In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.
Tom: You may remember our conversation about Independent Network Christianity (or
INC), the post-Pentecostal charismatic internet church movement from
California. (By “post-Pentecostal”, I mean that they are signs-and-wonders
focused, as you might expect, but have no connection to denominational
Pentecostals like the Assemblies of God. They are total freelancers.)
How do you feel
about autonomous “Christian” movements, IC? Are they suspicious by definition?
On Breakaway Movements
Immanuel Can: Every movement in Christianity’s history that
aimed at reform, corporate repentance or obedience to a new, more accurate
reading of doctrine has been labeled “rogue”, “misguided”, “anti-authority” or
“heretical” by those invested the status quo. There’s nothing new about that.
Tom: I did notice a fair bit of nose-in-the-air attitude wafting off the
article with respect to the issue of INC not being wedded to the traditional
Pentecostal denominations.
IC: Some of these breakaway movements certainly deserved that kind of
labeling; but in other cases, it was mere slander. Which is the case has to be
decided on the particulars of what the new movement is advocating, not on their
mere “newness” or the mere fact of them having a difference from the status
quo. But I know you believe that too, Tom.
Tom: I do. There was a time when eleven apostles were their own
breakaway movement, and we are unwise to forget that. And where would we be if
there were nothing but Catholics and the Orthodox out there? Probably
dispensing crackers …
IC: Right. So I want to be clear that I — and, I think, you too —
have no objection or even hesitation about something that’s new. In fact, I
long to see a new, more earnest, more obedient, more passionate and more
practical kind of Christianity burst forth. God bless it; I’m all for that. But
the real question is, is that what INC Christianity actually is?
Territorial Demonic Forces
Tom: Well, there may be passion and earnestness there — I can’t
say — and the leadership certainly appears pragmatic. I wonder about any
movement characterized by, as Smith puts it, “a particular fixation on
spiritual power, and a concern
with the demonic, including the innovative notion of ‘territorial’ demonic
forces.”
Territorial demonic forces don’t sound
“innovative” to me at all, but that may just be Smith’s unfamiliarity with the
concept. It sounds to me like INC might be riffing on the book of Daniel. But
the thing about demons is that we don’t know anything at all for sure about how
they organize or what they’re up to in the world beyond what has been revealed
to us in scripture, and that information is scant, to say the least. To get
fixated on such things sounds unhealthy to me.
IC: For sure. That’s certainly not the preoccupation of the word of God,
as a general rule.
Seven Peaks of Culture
Have you heard about the “Seven Peaks of
Culture” idea that the INC people are pushing?
Tom: Nope, that’s a new one on me. What’s that about?
IC: The INCers claim that Christians have to take over seven areas of public life — arts and entertainment, business, education, family, government, religion and the media. These they call the “mountains” or “pillars” of any
culture. They claim that back in the seventies, some of their early “apostles” —
they name Bill Bright and Loren Cunningham and add in Francis Schaeffer
for good measure — were given a direct revelation from God that Christians
have a divine mandate to bring God back into the culture by “becoming a change
agent”, and taking over (or, as they say, “reclaiming dominion over”) these
seven aspects of cultural life. Thus, we will “advance the kingdom of God”,
they claim.
Interestingly, above all, they name business as the controlling area of all the others.
They say control of wealth is how you control the other “mountains”.
(“One ring to bind them?”) ;)
Tom: They would be postmillennial then? I’ve read some Reformed people saying similar things about
reclaiming the culture. I wasn’t able to get much about INC theology from
Smith’s article. Well, I would say good luck with that, but I don’t think it’s
a likely outcome. Maybe their “apostles” need to get back to the Old Testament
and the book of Revelation if they want to improve their prophetic accuracy. I don’t
think the world is headed in the direction they think it is.
Saving the Nation
IC: Well, they think that they’re going to change that … if they can convince enough Christians
to join them. They think that the Kingdom will be brought about by saving nations.
Not just individuals — nations. And to save a nation, they say,
you’ve got to control the thinking patterns of the whole national culture. Then
they quote verses like Matthew 28:19, and say, “See? God tells us to make
disciples of the nations.” So we’ve got to save nations through their culture, infusing the whole nation
with Christian moral principles; and thus we will save democracy. They call it
“The Mountains Mandate”.
Tom: Well, you can’t save a nation. That’s delusional. The only value in a nation is that it’s a
bunch of individuals made in the image of God. It’s like God said to Jonah when
he was giving him a lesson in compassion, “Should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their
left, and also much cattle?” The issue for God is the people and the cows,
not Nineveh as an entity. Or Sodom. God would have spared a wicked city of
thousands for the sake of ten righteous men.
American Enthusiasms
And what’s with the emphasis on democracy? Nothing God has ever established since
the beginning of time has been democratic in nature.
IC: Their ambitions are all tied up with a few traditional American enthusiasms — democracy,
technology, big business, and nationalism, in particular — which they seem
to equate totally with God’s values. And above all, they associate the kingdom
of God with strategic human effort and influence. There’s a danger there in
overconfidence in the flesh, to be sure.
Tom: Do you think there anything at all of value in their package of distinctives?
IC: I’ve got to grant them a few points: They say that Christians have historically retreated from
influence in places like government, education and the arts. That’s true. They
emphasize that culture is a powerful source of false doctrine, and we ought to
be concerned about it; I think that’s important (and very, very important when
we are trying to raise children). They claim that entertainment has become
debauched, public education has been given over to ungodly values, politics
have become devoid of ethical values, religion is a pluralistic mess, and
really, economics are driving all these things. Yes, absolutely. I can’t
disagree with any of that.
But I think they’re still wrong about what God is asking us to do.
Gathering on YouTube
Tom: Okay, mission aside, what about mechanics? Smith says this about the way INC does business
(I’m not being snide here; it is literally business for them):
“The nodes of INC Christianity form a web of online venues, YouTube channels, roaming conferences, and church-based ministry schools that draw an international audience seeking both spiritual transformation and the power to carry out such signs and wonders. INC Christianity does not have a headquarters and is not tied to a denomination. Instead, it is a network of content providers that are tied to talent.”
No buildings, no churches, just events and
online portals. Saves a bunch of money, I suppose. But virtual
Christianity? Is that what we’ve come to?
IC: I suppose. At least we could say it’s a sort of virtual, pseudo-churchy club — although it’s one
with a definite hierarchy, and with non-virtual ambitions, and certainly, with
non-virtual cash flowing through it.
Tom: I guess I’m more than a little suspicious of a church fellowship that doesn’t fellowship. It is not a
new point to make, but the meaning of “church” in Greek is “assembly” or
“gathering”. How are you assembling when your church life consists of
downloading a course and/or going to a conference in your area once in a quarter?
Changing the World from the Foundations
IC: It’s not hard to see the appeal, though: get a “hot” experiential
brand of Christianity, be convinced you’re going to change the world from the
foundations to the top, and yet have no disciplines, commitments, required
attendances, regular duties, and so on to ruin your fun. Who wouldn’t
prefer that ... speaking only selfishly, of course.
Tom: Oh, I hear ya. Christianity without any actual Christians to
disagree with? What could possibly go wrong?
IC: There’s a great
irony here: INC Christianity prides itself on being counter-cultural, in that
it proposes to take over the key elements of culture, and then to turn them to
“Christian” uses. But in terms of its assumptions and methods of operating, it
is completely in harmony with existing North American cultural prejudices, and
really, operates in an entirely worldly way — nationalistically, in
keeping with individualist and consumerist values, through human ingenuity and
human economic strategies. It’s experiential, not disciplined or rational with
the teaching of scripture. And its program for the future bears no resemblance
to what God has indicated he wants or intends to do.
So in what sense is it really “Christian”? Surely only in the superficial. It
waves the Christian flag, but charges under the banner of secular methods.
No comments :
Post a Comment