As I read Ray Andersons book An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches a thought continually rolled around in my mind: Emerging

churches cannot be afraid to remain faithful to the gospel while at the same time looking, acting, and engaging differently. Anderson is not reticent to push for an emergent theology rooted in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He advocates a gospel presentation done in a contextual manner that makes sense to the hearer. The difficulty arising from Andersons advocacy of a contextualized gospel, and the reasons some shy away from doing the hard work of contextualization, is the likelihood of misunderstanding by ones peers. This struggle, however, is not new but plainly seen in the discord between Jerusalem and Antioch. The church at Jerusalem, states Anderson, could always look back, and they often did, in order to assure that Moses and the Messiah were on the same track.1 It seems that in an effort to keep connection with the Temple and the traditions the Jerusalem church put itself in a box. Jesus would be received as savior only as one submitted to circumcision according to the Law. The problem, however, is the gospel had penetrated lands and cultures with no connection to the Law or the Temple. The Church had popped out of the temple-box and the emergence of Gentile converts at Antioch demanded a paradigmatic refresh. The expansion of Gods reign, then and now, requires continual revitalization otherwise the Churchs vision becomes one of imperialistic narcissism.2 C.S. Lewis appropriately states, there exists in every church something that sooner or later works against the very purpose for which it came into existence. So we must strive very hard, by the grace of God to keep the church focused on the mission that Christ originally gave to it.

Ray Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2006), 203. 2 Ibid, 182.

It is quite possible the Church has now entered into the sooner or later of which Lewis writes. The irony, however, is this time is not new or even unique. The churches at Antioch and Jerusalem seem to have returned to our present era with full force. The modern church the church of the enlightenment has, at least in my opinion, moved into a temple-box similar to that of Jerusalem. In my experience todays church is, by and large, comfortable with ministry that seeks to preserve what is and uncomfortable with what is out there. Statistically, Christians are far better at proselytization than evangelization.3 The implication, at least in the West, is a majority of Christians who feel no obligation to take the gospel beyond the borders of the Church beyond Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit is always moving forward toward new opportunities to expand Gods kingdom. Emerging through those Spirit revealed opportunities, however, is the revelation that current theology and praxis in need of renewal. Anderson stresses the importance that a new theology must revelational, incarnational, and eschatological.4 He also places great importance on a theology built upon the cornerstone of Christ. As the Jerusalem and Antioch churches began to diverge theologically there was opportunity for great division. However, both Jerusalem and Antioch held that Christ was their common cornerstone.5 Because a common foundation was agreed upon, space could be created within both churches for contextualization of the gospel. In other words, both churches could coexist and advance the gospel as long as they held Christ as the center of their theology. The previous assertion does not imply an untroubled co-existence, however. Galatians and other Pauline letters reveal a process of intense dialogue between Jerusalem and Antioch delegates. Though the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 had attempted to
3

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/186-survey-shows-how-christians-share-theirfaith?q=outreach 4 Ibid, Emerging, 11. 5 Ibid, 204.

provide uniting guidelines between Jewish and Gentile believers, certain parties were not living up to the agreement.6 Nevertheless, because Christ was the core of both theological positions there was a way forward. There are, I believe, similarities between the early church and where we as believers are today. The early church, especially the Gentile community, existed among an attitude of religious pluralism.7 Todays church stands in a position akin to its predecessors. Societal change and attitude toward religion has been skewed by scandal and apathy. Contemporary society is becoming more and more secular in its worldview, but also, searching for a new spirituality. In light of this reality the church has, I believe, one of two options: 1) carry on with business as usual or, 2) embrace the idea that the Holy Spirit is still moving and find new ways to present the gospel of Christ. These choices, however, also present the church with a conflict not unlike that of Pauls time. If the contemporary church chooses to carry on as usual then it may be in disobedience. The Jerusalem church had apparently made the choice to remain connected to the comfortable environs of the Temple. Even though the Holy Spirit was obviously pushing across barriers there seems to be reticence by the Jerusalem leaders to connect with the new move of God. Similarly, the contemporary church has seemingly become comfortable with its buildings, properties, programs and more. As such, it has placed itself in a box that is being pummeled by a shifting culture demanding a gospel without the fanfare of religion. If the contemporary church does not engage with the world it may be beaten down to an unrecognizable blip. If, on the other hand, the church chooses to step away from the normal by engaging current culture with the gospel in unique ways, it then faces the challenge of remaining faithful
6 7

See Galatians 2:2. Ibid, Emerging, 141.

to its Christocentric core. This is no small task. On one hand, the emerging church is reacting to the stagnation or lack of concern of the church from which it is emerging. This can lead to an overreaction that attempts to distance itself from any religious form. To emerge requires some distance from the origin but it does not mean complete separation. Instead, the emerging church seeks to filter through the gospel any superfluity hindering the presentation of the gospel in a contemporary context. Accomplishing this filtering process, however, requires a tenacious clinging to orthodoxy without making it more important than Christ Himself.