitch

    Scot McKnight you’re crazy! for taking on my rather complex book and reviewing it. But you’ve done a masterful job and you get me right alot of the time (not all the time:)) Thanks for doing this … and Josh … I quite agree with you on your take on the church as witness AND midwife to the Kingdom … both of those must be held together tenuously. As for my bros Hirsch and Frost, I’d say the same thing to you as I have to them,”they are calling us back to a proper Christology” .. How do we get to that “proper Christology?” How does that work? To me this is a fatal flaw in their overall wonderful oeuvre … and there can be no doubt that for them “missiology precedes ecclesiology” and it is their emphasis on Christology which enables them to affirm this. Again, however, how do we get there? Christ reveals Himself in a body of people thru the Eucharist, the proclaiming of (and subnission to) the Scriptures and the a people in submission to Him (via the gifts, Matt 18 etc.) … in a context .. Herein we extend the one time singular incarnation of God in Christ into the world. This takes a church… I think you agree with that, but I think Hirsch and Frost sometimes lead us away from that … anyways …
    To all who have been part of this series around The End of Evangelicalism, along with Scot, thanks!! I’ve enjoyed it and learned from it!!

  • http://growinggrace-full.blogspot.com/ Chris Donato

    Scanning the comments here, I have to wonder (with John Frye) aloud: is not ecclesiology an ontological extension of Christology (necessarily, if we’re to avoid gnostic/docetic ecclesiologies)? Is this not what’s missed among organic church types? I think maybe Fitch’s comment above is getting at that.

    I’d add to “Christ reveals Himself in a body of people thru the Eucharist” that the eucharist (understood as real presence) itself makes the church.

  • Bob

    Baseball and cricket are different games, though one may have sprung from the other. One could enjoy both, but I suspect one would have a strong preference for one over the other (probably based on culture).

    After 3+ decades of studying, wrestling, discussing (and too often in the past arguing) this kind of stuff, I’m just weary. “This guy is right on this particular, but wrong on that particular… This other guy ALMOST gets it right, but we’re seriously concerned about his statements on such and such…” big sigh… because I just don’t flippin’ care any more.

    People will know I’m a follower of Jesus if I love people like he did. Sometimes I suspect we prefer a good argument like this so we can avoid the mission we’ve actually been given by Jesus. Maybe that’s why I like McLaren and Rollins and Bell so much… because right or wrong to you folks, they at least invigorate me to follow Jesus. I think it’s time I check out of this hotel. Y’all just make me tired…

  • http://downshoredrift.com Alan Cross

    I like the “Flywheel” approach that Tom Burns was speaking about. If we take a Trinitarian perspective, we can see relationships of mutuality. Christology (Father-Communion with God/Loving God), Ecclesiology (Son-Communion with others/Loving People), and Missiology (Holy Spirit-Commission to the world/to the Ends of the Earth) all are mutually dependent upon one another and are only truly discoverable in relationship to each other. Maybe the problem that we are having is that we are looking at this in a linear perspective. Maybe one does not necessarily flow to another in a line, but instead, are discovered as we engage each one. As I come to know Christ, I can only do that through the witness of His people (who have also come to know Him as they also witness to Him wherever they go). As we join together, we form a collective witness to the world of who Jesus is, enabling others to see Christ through us (Christology & Ecclesiology working together in a missional witness). I think that the big hangup is that we continue to react against the static nature of the “Church as Institution” left over from Christendom. If we can see the church as a caravaning band of the people of God (Vernard Eller), then I don’t see why we have to segment everything. Isn’t that a modernist approach that leads to compartmentalization and the breakdown of relationship between the 3? But, I would have to say that Christology is at the core, especially since Scripture states that Jesus is the center of all things – of course, His body is His fullness (ecclesiology) and is his hands and feet (witness) in the world (missiology). Nope, I can’t get away from the ultimate unity between the 3. How can we separate them if we see them rightly? Is Christ divided?

  • Josh

    Totally agree with you, David!

  • Bob 2

    You asked “Do you think the NeoReformed/NeoPuritan movement is another witness to discontent?” I think it is and is a direct result of Don Carson’s and John Piper’s writings having such an influence on those in the Evangelical churches. Many folks I have associated with in the past worship at the feet of Carson and Piper now. They have taken up “the cause” and left their roots, which were Evangelical. In many groups here in the midwest, people wonder where their church went when the Young, Angry and Reformed have taken over.

  • paul johnston

    I don’t think the Evangelical movement is equipped to be Christian culture. It is inherently propositional, it is a critique; a corrective. It is a series of democratic reforms and conjectures, so to speak. It is not democracy.

    The evangelical communities, such as they are, would better serve the Kingdom were they to assimilate themselves with existing Christian cultures to which they find themselves most compatible. Orthodox, Catholic or(High Church) Protestant. All these communities are in need of committed followers who are scripturally inspired.

    Conversely it seems to me, most if not all evangelical communities, are in great need of a “living” faith of cultural distinctives, disciplines and traditions.

    Can an accurate assessment of the American Evangelical experience conclude that it has rightfully supplanted the great traditions of antiquity and speaks as the authoritative voice of God. Where is your sign? Who is your prophet?

    I view you with respect. I view you with fraternal affection but I see in you the spirit of the prodigal son.

    It is time to come home.

  • Bob

    Fitch sees Frost and Hirsch’s order of christology, mission and then ecclesiology running the risk of “de-ecclesiologizing” the church. I agree and I see it from another angle as well. Using Frost and Hirsch’s “formula” seems bent on creating a repeat of the first century Jesus movement WITHOUT the eschatological horizon that necessitated it in the first place. Unless I’m in China, the Middle East etc. It seems to detach mission from its historical/narrative context. 

    So, I would argue, as NT Wright does, that in the final analysis mission should take its bearings not from christology (or in Frost and Hirsch’s case, often a kind of Jesus-ology) but from eschatology. Wright goes from eschatology to missiology to ecclesiology. Even if Frost and Hirsch’s model is intrinsically coherent, a post Christendom North America lacks the critical environmental element of severe social opposition or persecution. The crisis the church in the West faces is not the threat of martyrdom, imprisonment, loss of property etc. but, in part, indifference so I’m not sure we can simply assume that the same response is needed or that the same outcome can be anticipated. 

  • Jon G

    FWIW,
    My take on Rollins. He’s a brilliant illustrator, who stresses the idea that the journey is important and that we shouldn’t be so destination-oriented. That the Jewish tradition is built upon “struggling” with the text. I want to say “Amen” to that, except I would say that the “struggle” is supposed to end up somewhere – something that I don’t get from him. Yes, Pete, we need to realize that growth comes in the journey, but we’re growing toward something, too…

  • http://seguewm.blogspot.com/ Wm

    “Christ reveals Himself in a body of people thru the Eucharist”? or, “Christ reveals Himself through a people of faith”? Maybe the difference is the reason why ecclesiology has taken a back seat. The church has so majored in itself that it lost Jesus. When we ‘ReJesus’ the church, the church forgets itself. When we enter a ‘new kind of Christianity’ we discover that Jesus doesn’t point to the Bible, rather the Bible points to Him. Good Lord, we need more ‘orthodox heresy’.

  • Janet Woodlock

    “Christ reveals Himself in a body of people thru the Eucharist”. I think it’s interesting to note even Catholic theologians like the Whiteheads point out that for the early church the Lord’s supper was a communal love feast… no priests or robes or liturgical formulae involved… only a consciousness of Christ and of the “body” of his people (See “Releasing the Laity). When we view “the Eucharist” from a low church perspective, I think some of Fitch’s difficulty with the Frost/Hirsch perspective disappears… diverse and cell shaped communities can be just as valid expressions of local church as more traditionally shaped congregations as they do gather around scripture etc… just in a different way to the post-Constantine tradition.

  • http://www.reclaimingthemission.com David Fitch

    Uh, Janet … I’m an Anabaptist who takes the sacramental nature of the church seriously (in other words when Jesus says he’ll be there in the midst of conflict resolution (Matt 18) or reveals himself in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24), or Paul calls the church “the body of Christ,” I take these words literally). Yet I’m still an Anabaptist anti-Constantinian, driven by the local “low” expression of the church. Just FYI … I don’t see your point?

  • Janet Woodlock

    I haven’t read your book David I’m sorry, but I was responding to your reflection in relation to Hirsch/Frost that “The practices of the church are too separated from the mission of the church. Which practices? eucharist, baptism, preaching, fellowship, gifts, etc..” I don’t actually read Hirsch in particular in that way at all, so I was trying to get my head around in what way he overly “separated” such practices from mission. In a book like “The Forgotten Ways” Hirsch seems to suggest phenomenal church growth is facilitated by both apostolic influence and a simple church structure… ie the house churches of the early church and in even smaller house churches in China. Within these simple church cells there is of course bread breaking and proclamation and the presence of Christ… I simply don’t see these as “too separated” from the mission of the church; in fact, I see intimate community around Christ as central in the mission of the church in Hirsch’s writings. Does that help clarify my comment? I was trying to understand how we could read the same book and end up with such a different perspective on it, so I wondered if it was your view on the eucharist? Apparently not, so my bad.