Confessions of an anti-post evangelical

I've been thinking about the following all day, thus why this particular posting is so long. Props to you if you get through it, just for showing interest in my ramblings. I'd love it if y'all tell me what you think about this particular movement that has emerged (pun COMPLETELY unintended) of the post-evangelical.

Before I get into the meat of this particular blog, I suppose I should probably explain what I mean by anti-post evangelical, because I know that makes me sound all reactive and anti-change etc. I actually find post-evangelical readings quite engaging and very valid (reference Michael Spencer a.k.a Internetmonk or Mark Driscoll or Brain McLaren to a certain extent). What I do tend to sense, however, and I expound on this further in the conclusion of my post, is the hostility that they seem to engender/hold against the "evangelical" church as it is labelled. Now I definately see something wrong with fat cat churches that hoard their material blessings given to them and selfishly spend it only on themselves instead of being good stewards with what God has given them. At the same time, in our rebukes are we being loving? Are we trying to understand the difficulty of moving away from ingrained habits? How hard (and as Calvinists argue impossible) is it to move away from your lifestyle of sin to become a child of God? Have we forgotten that the most basic step to becoming a Christian is one of the most gut-wrenching life changing decisions one will ever make? While (to use some common labels that are floating around) yuppy, pomo young adults (and I speak not of you Lydia Low :) ) are becoming disillusioned with the institutionalization and traditions of the church, I find myself becoming disillusioned with the disillusionment (if that makes any sense at all). Reading all of these "post-evangelical" readings, I read a very interesting comment that someone made asking "What makes you POST evangelical if you're just moving back to the roots of what Christianity was in the first century? Are you simply using the word post because you came from the evangelical group?" I would agree with that for does that mean being an evangelical makes you post-Catholic? Or post-Reformationist? I think not. Now for the main course of this post. (geez... that's a lot of usages of the word POST.)

The church that I've been attending recently went on a retreat this past weekend and invited a pastor by the name of Soong Chan Rah to be the main speaker of the retreat. His credentials are that he founded an inner city church in Cambridge that became hugely involved in the poverty and suffering of the neighbourhood that they planted themselves in, and having a great impact on it. He now goes around the continent speaking about his experiences and the deeper Biblical principles for what they did in Cambridge and how that can be applied in different settings (Young Nak is hardly in the middle of the inner city, more like in the middle of industrial factory land).

I liked his sermon. He preached on Amos 5:18-24 and about the part where Amos goes "Woe on you" to the wealthy and affluent of Isrealite society. It was an interesting application to current immigrant Asian culture and how we spend the material and educational blessings that God has given unto us. Do we use it to glorify God and worship him properly? Do we use it to see justice done here on earth by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless? And my personal addendum, do we use it to see that those hungry, naked, and homeless also receive nourishment, clothing, and shelter for their spiritual state as well? He argued that most of us don't, that we use this wealth to make an impenetrable bubble that we call the church and ride along until judgment day.

That in and of itself was very interesting (he preached his sermon almost like a university lecture... which was really cool). But what I found even more interesting was the underpinnings of post-evangelicalism that ran through his sermons. In isolation, that was not what was so interesting. What was interesting was that, beginning with this summer and with Les, and with a blog that I read last night (as well as the discussions I've been hearing about the Emergent and the Emerging - there IS apparently a difference - church movements) I've been hearing a lot about this post-evangelical movement. Just last night (or this morning I guess... it was 3 AM) I read this article by a guy calling himself the internet monk. Very interesting read and I didn't entirely disagree with the content of his article. The discussion that follows is even more interesting.

-note... read the article before reading the rest of this post. I don't want to taint your mind with my thoughts before you get a chance to form thoughts of your own. I would also at this time like to give props to Brad and Peter Thurley for slowly but surely guiding me TO the internetmonk. I don't disagree with any of his theology that I've read so far... just his philosophy.-

What I DID find disconcerting about this post was the underpinning of almost hostility that I sensed from this blog. I got the feeling that he was pointing his finger at these rich suburban churches and condeming what they were doing. Maybe he wasn't but that's what it sounded like. Because content wise I don't disagree with him. A $300 ski retreat (and that's US dollars) does seem slightly ridiculous to me... you don't need to spend $300 to talk about extreme discipleship and getting geared up to change the world (although I wonder how much of our summit costs are subsidized... because I may be sticking my foot in my mouth with that :P). But at the same time, it's a huge step of faith for someone to say I'm going to give that up and give that money to a church plant in India, and do it with the right mindset. For the act of giving money to a church plant could very easily just turn into a condescending, "let's help those poor Christians out in India out of the overflow of our wealth." It would be just as bad, in my view, to do that, although the outcome of the 300 dollars spent is most definately quite different.

The challenge that he gives is quite valid, but many people will read that and say "where does he get the authority to challenge my comfort like that?!" for only once does he reference scripture in his post (and that in someone else's quote, so technically he didn't ever quote scripture in his post). When I read that, and in light of the sermon that I heard today, I thought of the rich young prince that approached Jesus and asked him what he needed to do to gain eternal life. Jesus answers him, "You know the commandments, follow them." The rich young man responds, "All these I have kept since I was a boy, but what do I still lack?" (acc. to Matthew.) And according to Mark Jesus goes straight into "One thing you lack, that you sell everything you have, give to the poor and you will have treasures in heaven. T hen come, follow me." But before Jesus said this, Mark says that Jesus "looked at him and loved him"(emphasis added) [Mark 10:17-21; Matthew 19:16-21]. How many of these people that condemn that rich young man for being unable to sell all his possessions and give to the poor do so as they love him. How many of these rebuking comments towards the rich fat cat church that has developed in much of North America do so in love. I wonder.

--addendum--
A thought occured to me today. Though a very gross generalization, it does hold true in most cases. I was talking about my mother with one thing, and the idea of likes being able to identify and speak to each other came up. She made the point that rich people won't really listen to the Gospel when it comes from some homeless poor persons mouth, but will be more likely to listen to another person from the same community. Likewise, the poor person living in the inner city is less likely to listen to that "high brow religion" of them "rich white folk." They will listen to either someone that they can identify with, or someone they feel will listen to them. It's the concept of being all people to all people (or something like that). A suburban evangelical isn't going to change the mind of a "post-evangelical," and neither is the post-evangelical going to change the mind of the evangelical, as long as neither is willing to come to the same level and genuinely talk to each other.