EngineeredTheology

Apparently I’m a sucker for taglines. This one is “Ok, so the church is broken, now what?” Broken church, colorful rainbow covering most of the front cover – I was somewhat expecting some GLBT themed stuff about the church. Couldn’t be more wrong.

In summary, the book is written by three authors who have founded an emergent church called neXus (writing the capital X in the middle just there was literally painful). It is written in a conversational type style with each of the three writing only a few lines at a time. The colors of God (blue, green, red, yellow) are symbolic of the four principles of their church (faith, healthy living, community, culture).

I think I can bullet point my issues

1) I don’t get the point of the colors. It is apparently foundational to the church (and the title of the book), but to me seem very superfluous. I was expecting that they had some deeper meaning (and that the green color would be comprised of the foundations of the blue and yellow), but it doesn’t seem to be. It is like they were devised just so they could create this pretty model picture, only so the pretty picture could be misinterpreted as some homosexual statement (seriously, if you are culturally engaged you have to know what colorful rainbow symbols have come to represent).

2) The exegesis of the book is thin. I get that this isn’t a theological book, but if you have a main point that is founded by a new view of a scripture you need to have at least an appendix that addresses the issues a little more. I get the rhetoric that there is an over-focus on sexual sin, and that excommunication is not something they are in to – but you need to address that Paul recommended that certain people be excommunicated because of sexual sin. No, I don’t see that the parable of the sheep mean that the sheep getting lost was a good thing. Saying the man on the side of the road with the good Samaritan represents Jesus gets you into some difficult hermeneutics (so the Samaritan brings Jesus back to health?).

3) Because of #2, I have serious issues with their concept of God (“vertical relationship” as they call it). Basically, because of the completed and universal work of Christ, there is basically no way you can screw it up, or even disappoint God – so don’t worry about it (their words are “doesn’t need management”). In their reformed framework, the original sin of Adam which we inherited is totally taken away by Jesus for everyone (if they know it or understand it at all) – which makes Christianity both the problem and the solution. Seems easier for me to sidestep that whole mess and just be Buddhist (I already shaved my head so I figure I’m half way there); you reach the same endpoint theologically and don’t need any complex discussions.

4) In chapter 16 they describe what piece of pop culture has impacted them most significantly. The first one on the list is M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. My mouth is still gaping at that one.

This group may be one of the few who stand up and say “we are the emergent church”. The title is so vague, no one really knows what it means, so everyone has a tough time saying “that’s me”. It has come to mean, any church that is a reaction to the current Christian subculture. While their culture is certainly a reaction to the evangelical church, the theology is still firmly placed in the reformed framework. This would make emergent church less of a clean break from evangelical, and more of the next logical step in its formation (the same argument has been applied to much of the postmodern philosophy over modern). If we see a problem with what we evangelical church as become, we need to take a deep look at the roots (reformed theology) to see where we can move forward from where they have taken us.