Flirting With Apostasy

Are emerging church leaders sufficiently aware of the inherent dangers involved in encouraging people to deconstruct their faith?  Is it possible that instead of eventually leading them to a more vibrant faith, they may actually be contributing to some people's apostasy?

Consider the words of Jesus:

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." - Mark 9:42 (NIV)

The NIV fails to render the Greek, skandalon, correctly here.  It more accurately conveys the idea of causing someone to fall away from their faith  (cf. NRSV, NLT).  And the consequence for causing someone's apostasy will be worse than death.

I suppose there are MANY ways by which we might "cause" someone to abandon their faith:

• abusing our Christian freedom in front of weaker brethren.
• being a leader who is spiritually abusive.
• forsaking the faith ourselves.

In light of all this, here's what I'm thinking:  If we think we can challenge the tenants of our faith, and encourage others to do likewise -- and do all this without assuming any personal responsibility for its outcome in the lives of others, I fear we are treading on very dangerous ground.  The culture at large seems to stress the individual nature of faith, rarely if ever emphasizing how our beliefs and practices have an impact on (or ar tied to) others.  I for one certainly grew up viewing apostasy as purely the choice and action of the individual.  If someone chose to reject Christ, that was entirely "their" responsibility.  But Jesus' teaching in Mark 9 is now challenging me to think otherwise.

How long will we keep hanging on to the "I'm not my brother's keeper" mentality?  What will it take for us to take on the sobering and frightening realization that our actions (even when part of our "freedom" in Christ) have the potential of shipwrecking someone else's faith, and pointin us out as the responsible party?

Comments

[Gina]

This is a nightmare I have. For me, it is religiosity and personal pompousness that I feel could put me in this danger. Please pray for me.

[Carlos]

I can see where you're heading. On the one side the wish not to cause division, on the other the feeling that you need to challenge the way our faith is presented. How do we enable change in the tenets of faith without going astray?

Well, look at verse 30 in the chapter you quote. Keep the peace among yourselves. Check the beginning of the chapter you quote: Who will be greatest in heaven? Not the competitive arrogant, they won't.

The responsibility of a pastor is great, to give leadership and to lead by example. I have a gut feeling that if your heart and works are in the right place, God will be able to forgive you if you do fall into error once in a while. Let me put this into a positive:

If it weren't for corageous christians who did fall into error at times, our faith would be a monolith and lack in variety.

[Benjy]

That picture is great--too funny !

[DLE]

Wow, DP, from TheOoze to this? They won't let you post there anymore if you insist on questioning whether Emergent leaders are taking people into apsotasy.

Apostasy is all around us. It makes it very hard for Christians to stay true to the Lord today.

[Faith McCloud]

"Is it possible that instead of eventually leading them to a more vibrant faith, they may actually be contributing to some people's apostasy?"
And yet, on the flip side, the deconstructing of our faith is what is keeping many from apostasy too! I know many (and I might even include myself) that were raised in a very conservative/fundy/etc. way and have grown weary and sceptical of the Christian faith all together and if it were not for the "corageous" few, we may very well have walked away all together.
So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't... *wink* I mean that light heartedly. I agree whole heartedly with Carlo's last statement.

[Chris]

Faith, thanks for pointing out the flipside of this reality:

"And yet, on the flip side, the deconstructing of our faith is what is keeping many from apostasy too! I know many (and I might even include myself) that were raised in a very conservative/fundy/etc. way and have grown weary and sceptical of the Christian faith all together and if it were not for the "corageous" few, we may very well have walked away all together."

So tragic and so true. Over and over again I encounter people whose experiences in strongly fundamentalist/legalistic churches either destroyed or crippled their faith.

Those of us who are pioneering new expressions of what it means to be the church do not want to bury our heads in the sand on this one, or convince ourselves that we're immune to this sobering topic. That's why I desire to explore the various ways apostasy might be encouraged or caused by others. What's that saying about an ounce of prevention? :D

[Chris]

DLE, I want to respond to what you said:

"They won't let you post there anymore if you insist on questioning whether Emergent leaders are taking people into apsotasy"

LOL! I've been challenging EC'rs (including myself) on TheOoze as long as I've been posting there, Dan! And it kinda goes without saying that no EC leader in their right mind would do such a thing intentionally. But if "community" is as important to us as we repeatedly claim, then we have to get off of our individualism-ridden butts and step up to the plate in terms of our responsibility for one another -- especially those with whom we have an obvious influence.

In the past, Fundamentalists have injured some people's faith through their legalism. I'm praying that EC'rs don't end up injuring some people's faith through different means.

Always nice to see you posting here, by the way.

[Benjy]

Everyone I know in the emergent movement is keenly aware of the communal aspect of our faith. I think it's what we are emerging out of that poses the danger: suffocating people by not giving them freedom, insisting there is only one right way to interpret scriptures and truth, not being able to be honest about struggles and doubt.

But I hear your heart on where you are coming from here though.

[Chris]

Gina, thanks for your honesty. I think we could all benefit from our praying for one another in this area.

Lord, help us.

[Chris]

"I think it's what we are emerging out of that poses the danger: suffocating people by not giving them freedom"

In some places, you're right. Fundamentalism and legalism in particular have certainly damaged lives and undermined the Kingdom.

But Benjy, I've also seen EC leaders who indeed have "freedom", but who have been reckless with it -- whose unrestrained sense of tolerance and que sera sera attitude toward morality (for example) have led to damaged lives and destroyed communities of faith.

Freedom and responsibility.
Freedom and restraints.
Freedom and self-sacrifice.

Seems to me that this is what's needed.

What your rhetoric seems to lack, my friend, is more evidence of the "both-and" thinking that characterizes those who operate from a postmodern point of view.

"Everyone I know in the emergent movement is keenly aware of the communal aspect of our faith"

What does that mean? Do you refer to the acknowledged "importance" of community? The "desire" for community? Or the actual "practice" of community? You and I have talked before about how our culture longs for authentic community, but -- due in part to the absence of prior modeling and experience -- is struggling in their attempt to figure it all out.

"But I hear your heart on where you are coming from here though."

Okay. I'm glad to hear that. But what exactly do you mean? Are you acknowledging that there's "truth" in my concerns? Or are you simply acknowledging in a nice way that I have a contrary viewpoint? I could take your remark either way; that's why I ask.

[Benjy]

What I mean is that it's really to early to say. This new way of thinking and living started a decade ago, or maybe 25 years at the most. Of course we should expect to see some extremes at the beginning.

I was hearing you say that you felt that I was being too general and not specific enough, but I would say the same about the original post. Just b/c this movement has the potential to mess people up doesn't mean that it already has. I can't say that I know of anyone not in relationship with God right now b/c they were offended by the exercise of someone else's freedom. But yes, I do agree that the potential is there.

And yes, it's not either/or but both/and.

[Gina]

"What I do with others bears on my own salvation"- Protestants don't hear this well, so conditioned are/were we to think that God's got it all covered for us. The Holy Spirit will fix it all better in the end.

Yes, he will, thank God. But I need to be working out my salvation in fear and trembling every day. That makes a person cautious, in a positive way- conservative. For me this perspective shift is one of the gifts of Orthodoxy I'm most grateful for, along with the inherent checks of being part of a definable tradition and community.

I see conservatism in the emergent movement in that there's a willingness to pull back and re-examine the premises of evangelicalism. The difficulty is in how to go forward again from that pull-back position. The answer seems to be to experiment.

On TheOoze I've said before that experimenting with the position of my desk lamp is one thing, with the configuration of a high-voltage transformer another. In the emergent movement, what are the circuit breakers that kick on to say "enough, no farther"?

[Chris]

"In the emergent movement, what are the circuit breakers that kick on to say "enough, no farther"?"

Great question, Gina.
My hunch is that many EC'rs would respond with: "who says we need circuit breakers?"

Experimentation is important; probably essential. But who is out there urging responsible experimentation?

I appreciated how you put it:
"I need to be working out my salvation in fear and trembling every day. That makes a person cautious, in a positive way- conservative."

Sometimes I wonder if rather than working out our salvation with fear and trembling, we're working out our salvation however we darn well please. And it's certainly not limited to EC'rs, but neither is it limited to IC'rs.

Gina, in your mind, would those in spiritual authority over us serve as some of those "circuit breakers", along with our theological traditions?

[Carlos]

"My hunch is that many EC'rs would respond with: "who says we need circuit breakers?" Experimentation is important; probably essential. But who is out there urging responsible experimentation?"

During the formative years of the church the churches founded by the apostles acted as circuit breakers. Later christianity saw ecumenical councils and creeds, canon and tradition. Today we have greater and smaller international organisations and communions that take this place. World Council of Churches is one of those, lutherans have their World Federation, Anglicans their Lambeth Conference ... the good thing about this is that they aren't too concerned about what is being experimented with on a local level (that's where bishops, supervisors etc. come in) but with the big picture.

Christianity has great selfsearching engines built into itself. If novelty goes beyond orthodoxy or orthopraxis (if the shoe starts being too small) someone is bound to blow a whistle! The answer to that is not to shut that whistle up but to listen to it. Protestant churches have however a history of moving out of the whistleblowers range ... I think that when it comes to that, the line between reformation and apostacy grows thin indeed.

[Frank Emanuel]

As an emergent pastor I think that your concern is valid but there are some leaps that you have made which trouble me as much as leading people in to apostacy troubles both of us.

The first is that all post-modernism is deconstructionist post-modernity. Even modernity is founded in challenges to the dogmatic - or what was passed on by authorities and unquestioned. But there are many advocates of a reconstructionist post-modernity where you never deconstruct for sake of deconstruction - but for the express purpose building something stronger.

That one is a bit harder to get your head around and involves a lengthy discussion of how it works out. But the second leap is a little easier to work with.

I feel that you are assuming that laying bare our own personal beliefs is a bad thing. But it is really the only socially responsible thing to do. If we are calling people to live what they believe - that is live a life that is a sacrifice of worship as the only reasonable response to Jesus' death and resurrection - then why do we want to skirt around the places that will solidify this are their own revelation. And when someone really comes face to face with the revealed reality of Jesus then everything changes for them. If in the process they realize they didn't believe, then we now have the opportunity to reveal Christ in us to them in a way that captivates their hearts.

In fact I think that the church that never challenges us to examine what we believe, but just accept blind dogma, that is the one that leads to apostacy. Jesus had the harshest words for those who enforced the letter of the law without the heart of it. You can believe in all the right things, but for the wrong reasons and Jesus will tell you that he never knew you.

[Jamie Arpin-Ricci]

Great questions. I recently posted at my blog asking what advice we could offer new comers to the emergent journey that would prepare them for the rocky part of the road. There is some interesting comments. Keep it up!

Peace,
Jamie

[Chris]

Frank, thanks for the well-articulated post. You raised some important objections and affirmed some important truths. I'll try to respond.

I didn't say "that all post-modernism is deconstructionist post-modernity", although I can see how my opening questions may have led you to think so. Oops! I've long been an advocate of "responsible deconstruction", which is committed to "reconstruction", or as you put it so well: "a reconstructionist post-modernity where you never deconstruct for sake of deconstruction - but for the express purpose building something stronger." So I believe we're on the same page there.

"I feel that you are assuming that laying bare our own personal beliefs is a bad thing."

Actually, I believe we must work at nurturing an environment where it is safe to share one's beliefs and doubts in complete honesty, without fear of judgement or reprisal (this is hard for many people to practice). Alan Jamieson, in his book "A Churchless Faith", does a great job pointing out how significant this is. In addition, I believe it's important not to get stuck in an "honesty-for-honesty's sake" mode. I'm discovering that people are also longing for meaningful reflection, challenge, and even leadership. Does that help? Are we a bit closer?

"And when someone really comes face to face with the revealed reality of Jesus then everything changes for them. If in the process they realize they didn't believe, then we now have the opportunity to reveal Christ in us to them in a way that captivates their hearts."

Well said, Frank. I pray we see this happening more and more.

"In fact I think that the church that never challenges us to examine what we believe, but just accept blind dogma, that is the one that leads to apostacy. "

I completely agree. One of the BIG mistakes evangelical churches made in recent decades was to take meaningful theological discussion our of their community life together, making it no longer safe for people to wrestle through what they believe or don't believe. In addition, many fundamentalist churches became even further entrenched in their "behave, believe, belong" mode, which really means: behave as we behave, believe as we believe, and then you can belong to what we belong to. Not only do these approaches lead to apostasy -- as you've pointed out -- they often lead to spritual abuse.

I suppose, Frank, that I should have originally posted a much longer piece, and served up this topic from a more comprehensive approach. I guess you have helped me see that sometimes what I don't say ends up saying as much or more than what I do say!

I look forward to hearing your further thoughts.

[Gina]

I believe we must work at nurturing an environment where it is safe to share one's beliefs and doubts in complete honesty, without fear of judgement or reprisal

In our practice, the place for this is confession.

Grounding the common worship on such an exploration of belief and doubt- if that's what is happening, I don't know- sounds like a recipe for confusion.

[Chris]

Gina, how about during catechism - when the purpose is to learn the tenents of our faith? Isn't the "primary" purpose of confession, "confession" and not exploration?

Maybe I should also ask, how long are confessional sessions or how long can they be?

[Gina]

The length depends, mine have so far been 30-45 minutes. I'm not sure about "exploration," but it would be the primary place I would talk about and get counsel on doubts or struggles with the faith as well as the things I give thanks for.

It may be that the paradigms and circumstances are so different, my comments don't apply. If so, I don't want to distract the discussion.

[fdr]

The priest usually has to clear his schedule when he knows I am coming to confession.....

[Gina]

World Council of Churches is one of those, lutherans have their World Federation, Anglicans their Lambeth Conference

Carlos, these you've mentioned (at least the WCC and Lambeth) lately serve as warning for many because they see them dismally failing to restrain apostasy. So, I suppose, in a way they are in fact acting as "circuit breakers."

I do think we do well to seek as much accountability as possible, in our own time as well as holding ourselves accountable to the body of Christians across the centuries. And trust in God's mercy to help us remain faithful!

[Todd]

Chris, good post. How do you connect the context of the question that raised the statement to which you refer? A young man asked me about this verse a few weeks ago. I am interested in how we often 1) treat the text as though it is proposition embedded in story and so extrapolate based on the principle or 2) we connect the verse in question to the story and find ourselves in the story and how it might be that we would cause someone to stumble around the question of greatness. Is it possible we may be overlooking an important feature of both the question of the disciples and Jesus' answer? (Just had to answer a question with a question to maintain my EC points - lol).

[Carlos]

Gina, no church body by itself can stay out of "trouble" by itself, indefinately, not the WCC, LC or the LWC. See what happened to the papacy? I do believe that the councilar process is needed to maintain the church in truth. That means dialogue, the art of listening to each other and to admonish where that is called for.

[Chris]

Todd, thanks for asking the questions about how we should view Mark 9:42 in it's textual context (or at least I think that's what you were asking).

The concerns over our causing someone to skandalon (i.e. fall away from their faith) is strongly set within a context of "self-absorbtion" on the part of the disciples. They're arguing over who will be the "greatest", and Mark arranges the material in a way which elucidates the dangers of such a focus. In doing this, Jesus illustrates who the "least of these" are: a little child, the outsider who is driving out demons in Jesus' name, and the person who only has a cup of water to offer his disciples. To cause even the "least of these" to fall away (and by inference, anyone of greater importance than the "least")is a most grevious offence. The juxtapositioning of Jesus' teaching on anything that causes US to skandalon ourselves (9:43-48), strongly suggests that our own sin not only has the potential of causing our own falling away, but the falling away of others as well. Mark's placement of Jesus' divorce teaching immediately after (10:1-12) only reinforces this same idea. Israel's religious leaders have distorted God's original intentions concerning marriage and have done so for their own selfish purposes. In this case, it was the women who were the "least" (e.g. not formerly able to divorce their husbands or charge them with adultry), but Jesus affirms the value of women (the least) and elevates their status through his radical re-clarification of God's intent for marriage.

Anyway, it seems abundantly clear to me that the context vividly illustrates how living purely for ones self can have damaging and damning consequences. Self-absorbtion may not only be a sin in it's own right, but likely contributes to a host of other sins; sins of "omission"; sins with horrible consequences. In a culture that emphasizes individual responsibility, I fear it's all too easy to skip right past all of this. Does that help?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, Todd. You TOTALLY get extra ECP's for answering a question with a question, man.