Inklings and Emergents

I have made no apology about my obsession with The Inklings, whose writings have shaped my thinking more than any others (except--hopefully--for the Bible). I also attempt to keep up on what is current in Christian thinking and practice, not because I'm particularly interested in being "relevant" or "with it" but because we must follow Christ's command to read the signs of the times. For that reason, I also am interested in listening to the leaders of the Emerging Church like Brian McClaren, Dan Kimball, Spencer Burke, and Tony Jones.

I recently brought these two stands of thought together and came up with a remarkable observation: the two groups of Christian thinkers have some interesting commonalities, as well as some telling divergences.

Here's what I think:

COMMONALITIES:

1 - Both groups regarded themselves as an "informal conversation" rather than a formal, structured church ministry. Their conversation generally occurred outside the framework of institutional religion - in fact, more often than not, it occurs in pubs with pints of beer in abundance.

2 - Both groups are "trans-denominational," drawing from all backgrounds and theological perspectives.

3 - Both groups were critical of modern rationalism which confines all truth to scientific categories and all religious belief into a shallow, respectable "churchianity."

4 - Likewise, both groups were critical of the modernist view of God (almost Deism) and sought to reclaim the free, wild, sovereign Christ who shatters all of our pretentions and dares us to follow Him.

5 - Both groups prefered to use the arts (rather than systematic treatises) to communicate the Christian faith, seeking to engage the "intuitive imagination" (rather than just reason) of their audiences.

6 - Both groups had severe criticism for the institutional churches of their age for being more interested in self-preservation than in communicating Christian truth to people in contemporary language and in practical ways.

7 - Interestingly (but perhaps superficially), both groups were composed of white males. This is not a criticism of either group. It does, however, point to an irony in the Emergent movement, a movement which claims to represent a more diverse Christianity than that of the modern church.

DIVERGENCES:

1 - While the Inklings were made up almost exclusively of laymen, most of the Emerging Christians are either pastors or have served in some official capacity in a local church.

2 - The Inklings may have been deeply critical of the open heresy and sin in various Christian communions, but they were entirely supportive of (and indeed, loved) The Church as an institutional reality. On the contrary, most Emerging Christians are (at the very least) critical of The Church as an institutional reality, some of them opting to leave the church entirely. They stress the relational aspect of the Gospel almost to the point that they believe that the Institution is more of a hindrance than a means of furthering the relationship.

3 - The Inklings believed that their role was to bring the Church back to its basic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to fight against a watered-down, relativistic gospel that seemed prevalent in many denominations. Emergents, on the other hand, seem to believe that their role is to bring the Church into a greater engagement with American Culture, even as they present a very watered-down, relativistic gospel...even to the point of denying the exclusivity of Jesus Christ or His substitutionary atonement on the Cross.

4 - The Inklings followed the wisdom of the ancient and medievals writers who believed that, while our knowledge may not be 100% perfect, our minds are capable of reasoning, making judgments, and knowing the difference between truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Conversely, Emergent Christians are deeply suspicious of any truth claims and seem offended by any inference that a person must choose either/or.

5 - The Inklings, by and large, held a high view of the Bible and of the historic confessions of the Church. For them, these are not "living documents" to be updated in different cultural realities, but truth statements that confront all cultures and challenge people to repent and believe. Obviously, the Emergents have a much more watered-down view of Scripture and the Creeds, believing that nothing in Scripture is above culture. Therefore, cultural realities become the standard by which to interpret Scripture and the Creeds (rather than the other way around).

Well, that's what I think. What do you think?

A Christian Horror Novel!

Recently, I re-read Descent into Hell by Charles Williams. Williams was an "Inkling," friend and colleague of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, whose work spans literary criticism (of Dante and other medieval writers), theology (specifically on the religious meaning of love), church history, and...believe it or not, popular thriller novels (of which Descent into Hell is perhaps his greatest).

C. S. Lewis was once asked to list the top ten books that influenced his own theological perspective. Lewis included Descent into Hell on that list, and one can discern clear influences from that work in many of Lewis' own books, including The Great Divorce, Till We Have Faces, and The Problem of Pain (just to name a few).

The book is a thriller in that several of its characters experience supernatural visions or revelations which are indeed frightening. But in its basic theme, it asks and then attempts to answer a very deep philosophical problem: Can something be both frightening and good at the same time?

In the novel, the characters who most clearly "descend into hell" are those who live lives of utter detachment from the world and other people, and choose to love only the vanity of their own thoughts and ideals. Out of fear of an imperfect reality, they retreat into their own minds and neglect the need to be confronted with anything "other," thereby depriving themselves of redemptive relationship. Implicitly narcissistic, they love only their own musings and emotions and offer only bitter contempt for actual reality.

This reminds me of a quote from one of Williams' contemporaries, T. S. Eliot: "Hell is oneself, hell is alone, the other figures in it merely projections. There is nothing to escape from and nothing to escape to. One is always alone." In their desire to protect themselves from the imperfection of this earth and of other people, lost people unwittingly secure their own damnation. For the first step to salvation is to love what is outside ourselves, frightening as that may be for us contemporary Americans who have made self-love, self-reliance, or self-esteem the summum bonum of life. Indeed, to love (and be loved by) a God who is wholly other than us requires that we deny ourselves all together and seek Christ.

While occasionally a cumbersome read, the book is filled with delightful humor, poignant moments of grace, and raw truthfulness about our predisposition to sinful self love. I won't give away any more of the plot, and thereby rob you of a great read. But I will offer you Williams' conclusion to the question raised above:

"Salvation is quite often a terrible thing--a frightening good."

[P.S. - Since Halloween is coming up, I plan on reading another of Williams' thrillers, All Hallow's Eve, and Lord willing I'll have a post on it before Oct. 31!]

Inklings of Faith

Back in the 1930's and 1940's in Oxford, England, a group of scholars got together at a local pub (The Eagle and Child), and their expressed purpose was to discuss the implications of living out their Christian faith in the world. This group contained both Catholics and Protestants, but their shared concern was communicating the essence of the Christian faith to a materialistic world...and challenging the ineffectiveness of the Church in doing the same. This group referred to themselves as "The Inklings," and its membership included C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield, and Dorothy L. Sayers.

It is my conviction that what the American Church--especially its mainline denominations--needs today is a new group of Inklings willing to engage in theological conversation and find creative ways to transform the presentation of Christ's message, while maintaining its integrity and truthfulness. As it is, mainline leaders appear to be more interested in appeasing the various warring factions within their institutions. Regardless of what these leaders say about "our common bond as Christians," the various factions have NO shared epistemological foundations or like-minded vision of what the Church ought to be. In such a situation, those denominations have little chance of offering a united pastoral voice to a deeply troubled world.

So I'm opening this blog to post my thoughts on the future of Christianity, specifically on how we can communicate the message of Christ intelligently and compassionately, without selling out its substance, and without trying to limit the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. If you share these concerns, please join me!