The Need For the Body (EC BIOLA #4)
May 15, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
I love Dan Kimball. Regardless of any disagreements, I've loved him since I read one of his books a couple of years ago; and hearing him speak on Friday confirmed my opinion about him. His passion for knowing, loving, and serving Jesus with every ounce of his being is unmistakable and infectious. The Word of God is central in his ministry and he desires to be shaped by its truth. He values theology and intellectual pursuit. He's straightforward about what he believes and single-minded in his purpose. His purpose is to bring Christ to lost and hurting people, inspiring them to know, love, and serve Him with every part of their lives.
Kimball's gifts are very practical, relational, and artistic–he has no interest in discussing philosophy. He sees no need to understand the philosophies behind postmodernism because he's working hard and well in the trenches. Theoretical abstractions are the farthest thing from his mind, and well they should be. He ought to be focusing on using the gifts God has given him. But I think Kimball is making a mistake that nearly all Christians often make (and I'm including myself in this). Because he appreciates and enjoys his gifts, he sees other gifts–those foreign to his experience–as less important and possibly even irrelevant.
But philosophy is not irrelevant. Philosophical ideas, even if unknowingly accepted, ultimately have an impact on the practical and the relational. Philosophical ideas, even if they're in the background, will eventually undo well-intentioned service if they are opposed to the truth of God. Kimball may not have the interest or the training to examine these ideas, but there are many out there who joyfully serve God doing just this. And yet, he seemed frustrated that people wanted to discuss this aspect of the
What if, instead of dismissing philosophy, he were to value the parts of the Body gifted in this area and passionate about using their gifts to serve Christ and the Body? What if he were to submit to these Christians in the areas where they have a greater knowledge and understanding of the Kingdom? And what if the parts of the Body gifted in philosophy were to value worship that embraces art, beauty, and participation? What if they were to submit to the parts of the Body (like Dan Kimball) in the areas where they have greater knowledge and gifts?
We have two halves here, and we both need each other. The heart must be contained by the head, and the head must be expanded by the heart. (See my previous post for my view on how these two ought to relate to each other.) Instead, we both (yes, both) perceive the other side as attacking what we are gifted to do. We both see the other side dismissing the passion God has given us as unimportant. We know it's not unimportant because we have experienced the joy and fruit of serving God with our gifts, so we dig in our heels and defend our gifts and passions because we are convinced that if people join “the other side,” they will lose the essential, God-glorifying gifts we have to offer. And the way things stand now (for the most part), they will.
I call on those of you in the
I am left with a thought that sends chills up my spine…What would happen if we came together?
Related posts:
- Is "Control" Our Worst Enemy? (EC BIOLA #3)
- Dan Kimball: A Revolution in Church and Teaching (EC BIOLA #1)
- The Worship Palette (EC BIOLA #5)
- Worshiping as the Body of Christ
- Conversations on Community (EC BIOLA #2)
- Is Hierarchy Possible in a Church of Equals?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy
content rss
May 15th, 2005 at 10:41 am
Amy, your analysis is absolutely accurate! This is an amazing and awesome post!
May 15th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Agreed.
May 15th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Thank all you guys for the coverage of the conference. I wanted to go, but employment got in the way. You guys are providing a wonderful service here.
May 15th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
hello!
i really want to thank you for the kind words you said about me here. one thing i do want to say, is that when i was talking friday about the fact that i don't know too much about philosophy and still don't – i wasn't saying that i don't appreciate it or value it, i was just stating that I personally am not a philosopher.
There has been quite a lot of heady talk among some in emerging church circles that can sound confusing and even cause some normal students and pastors who don't know philosphy, to feel like they aren't smart or feel like they aren't good enough to be in the whole conversation. my statements at the talbot event, were to try and affirm those who don't know all the philosophy of postmodernism.
So, i do value philosophy and I do read some elementary level books about it. I am more in the trenches with people, so what I expereince is the result of philosphical shifts that impact day to day lives eventually. Knowing the roots of where it all came from is extremely important! so, i do read some books and have an ear to some philosophical discussion, but i am not a philosopher but a practioner.
Anyway, I do appreciate philosophy as studying that, is what enables us to understand why cultural change may be occurring. But, if a pastor or student doesn't know all the deep philosphical origins and names of people, doesn't discount them from being able to minister in a postmodern culture. That's what i was trying to say!
thanks for listening!
Dan
May 15th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Amy – great post. Thanks for the insight, it was very informative. Anyone who's had Dr. Joe as an instructor knows what an awesome man of God he is. I just wanted to share the following with your readers:
About 20 years ago I was attending a Baptist church in California when the head pastor and elders decided to fly back to Illinois and attend this new type of church called Willow Creek. Something “wild and crazy” was going on and they had to see what it was all about. Needless to say, when they returned my Baptist church soon became a “community” church, so as not to offend any non-baptists. Anyway, that was my initiation into the Seeker movement. (Yes, I left that church…I'm a Baptist for crying out loud)
I struggled with this new Seeker thing for a few years until God set me straight as He usually does. Now, 20 or so years later, with the mega-churches and now the Emerging Church movement. What's next?
As I read your posts, I kept thinking of Galatians 1:6-9 & Acts 17:12. I know it was God speaking to me because I was going through the same thing as I did with the Seeker movement.
I know the church is not about the buildings and music, etc. I guess I've concluded that if a church lacks the foundations of Christianity, i..e, the apostolic creeds, that the Scriptures, both Old & New Testaments are the inspired Word of God, that there is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etc. If Jesus Christ is not the foundation for which the church is built upon, then it's probably a hereitical church / movement. Thanks again
May 15th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
very nice. I was also there and felt the conference needed McLaren or a theologian/philosopher from the emergent camp. Our jr. pastor was frustrated that we didn't have that. He wanted to know if he should pursue emergent in his ministry or not.
May 16th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Dan, thank you so much for responding here and clarifying your position for us. I agree that a person does not necessarily need to understand the history of the philosophical ideas that led to a culture in order to minister to that culture. As long as that person is completely immersed in a biblical worldview, I think that asking the question “How can I best communicate the truth to these people in a culturally appropriate style?” is a great approach to ministry, and I know you've done some great work in this area.
My concern is that there are some who are not only adopting cultural styles to speak the truth, but they are actually beginning to adopt the cultural view of truth itself. They haven't distinguished between the cultural styles that are compatible with a biblical worldview and the philosophical ideas (ingrained in that culture) that are not. If a person can separate these two things, then he can be extremely effective (style must always bow to truth!); but if he's not able to recognize where one ends and the other begins, he's in danger of having his well-intentioned attempts to reach people end up distorting the message he loves.
I don't expect everyone to have the knowledge or training to separate the neutral aspects of culture from the ideas that are incompatible with Christianity, but I think it's vital that they keep an ear out for–and are willing to listen to–those who do. I appreciate so much your comments that you do not think philosophy is irrelevant!
Unfortunately, what I'm seeing from some is a lack of concern about these issues. What I've seen happen is that beyond merely adjusting the cultural presentation of the message, they are adjusting the message to fit the culture. Not everyone is doing this, but it's happening; and I think this can be avoided if we all work together. I thank you very much for doing your part by participating in the conference on Friday.
I also sincerely hope your weren't made to feel like “you aren't good enough to be in the whole conversation” at the conference. I thought your contribution was extremely valuable. You may not be teaching philosophy, but there's certainly no philosophy professor at Biola that could do what you do either!
May 16th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Hi there! Thanks for commenting here. The Emerging Church movement is a problem only insofar as it moves away from the core Christian ideas of the meaning of truth, the place and authority of the Bible, and the basics of the gospel. I think it's important that we be fair and discerning towards those who are involved. There is quite a range of positions in this movement, and we need to look at people on a case by case basis. In general, in this movement I have seen some problems in the areas I mentioned above, but I think churches could legitimately adopt some practices (like more participatory worship services) without compromising in these areas.
May 16th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Amy
May 16th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
HI again-
I did really enjoy the time there. I wasn't actually sure of what to expect, or I might have prepared a little differently than I did – but I loved the interaction and I hope the understanding that most of us in “the emerging church” are not as scary as some may think. I bet most of the critics who even sem to instantly condemn anything with an “emerging church” reference, night feel very comfortable to attend a worship gathering where they find respect to church history, preaching from the Scriptures that is not shallow, challenging people to repent from ways that do reflect walking in the ways of Jesus etc.
I hope that my being there was able to show some insight at least into what we practice and believe in our local church and is reflected in the books I have written.
I was familiar with the A-Team, as well as str.org before the conference. As i shared there, the largest section of my bookshelf is aplogetics books, so I am very familair with stand to reason and recieve the newsletter.
If you ever have a question or something you want clarification on, please feel free to contact me.
Dan Kimball http://www.vintagefaith.com
May 17th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Fair and balanced blog.
May 17th, 2005 at 11:51 am
Thanks, John–that really means a lot to me. It's good to see you here! (Although that video haunted me for several hours yesterday!)
And thanks to all of you for your comments. I hope you will all continue to challenge us so we can refine our thinking together.