Core/Non-Core Beliefs: More from Dan Kimball

I think what I like most about Dan Kimball is that, unlike a lot of what I see (or perceive) in the emerging church, is that he always, always keeps Jesus as the central core of who we are and what we are doing. I think that often the lines get blurry in emerging churches as we get so caught up showing people the love of Jesus that we fail to show them Jesus Himself. Dan Kimball never seems to forget this & constantly reminds us to do the same.

This latest entry is directly from his blog at http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/06/what_to_use_for.html#comments.

Be challenged and enjoy.

What to use for a metaphor of "core" or "non-core" beliefs

I was part of the Emergence event this weekend that was in Seattle that Zondervan put on. It was an informal panel discussion based a lot out of the Listening to Beliefs of Emerging Churches book.

On the panel was myself, Mark Driscoll, Doug Pagitt, Karen Ward, and the moderator of the panel was the NPR radio host of "Speaking of Faith" Krista Tippett.

I got to go out with Mark D. afterward on Friday night and he took me to a Seattle hang out and we chatted for a couple hours. It is always good to hear what is going on in his life and in the incredible growth and story of Mars Hill Church. Then Saturday, I went to Karen Ward's church, Church of the Apostles, which I have been wanting to go to for many years. Then Saturday and Saturday night hung out with Doug as went to where he spoke at Mars Hill Graduate School. And it was fun to see my old dear friend from Santa Cruz, Wendy Elizabeth who was at the event too and hung out with us.

The format of the panel was fairly loose - we sat in chairs in a row and had informal sort of dialog about a wide variety of issues. In the beginning to start it, we each presented a little about our church. So I walked through how as a 3 year old church, we are "asking God to transform us into a-worshiping-community-of missional theologians".

When I got to the "theologians" part I tried to describe how we want to focus in terms of doctrines and beliefs on the ones which throughout church history and whether one was reading the Bible in the year 500 or 1500 or 2007, would be truths that have been understood by Spirit-filled believers. I labeled these are "Core Beliefs". These are the ones which I believe we should be uniting over and focusing on, especially as we are living more and more in a post-Christian culture.

I then put up another slide showing what I called "Non-Core" beliefs - which are doctrines and beliefs that have a diversity of opinions on them throughout church history. These are ones that someone may have a personal opinion about - yet at the same time there are godly, Spirit-filled scholars and theologians who have differing opinions. Which to me, shows that God knows what is truth on these matters, but we as sin-tainted human beings have a harder time understanding for 100% certainty on these issues.

For example, in the "Core Beliefs" I listed that Jesus will return and there is judgment that will happen. But in the "Non-Core Beliefs" I listed that how Jesus will return but the timetable is not clear. The clarity is that He will return, but the unclarity is how He will return (amillennial, premillennial, post-trib, pre-trib etc.) We may have an opinion, we may think we are right. But the fact is, there are differences of opinions about these issues throughout church history and in the church today. Or that God created everything ex nihilo "out of nothing" (as I believe) but not argue about whether it was a literal 6 day creation or if it was a 6,000,000 year creation. We may have an opinion, but there are godly Spirit-filled Christians who agree on ex nihilio, but differ on how long it took and whether Genesis 1 and 2 was supposed to be looked at as literal 24 hour days or not.

So I was trying to stress, that I wish we would focus on what I called "Core Beliefs" and unite on those. I hope we don't fight, point fingers, slander, argue about the "Non-Core Beliefs". I have read and heard such ugly attitudes from Christians about these things in the "non-core beliefs". I know that "the role of women in the church" is such a very hot and understandably emotional issue, and some may say it is not a "Non-Core Belief" but a "Core Belief". But the fact is, there are wonderful people who take the study of Scriptures very seriously, and hold the Scriptures with high authority and do have differences of opinion on that and are complementarians or egalitarians. So I put that in the "Non-Core Beliefs" category, as something we shouldn't fight over or slander others if another church holds a different opinion than our own.

After I said this, I was challenged that coming up with distinctions and using a metaphor of "Core" and "Non-Core" is not a good thing to do and metaphors fall short etc. I agree that every metaphor falls short. But as I have been thinking about it, I cannot think of another way to put it. I know God does not see "core" and "non-core" beliefs, as the whole Bible is inspired and He knows what He meant in the ones we have a harder time figuring out.

If someone has a metaphor, or way of describing what I am trying to communicate with this, I would love to hear it. I just looked at the slides I used again, and of course there could be a hundred things listed on each one. But it was best attempt at trying to explain the difference of "core" and "non-core" and make a summary of what I was trying to communicate for a slide presentation. I do wish we would stop pointing fingers and mocking, slandering, bickering, and all that happens about the "non-core" beliefs though. Especially in the days we live in. I did include Apple/PC and the DLR/SH letters stand for "David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar" and that who is the better singer for Van Halen is a "non-core" issue.

I don't want to make light of the seriousness of doctrines, but I also was trying to stress that I hope we don't go too far and argue about things I wonder if we will be ashamed at one day with other brothers and sisters in the "non-core" list. Maybe it is too hard to even try and make some sort of list and use a metaphor. But that is my thinking as of 12:08 AM as I sit in Timberline Lodge in the mountains of Oregon. I am here for the Doctor of Ministry class that I am in, and we are here all week.

Posted by Dan Kimball on June 05, 2007 at 12:22 AM Permalink

Dan Kimball on the Consumerism of the Church

Dan Kimball is a guy who has really challenged me in the past few months. I am on my second read of "They like Jesus but not the Church", this time around with highlighter and pencil in hand. Super challenging, incredibly enlightening.

This is from "Out of Ur"'s blog. Well worth the read.

Vintage Consumerism

Dan Kimball on the history and impact of consumer Christianity.

We caught up with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007), at a conference where he was talking to other leaders about consumerism and the church. Kimball says the size of a church isn’t what makes it consumer driven, but how the leaders define success.

You’ve been talking to other pastors about consumerism in the church and the impact it’s had on our theology. How do you begin to recognize that impact?

You hear a lot of the complaints and valid criticism about the church being “a provider of religious goods and services,” as Darrell Guder says in the Missional Church. I started thinking about my own church and asking could the leadership be the ones who are really guilty of this? How did that happen?

I began to think about our meeting spaces. The early church met in homes where it is easier to participate, people can contribute, can be more vocal, make a meal, whatever. And then worship moved to the Roman basilicas and the format changed. People became more passive, but they still walked around and engaged. After the Reformation pews were brought in and people began to understand church different because they become passive. Expectations of a pastor and a leader become different. People expected us to do things for them.

So how has that translated into the church today?

We’ve been taught that this is how church goes. This is what you’re supposed to do. But now we’re making it better and bigger—better seating, better lighting, better sermons, better parking, better children’s ministry, better youth ministry. We’re simply fueling the whole thing.

But all of the consumer assumptions underneath are the same.

Yeah. And we haven’t yet challenged those assumptions. But my bigger question is what is this producing? Is it really producing people who are living and demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit in their lives? Are they loving one another and loving God more? What are we looking at for success?

So what is your sense? Are the ‘bigger and better’ churches producing the fruit of the Spirit?

I think it depends on the church leadership. As you talk to different leaders you pick up what they focus on. Ask them how they define success or what are they most excited about. That’s an interesting question. It reveals a lot. You can have a church of twenty thousand but what are you looking at as success? If I walked up to a person at your church would they say I’m here to get my religious goods and services. Or would they say I’m an active participant in the mission of this church, and this big worship meeting is just one part of it. Of course you can go to a small worship meeting and have the same exact thing. So it’s not about big church or little church necessarily.

So what are you guys doing at Vintage Faith to question those underlying assumptions of consumer faith?

We are asking God to transform us into a worshiping community of missional theologians.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Say that again.

We’re asking God to transform us (because it can’t be done through human effort); into a worshiping community (because we want to be worshipers first); of missional theologians (because if we’re on a mission in our culture we have to be thinkers).
We’re calling the church more of a missional training center as much as we can. We’re launching community groups. We’re calling them "community groups" even though we see them as house churches, but that name has weird connotations for some.

And what about your worship on Sunday, does that look different too?

Not really. Sunday meetings are just one part of the rhythm of the week when we all gather together, and we try to express worship to God and to teach in ways that creatively reflect who we are and the values we are striving to hold. Sundays are about community, care, worship and Scripture. But I’d hope that if you were to walk up to someone in our church and ask them “What is church?” they wouldn’t talk about the big meeting but about being on a mission.

Posted by UrL on May 29, 2007

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/05/vintage_consume.html#more