TheDeSocios.com

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern, You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don’t think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern		82%
Reformed Evangelical		82%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan		64%
Fundamentalist		61%
Neo orthodox		50%
Roman Catholic		43%
Charismatic/Pentecostal		36%
Classical Liberal		21%
Modern Liberal		7%

What’s your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

The funny part is that its probably true. I snagged this from Chrissie Koerber’s blog.

I actually had a tie breaker question that asked:

Which do you agree with more?
1. Older churches are unintelligible to modern people – This was the one I chose.
2. Preaching the word is more important than worship

In my defense many older churches tend to unintelligible to modern people, and I can’t see how you can separate preaching from an intergral part of worship.

So I’m trying to go through the process of ordination in the PCA, it involves coming undercare, then interning for a year, and then passing a number of exam. But there seem to be some problems, and I might be stuck having to wait another 6 months until I can start the process. I was talking to my dad the other day, and we were joking around about stuff as we normally do, and I said that if Paul had been presbyterian, we would be missing several books of the bible, because he never would have had the permission, or time to plant those churches. I’m not saying I hate the presbyterian system, but sometimes I feel the weight of red tape. I wonder if we have focused so much on reforming certain aspect of the church, such as worship that we have not addressed biblical church government. I believe that the plurality of elders is biblical, but I do wonder if some of the rules set up for the ordering of certain denominations have been put to the refiners fire in the same way other parts of our system of doctrine have been. The Westminster Confession of Faith say “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.” This would seem to apply to the ordering of the church, wouldn’t it?

Semper Reformanda

I hope this post doesn’t get me in trouble.

So its been two months and I thought I would finally sit down and write something about our recent church decisions. Starting last summer I felt increasing pressure about whether or not I could stay in the RPCNA, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. The root of my problems stemmed from an uncertainty over accappella psalmody, a belief which the denomination considered an essential distinctive. I had entered seminary with a clear understanding of why I held the position but as I thought on it more and more, and as I went through classes that dealt with the topic my views slowly started to change. I ended up holding to accappella psalmody with the understanding that I was all together unconvinced, but did not want to leave my denomination, one that my father was an elder in, and one that had sent me to seminary. I felt very alone. I thought that I might be able to remain RP if I was not forced on the issue. I also thought that I had time to think about the matter more. That took me through my first year of seminary.
Summer came and my thought focused on more important issues.
The topic came up again at Presbytery over the summer where a student was asked if he thought that it was a sin to sing anything other than a psalm unaccompanied. This question really bothered me, because I knew that if asked, I could not say that singing hymns with instruments was a sin.
I was forced to take a closer looked at what I believed, and started to question if I should pursue ordination in the RPCNA. It did not bring my call to the pastorate in question just my denomination.
At the same time that I was questioning my denominational beliefs I was also being exposed to the thoughts of Mark Driscoll. I was fascinated with the notion that a church could both hold fast to the truth that God had given, and at the same time be very creative in how they interacted with their community. As I looked around at the RP church I did not see this happening.

These two things began our quest.

Of course I knew of other “Generic” presbyterian churches, but was not sure that they were the place I should be looking. A pastor that I once knew inappropriately called the PCA and the OPC generic in a plea to keep the RPCNA distinct. We started our investigation at steel city church, a church I would feel comfortable calling emergent. We visited the church for three weeks. What we saw was people proclaiming faith and a good vision for church planting being set forth, but what we did not see was any sort of comprehensive explanation of their theology, or their organization of the church. What I ended up feel was that the church was seeking to please the Lord but had not really fleshed it out in any substantial ways. Even after receiving their membership manual we struggled with understanding what they stood for. We left unsatisfied.

My second year of seminary started and I was still undercare of the RPCNA.
As a student undercare I was instructed that I was responsible to read the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Testimony of the RPCNA, their second subordinate standard.
Because of my recent thinking I took this very seriously, although I admit I was not excited to work through two standards which I saw as outdated. When I finished I had written five pages outlining my objections, yet I only question one line of the WCF, and four and a half pages were written about my disagreements with the RP Testimony.
In fact I came to deeply admire the WCF, and it was this fact that ended our search. I felt that I needed to be in a denomination that held to the WCF, and at the same time one that did not shy away from engaging the lost around them.

So this is how we moved to a generic presbyterian church.
I say “generic” with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek-Her we go PCA, Here we go!

My buddy Brandon in his blog was speaking about the global shift that is taking place. Christianity is loosing ground in the “western” world, but gaining ground in second and third world countries.
Brandon’s post isn’t presenting some new theory he is just stating the obvious. The one thing that he did say that I had not though about in a while is that America is now the third largest mission field in the world. So is this good or bad? Well maybe that depends on who you are, or more specifically how old you are. Personally, I don’t lament this changing world because I see more opportunities, than loses. American Christians are now living in a culture where we don’t have to travel at all to become missionaries.

The other day I read an article by Chris Wright, in it he discussed the idea of semper reformanda, always reforming. This idea that came out of the reformation. Wright suggests in his article that we who hold to semper reformanda should be examining the doctrines that separate us, both inter and intra-denominationally. This examination of divisive doctrine is what gives us the ability to reunite with sister denominations. When we are constantly examining these doctrines for biblical basis we have the ability to admit error and to change.

It sounds to me like the idea of semper reformanda will be a pillar of reformed churches of the future. Especially in light of ideas like the emergent church, where rather than seeking unification in the body, diversity to encouraged to the point of a theological tabula rasa. Where new believers are not encouraged in an organized church, but rather many new believers are encouraged to figure out what they should believe, from the ground up. Here is a quote from Emergent supporter Scot McKnight:

“The emergent conversation is being challenged by traditional Christian groups to articulate its theology. What do you believe is a question being asked, and until the emergent conversation and its leaders articulate its theology at some level — this is what we believe, this is what we don’t believe — then the church will not take notice to the degree that it perhaps should, because the church always has articulated its theology”

Wright also talks about the idea of “agreeing to disagree”, which I feel is a excuse for laziness.
I would argue that the progression of a christian life moves from being many living in sin, called to seek unity in the body our Lord Jesus Christ. Or do many see the progression of a changed life starting at the one salvation but leading down many roads, with many ideas of how to worship and how to organize?

“26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:26-29

It seems that unity in christ is to be one of our goals as a christian, not the “lets agree to disagree” mentality that is everywhere in our age.

Semper Reformanda,
Sam