To P or not to P

Just when you thought you could at last stand up and be counted as a man here are two up and coming students of theology who find profound exegetical problems with Pastor Anderson's theology of urination (see my last post). Can theologians please make this little conundrum a real priority issue as we in the church certainly need to have it sorted pronto; like before we next use the small room.

Modern Theologians are rethinking toilet training in the light of scripture

Feelings of Unreality

Here's another case where am I at a loss as to whether we are dealing with a hoax, send up or the real thing! Anyone? Will this go down in history as the "Pissing Blissing"?

Forget Gideon; Pastor Anderson has a real test that sorts out the men from the girls.

The Pastor is my Shepherd.

After a quick investigation on the web I wasn't able to determine whether the above was a piece of satire or the real thing. Then I thought to myself shouldn't I be able to tell anyway? Fact is, I can't tell the difference and that's a little bit worrying. The man pictured below might have something to do with it.

The God Father

Virgo: Father to the Bride of Christ?

As I indicated in my previous post on emerging church, the Restoration movement came to my notice at the beginning of the 1980s. I was somewhat alarmed because their take on Church Unity seemed to be a rediscovery of the old social technology of the Christian cults whereby unity is maintained by the presumed spiritual authority of its leaders. For example consider the following quote taken from an article entitled “Unity: Is it Possible?” which appeared in the “Restoration” Magazine of July & August 1979 telling the story of three churches that “put themselves under the covering authority” of a Restorationist “apostle”:

The most significant element in the unity of the three churches was the recognition of Apostolic authority

The Berean tradition which acts as a bulwark against authoritarian leadership was also being challenged by Restorationist patriarch Arthur Wallis:

The Teaching or Interpreting of the Word of God is perhaps the most important way in which authority (i.e. Authority of Leaders) is exercised for doctrine determines practice.*


Thus, challenging a Restorationist leader from a Berean perspective was probably about as futile as challenging the Pope, because in both cases their interpretation of scripture holds precedence by virtue of its assumed authority; end of story.

One doesn’t hear about Restorationism anymore. The early days of a movement riding high on the crest of a wave of expansion are long since over, as are the optimistic pronouncements from leaders who, intoxicated by being on the growth part of the curve, were prone to triumphalism and hype. They proclaimed God’s new thing that was taking the Christian world by storm and they even went as far as suggesting that Restorationism was ushering in the Millennium rule of Christ. Today the Restorationist prophecies about a church restored and united under the strong leadership of authoritative patriarchs are now all but forgotten. Like so many other cheap and ephemeral throw way blessings that string along the faithful for five minutes at a time, the angst of failure has been lost in sweet forgetfulness.

With my memories of the history of Restorationism still clear in my mind I was very interested to read an article in the July “Christianity” Magazine about Terry Virgo. Terry Virgo was one of the leaders of Restorationism. I am not sure what has happened to the other leaders of the halcyon days of Restorationism, but apart from ex-restorationist David Tomlinson, Virgo is the only other leader I hear about nowadays. One of Virgo’s virtues seemed to be that unlike some of his fellow Restorationists of the 1980s, he was less up front about leadership authority. His emphasis was more on leadership than headship and that may be why his Newfrontiers group of churches seems to be the only prominent group around today that might still classify as a Restorationist group. Even so, reading the article in “Christianity” it seems the old doctrines of patriarchy are still a big theme with Virgo. For example he says this:

Paul clearly limits authoritative doctrinal teaching to elders who care for the flock and are gifted and appointed to do so (Act20:28)… Paul is making clear that becoming a Christian means being placed under the authority of Christian teaching. The teaching had authority to give form to the New Testament churches and shape to the life of the believers….people would subsequently be added to the church and come within the shepherding care of its pastors and teachers.

And that is exactly what the Restorationists were saying 30 years ago. Moreover, like the Restorationts of the 80s Virgo is adamant that women are not allowed to teach. I’ve never got into the argument about the role of women in church as I prefer to leave that subject in the very capable hands of women like Elaine Storkey who could no doubt tell Virgo a thing or two about the role of women.

The article in Christianity tells of a visiting speaker at a Newfrontiers rally who broached the subject of the aging Virgo conceding his leadership. In the words of Christianity magazine the speaker diplomatically likened Virgo to “…you (Virgo) taking Newfrontiers down the aisle, like the father of a much loved daughter”. That this speaker could talk of Virgo almost as a father to the bride of Christ is eloquent comment about Virgo’s God father status amongst Newfrontiers churches.

Quite apart from the question of whether Virgo has any authority to hand over what is not really his to give, he does seem to be rather “hanging in there”. Is he reluctant to pass his leadership on? Is this because he is anxious of what might become of his “daughter”? From Virgo’s perspective perhaps his anxiety is understandable; his “daughter” could go either of two ways: She may be given to a far more authoritarian patriarch than Virgo, such as was Bryn Jones one of the founding fathers of Restorationism. But perhaps even worse from Virgo’s point of view Newfrontiers might become a standard denomination; that is, a loose affiliation of local churches (and much better to my mind). That, I suspect, is in fact the destiny awaiting Newfrontiers, and I think Virgo knows it; as he says in “Christianity” magazine “I have asked our international leaders, When I snuff it will you all go your separate ways?”. Trying to get into the head of a Restorationist “apostle” that responsible and mature Christians don’t need authority to cooperate is like trying to teach a chimpanzee to do calculus. However, to Virgo’s credit I feel he hasn’t been authoritarian enough to extinguish the taste for the freedom and responsibility amongst his churches that is the birthright of all Christians.


* Unfortunately I can’t locate the source where Wallis penned this sentiment

More On Emerging Church

The post is based on a short talk I gave on emerging church. I’m not an authority on emerging church, and the following is really a personal view based on my rather limited contact with the subject.

Shortly after my commitment to Christianity circa 1973 I started studying a variety of quasi Christian cults such as the Mormons, the Jehovah’s witnesses and the Children of God. As a result of this study my faith was later to receive a sharp jolt when the Restoration movement arrived in Norwich (in the form of Norwich Christian Fellowship) and came to my attention circa 1981. This movement majored in contending for the authority of Christian patriarchs to direct the affairs and beliefs of its followers. For me this potentially authoritarian ethos was too close to the cult model for comfort. During the study of some of Restorationist literature I came across the name of David Tomlinson, a leader in the movement. Amidst a movement that was still in its triumphal early days Tomlinson proved to be something of anomaly: I sensed even then that he may have been experiencing the first onset of diffidence toward standard EPC (=Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic) Christianity. I flagged this suspected diffidence with a note in my file on the Restorationism and that note is there to this day.

Tomlinson’s name came up again in about 1995 when I read a review of Tomlinson’s book “The Post Evangelical”. By this stage I had witnessed the full spectrum of EPC manifestations from the lauded “Sound Doctrines” of strict evangelicalism, to the constant round of spiritual novelties delivered by Charismatic Christianity. To name but a few of the latter: Restorationism, the Toronto blessing, various failed healings and prophecies, authoritarianism, preliterate dualism, and above all large dollops of spiritual spin. In particular I had become disturbed by how close some charismatic expressions were to Gnostic elitism and fideism. By 1994 the strange objects that flitted by my window on EPC had taken their toll on my attitude and a measure of cynicism had set in. Not surprisingly, then, the title of Tomlinson’s book struck a chord with me, and without even reading the book I somehow felt that Tomlinson was thinking what I was thinking; enough was enough. Tomlinson had secured a following and set up his own church, but it seems that many Christians were taken by Tomlinson declaration of a post-evangelical era; perhaps it even started to assume the status of a kind of mini-reformation.

In my experience most post evangelicals are from charismatic fellowships. They are genuine and emotionally intense people who are looking for something real, but who have become somewhat disaffected by EPC authoritarianism, spiritual spin, hype, general lack of authenticity and the social pressures of the spiritual equivalent of the Emperor’s new clothes. They are less post evangelicals than they are post charismatics.

Post evangelicals find themselves caught in the middle of a triangle of three Christian movements:

1. Charismatic Christianity: this is the sub-culture from which disillusioned and disaffected post evangelicals have, in the main, emerged out of (for reasons already mentioned).

2. Conservative and Strict Evangelicals: Dowdy, ultra traditional, condemning, uncompromising and lacking the dynamism of charismatic fellowships. They are very ready to deny that God’s grace is available unless their idiosyncratic take on “sound doctrine” isn't followed to the letter, which needless to say limits that grace to their own spiritual subcultures. They seem confused about the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. They have a low view of Bible interpretation, taking it for granted that meaning resides intrinsically in the words themselves rather than being supplied by open ended cultural resources. The upshot is that they insulate and disconnect Biblical interpretation from the wider cosmic context. Their so called “plain teaching of scripture” usually means their traditional interpretations of scripture that have done the rounds for such a long time that they can think of nothing else. The look and feel of strict evangelical groups is often not very much different from countless other religious sub cultures for whom salvation is conditioned on a strict and narrow view of life’s cultural shape. The strict evangelical ethos can sometimes be found in a very toxic blend with Gnostic Christianity.

3. Liberal Christianity: The post evangelical may feel that Liberal Christianity is dangerously liable to throw the baby out with the bathwater resulting in a faith that is no longer recognizable as Christianity. Liberal Christianity may even go as far as to terminate in what, to all intents and purposes, is a form of atheism, an example being Don Cupit of “Sea of Faith” fame. Cupit’s God is a “constitutional” God in that like a constitutional monarch God is thought to only have a symbolic or metaphorical existence.


The post evangelical usually means business with God, so given the foregoing where does he go as he “emerges” from EPC Christianity? For a start, he has many questions buzzing around in his head. (At this point in the talk I illustrated this with a picture taken from “Christianity” magazine showing a Christian removing a suit and revealing a T-shirt with a giant question mark on the front –see the picture at the head of this post)

….well, he becomes an “emerging church” Christian. This doesn’t necessarily mean he has joined a group but has, in fact, ended up in the emerging church by default. Putting the best complexion on the matter the term “emerging” signifies a decentralized system where each bit is working independently and yet like the “boids” of system theory it is hoped that this decentralized ecology will, in God’s economy and timing, result in something fresh and worthwhile. The central notion (or rather hope) well expressed in the term “emerging church”, is that something good is emerging, something that has yet to run its course.

In spite of their radical pretensions, emerging church Christians hang on to scripture because they don’t want to lose what is good and stable from the past. But all in all tensions and contradictions are created that are often difficult to resolve. There is a mixture of a sense of betrayal, confusion, and a loss of focus and anchorage. A postmodern reaction sets in; the post evangelical is to evangelicalism as the postmodern is to modernism, in that there is a general pessimism about what at one time seemed so sound, bright, shiny, optimistic and full of hope. When emerging Christians do come together to form fellowships, they tend to adopt a contemplative form of worship in line with their largely touchy feely charismatic background, and yet they often look back to the pre-modern era for liturgical inspiration as they attempt to re-anchor their faith.

Summing up the character of emerging church:

1. Post-evangelical: They are seeking a religious authenticity that they feel is so often absent from EPC.
2. Reevaluating and reinterpreting scripture, but not wanting to over throw the Bible, they use scripture in an informal non-systematic way. Gone is dogmatic theology.
3. Postmodern: although they identify with the angst of postmodern disaffection, in most cases emerging church would not accept the hard postmodernist thesis which asserts with great paradox that life makes no absolute sense.
4. Experimental touchy feely meditative worship; a looking back to the Christian past for liturgy, context and perspective.
5. Political and Social: Loss of scriptural bearings leads to compensatory political and social action. Social concern and lobbying seems at least an uncontroversial component of Christ’s teachings.
6. Prepared to review some traditional alienating doctrines such as Hell and Christian exclusivism.
7. Personalities and leaders: The unassuming tones of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell represent a move away from the plastic, “knows what he’s talking about”, impassioned, formula spouting, cliché surfing preacher.

Pending Position Statement

As a result of direct inquiries I intend to produce, at some stage, a position statement regarding my views on Christianity. However, I am currently absorbed with one two other matters that I am following up; hence this promissory note.

Postmodernism and Emerging Christianity Part 3

In this third part I juxtapose the two articles on Emerging church in the April issue of “Christianity” with one final article that appears in the same issue. This article tells a story that has now become an almost dated cliché in EPC circles: That of the solid bible based traditional evangelical church which undergoes a “charismatic” revival/renewal….. except that it doesn’t actually have a revival at all, but rather a sudden membership turn over – non-charismatics out, charismatics in. Or at least that’s the admission of the article where it claims that the church concerned (which is in America) only retained around 25% of its original “conservative” membership.

The story is a classic: a restless pastor or group within the church, bored with what otherwise appears to be a successful if rather dry, stuffy and stolid church is looking for “more”. After the aforementioned congregational replacement the church is labeled “charismatic” and with the new temperamental cross section a new speak enters the church. We hear of healings, prophecies and even angelic visitations. The new members think in gnosto-dualist terms and the philosophy of the church becomes a de facto dualist philosophy which emphasizes the differences between the spiritual and physical worlds. It adopts a power vs. word paradigm of spiritual life, which is ironic given that so much of church life is now explained and reinterpreted by the “new speak”. The leadership is apt to become authoritarian, despising accountability for the simple reason that in the face of a catastrophic loss of support the leadership can no longer function with a consensus. The 75% majority of Church members who don’t go for the new speak have to be ditched. The new speak provides a ready explanation (or spin) for this situation; hemorrhaging membership is clearly down to fear and spirit quenching. The previous work of the church is evaluated negatively as at best “lacking in power” and at worse not being “in the Spirit”. Finally, the leaders of the latest blessing try to make inroads into the UK which they see as a plum ripe for the plucking. To this end these prophets of blessing may get a recommendation from some well known EPC figure in the UK.

I’m the very last person that should be labeled as “anti-charismatic” – I have no quarrel with those who believe they have had a sublime Christian epiphany which they may call, rightly or wrongly “Baptism of the Spirit”. But unfortunately the charismatic is often conflated with the gnostic, and my argument is with the elitism, dualism and fideism of the latter. Christian gnosticism thrives on those bored with their lives and who are looking for a “shake up” or the next big thing. They can make little sense of stark cosmic realities and by way of escape and compensation need a constant supply of rumors about the miraculous. These rumors do the rounds uncritically and their authenticity is utterly impossible to disentangle from spiritual spin, gullibility logic, spiritual bullying and authoritarianism. The lauded renewals are less revivals than a case of replacing a congregation with those who are sympathetic and/or susceptible to the new interpreting spin.

Significantly such moves make little headway amongst many traditional Christians who are, needless to say, regarded as Spirit quenchers. The failure of such “moves of power” to work other than by the self selection of a minority not only challenges the authenticity of such “moves” but, moreover, the very authenticity of Christianity itself. For if Christianity in the absence of one these vaunted “renewals” is regarded as just so much powerless marking of time, then that entails that a very large percentage of Christian work is lacking in spiritual vitality. This is a short step away from conjecturing that perhaps Christianity as whole is vacuous.

The final twist to this story brings me back to the theme of postmodernism in the church. Other authoritarian gnostic groups (like say Potter’s House) may well rubbish the latest revival because it has not happened amongst them and they, of course, regard themselves as being where it is at. Thus gnostic Christian groups form an inconsistent mass of believing partisans. No attempt is made to resolve the contradictions amongst them and such mutually inconsistent groupings may be regarded as being in the power of God simply because their conviction, vehemency, and spin are taken as self authenticating. If this insensitivity to inconsistency isn’t postmodern enough consider also the fact that April’s edition of Christianity magazine makes no attempt to resolve the apparent incommensurability between Emerging church and the revivalist churches, two Christian groupings who seem to be working with very different paradigms, spiritual weltanschauungs and agendas. Moreover, many “Emergers” in their search for Christian authenticity seem to be reacting against the hype and spin of the revivalists. But revivalist churches are apt to take the view that unless a church undergoes a gnostic revival, spiritual life is at best a preparatory period prior to full conversion or else a powerless marking of time. Thus, as far as the revivalists are concerned all the angst and hard thinking of the Emerging church is effectively down time between renewals. This is a serious charge and yet Christianity magazine doesn’t attempt to resolve the issue – it leaves the two community weltanschauungs as incommensurables. This, above all, is a very postmodern reaction – not postmodern in the soft sense of a humbled epistemology, but in the absolute sense that life doesn’t make sense, so don’t bother with any grand explanations that attempt to give it sense.

Postmodernism and Emerging Christianity. Part 2

In the April edition of “Christianity” magazine there is an interview with Brian McLaren who, the article says, is in the vanguard of the emerging church scene. This scene, the article says, is “rejecting the religious culture wars between conservatives and liberals [and] want[s] to explore a third alternative theological movement that seeks to rediscover and express authentic Christianity in culturally relevant ways”. The operative word here is “authentic”; that speaks volumes about what emerging church Christians perceive themselves to be reacting against and in this connection one must recall that they are largely “refugees” from EPC Christianity. For example, McLaren says “I have a deep heritage as an evangelical in the Charismatic movement”. Whether the “Emergers” are right or wrong, it would seem that EPC Christianity has an issue of authenticity to address - Why is EPC coming over as lacking authenticity?

In the interview McLaren says many things that strike a chord with me. For example:

McLaren: “....I’m not doing that because I doubt what the Bible says, it’s because I doubt what we say the Bible says”

Comment: Those Christians who automatically equate their interpretations with Biblical truth have a bad habit. Some can’t even see that the Bible needs interpreting at all and so conflate their views with the very word of God. I first came across this kind of thinking amongst Jehovah’s witnesses.

McLaren: “When you raise questions religious people can be amazingly vicious..”

Comment: Vicious? If religious people think their views to be the very word of God then in their perception they have good reason to be vicious: “If you are not with us you are against us, and if you are against us you are against God and if you are against God you deserve damnation”. Not only that: Questions can threaten a play pen epistemology; the world beyond the play pen is thought to be at best not worthy of attention and at worst an evil not to be engaged except with righteous anger.

McLaren: “..I grew up in a somewhat fundamentalist sect. They were ready to say you weren’t a Christian if you disagreed on a very, very fine point of eschatology.”

Comment: Such sects have no choice but to give one account of doctrinal fine tuning not shared by other Christians: namely, that they are yet another very, very small “Christian remnant” splinter group who regard all other splinter groups as either badly spiritually substandard or bound for hell.

McLaren: "There’s a history of intense schism in lots of sectors of the church and I’ve seen it at close range. If we want to get better at this, the first suggestion I have would be to go learn church history… Somehow, getting the bigger historical perspective helps us to stop taking ourselves so seriously”

Comment: Well said Brian. Study history? Many Christians are not mentally set up to do any study at all, especially extracurricular study. Study may be regarded as irrelevant to the spiritual life, or mere “head knowledge”, or even “worldly knowledge” contrary to fideist sentiments. And so they cut themselves off from learning and remain in their epistemological play pens. If they do see themselves in perspective it might just look as though they aren’t, after all, the “new thing” that they thought themselves to be, and that in reality they are just another splinter group in the grand sweep of Christian history. Such perspectives would challenge their exalted view of themselves and their pride in feeling to be where it’s at. They don’t really want to know that “It’s happened before”.

I haven’t read any of McLaren’s books, but from the interview alone I at least get a good first impression of Brian McLaren.