The Two Christianities
April 17, 2007
Posted by Dan Edelen in : Best of Cerulean Sanctum, Boldness, Charismatic, Christianity Outside North America, Christianity in North America, Church Issues, Counterculture, Discernment, Dying to Self, Faith, Godly Character, Humility, Maturity, Relevance, Simplicity Functions : Trackback,
Print This Post
,
Email This Post
Sometime around 12:30 AM on Saturday morning, as I shut down the lights in our downstairs in anticipation of going to bed, it hit me. I finally understood something about the Church that I’d never realized before. Some may not see what follows as any great revelation, but it jumped out at me so strongly that I nearly couldn’t go to sleep for thinking about the ramifications.
I haven’t processed it all, but I’d like to share what I discovered. Like I said, it may be a big ho-hum to you, 
but I now see why the Church in this country fails to grow and meet the basic objectives of discipleship.
Consider two different Christianities at work, the Externally-Motivated and the Internally-Motivated…
Externally-Motivated (EM) Christianity sees the Kingdom of God existing in systems and institutions “erected by God” or by Christians faithful to God. The essence of what it means to be a Christian dwells in hallowed monolithic icons, largely existing outside the believer. We see the expression of EM Christianity whenever we encounter Christian groups and individuals seeking to preserve or defend some aspect of the truth they see encapsulated in a system, institution, or organization.
By nature, EM Christianity is conservative in that it works to retain and preserve those creations because it equates an assault on them with an assault on the Kingdom of God. EM Christianity bases much of its credo on the Old Testament and Old Covenant because Israel invested its faith in God through the accoutrements of God in the Temple, in the Ark, in the Law, and in the evidences of God it erected in the faithful community.
But negatives within EM Christianity abound. By equating systems and institutions with the Kingdom, EM Christianity becomes a fear-based expression of the Faith. Not a day goes by without some perceived threat erupting that may be “the final blow” to the hallowed structures maintained by “good Christians.” Therefore, EM Christianity assumes a defensive position at the least provocation because EM Christians live their lives from the outside in.
Furthermore, EM Christianity’s defensive stance exists to defend the community within EM Christianity, rather than looking beyond the group. In other words, it loves its own and that’s as far as it goes. Blindness to causes that ask for a Christian response, but don’t enhance EM Christian strongholds, runs rampant. In the end, EM Christianity creates an insular community that resists the call of the Lord to go into the highways and byways to find those not initially invited to the party.
We see a practical expression of these negatives in the culture wars waged by American Evangelicalism. Leaders that follow the EM practice of the Faith resort to fear to marshal their followers against perceived threats against the systems and institutions that, in their eyes, represent the Kingdom. You can hear their mantra in the following battlecry:
The {opposition group} is going to destroy {pillar of External Christianity} by {sinful tactic}, which will lead to {fearful outcome}, and the end of {secondary pillar of External Christianity} as we know it!
Creating fear-based “Mad Libs” by filling in those brackets becomes an exercise in identifying EM Christianity:
The homosexual lobby is going to destroy our children by infiltrating our schools with pro-homosexual children’s books, which will lead to sexual identity confusion in our children, and the end of the family as we know it!
OR
The Democrats are going to destroy our legal system by failing to approve conservative judges, which will lead to godless special interest groups running the country, and the end of the United States of America as we know it!
You can go on an on with this formula.
What’s sobering for Christianity is the resemblance of that thinking to the following:
So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
—John 11:47-48
And we know exactly how that ended. The chief priests’ and the Pharisees’ cry sounds very much like the fearful lament of EM Christianity, based as it is in spending all its time and effort in propping up systems and institutions that are secondary (or possibly in opposition) to the expansion of the Kingdom.
Another troublesome issue within EM Christianity concerns its reliance on charismatic leaders to push its agenda forward. When such a leader stumbles, the flock who followed him scatter and the movement loses momentum or falls into public disgrace. We see this all the time and it hurts the cause of Christ in this country immeasurably.
Lastly, those who follow an EM Christianity find themselves subject to the whims of forces having nothing to do with the expansion of the Kingdom of God. Their emotional state shifts with whatever perceived “win” or “loss” follows their cause. Because their faith is so rooted in externalities that can suffer at the hands of the godless, they set themselves up as martyrs even though they may very well lack the proper grounding to be true martyrs for the Faith. Theirs becomes an angry expression of Christianity because of this dilemma.
Yet despite these lacks, EM Christianity is still Christianity. It’s the response of people who have had their eyes opened to the pernicious realities of sin, but have not yet developed an understanding of the Faith that goes beyond labeling others as sinners or saints. EM Christianity is not a seasoned expression of our faith in Christ, but a waypoint on the path to true maturity.
Internally-Motivated Christianity, in sharp contrast, invests little time and energy in externalities. Its hope is not in systems and institutions because it understands that those succumb to entropic forces. To the IM Christian, the Kingdom of God cannot rest on externalities prone to decay:
And when [Jesus] was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
—Luke 17:20-21
The distinguishing mark of IM Christianity is the Holy Spirit, who dwells inside each believer. The Kingdom exists because the Spirit comes to live in each believer, that indwelling marking the end of the Old Covenant and the beginning of the New. The externalities, the mere representations of the Kingdom of God, surrender at Pentecost. Therefore, the Kingdom of God cannot be destroyed from without because the Kingdom of God is within us. When attacked, IM Christianity responds with grace and love. It continues to offer Christ to all, even to those who oppose it.
For this reason, IM Christianity signals the mature Faith because nothing can diminish it. Its liberality comes from its freedom to give without fear of loss. IM Christians have considered ALL things lost, receiving in return what cannot be taken away. Though all the systems and institutions collapse and the heathens run amok, IM Christianity remains at peace because its adherents carry within them the fruit of the Kingdom. The Enemy cannot prevail against IM Christianity and cannot sway its adherents because they realize the Kingdom of God lives inside them. The power of God doesn’t come to them from the systems they create, but through the Holy Spirit working miracles in the absence of those systems. They live their faith from the inside out.
IM Christians…
…have humbly died to the externalities.
…don’t concentrate on defending external systems and institutions prone to decay.
…concentrate on the real mission of evangelism and disciple-making.
… comprehend that they are expendable for the Lord because their lives are hidden in Christ.
…work best under persecution.
…have nothing to fear because what they have cannot be taken away from them.
…are truly free.
When we examine the state of the Church in 2007, we find that EM Christianity predominates in the American Church, while IM Christianity marks most regions of the world undergoing revival. IM Christianity thrives in places like China, India, and South America. Those lands have no institutions or systems that support Christianity, anathema to an EM Christian. In fact, institutions and systems in those countries oppose Christianity. This forces the Church there to internalize the Faith. And so it flourishes.
If a warning exists for IM Christianity, it comes in the form of the giant step backward. As noted earlier, EM Christianity exists as a waypoint on the journey to mature faith. However, IM Christianity’s misguided tendency is to retreat by creating systems and institutions that must be defended at all cost. Persecution helps keep this in check, and may explain why the Chinese Church actively prays that the American Church will suffer like it does. When all the systems and institutions fall away, IM Christianity will be forced to take root or people will fall away.
Two Christianities: Externally-Motivated and Internally-Motivated.
Lord Jesus, make us Internally-Motivated Christians.
Couldn’t it be said, then, that EM Christians attempt to minimize persecution through political lobbying, “seeker-sensitive” evangelism, etc., while IM Christians, though perhaps not actively seeking persecution, know it will come and endure it?
Michael,
Yes. EM Christians have a tendency to see the Faith as a means of creating a specific lifestyle that meshes with the culture, but opposes it at the same time. Once that lifestyle is in place, they fight to keep it. Unfortunately the lifestyle choices they make tend to place a Christian veneer over the culture, rather than expressing a true counterculture like IM Christianity tends to foster.
Seriously incredible Dan. I’ve become an IM in an EM world. Seriously. And I’ve been told “what you are doing could cause a church split” and “it looks like your trying to undermine leadership!” when both is the farthest from the truth. I love my leadership and I defend them tooth and nail at times. The thing is, IM Christians find themselves inside EM churches, and heck, I know a number of IM leaders who one day wake up realizing they are working and serving in an EM church. Hard to deal with, and a hard transition to make.
Nobody wants to see their church in ruins. Of course God is in the business of rebuilding those ruins the way HE wants. Kinda the whole point.
I’m finding ever since God moved me into an IM state of being, I’m so much happier, freer and peaceful. I have people around me screaming and hollering that I’m evil, I’m mental, I’ve done this or that, and well… God is my foundation. My respite, and nothing can take that from me.
Sometimes I think my peace in these situations just makes more and more people angry, but then again, I see why.
Great piece Dan. Truly a great revelation.
Thanks, Ronni. I pray you can walk out your IM-ness.
Good post Dan. I can see a lot in that. But do you think that while true Christianity begins on the inside, in changed hearts and lives, those people changed from the inside out to work out that change externally into all areas of their life? The Kingdom of God begins internally, but shouldn’t stay there, but work outwards from people’s hearts into all creation.
Caleb,
At issue here is not whether EM-ers and IM-ers maintain some level of outward service, but where their motivation comes from. Both can look like they’re serving, but the motivations for doing so are wildly different. That’s why this is a subtle argument.
The Two Christianities…
Dan Edelen with an important post on the difference between Externally Motivated Christians (EM) and Internally Motivated Christians (IM): IM Christians… …have humbly died to the externalities. …don’t concentrate on defending ex…
[...] Dan Edelen has a thought provoking post on “The Two Christianities.” Very perceptive. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 6:53 am | Trackback | Permalink [...]
Well, Dan… you delivered.
::goes on a walk to think this one over::
Travis,
Thanks. A lot to think about. I may post more on this myself.
I would have to agree with Caleb.
I think a prime danger to IM Christianity (beyond retreating to institutions in an EM mode) lies in walling off the Kingdom of God into an internal, private space, disconnected from the “real world” of people, institutions, social forces, and entropy. Our hope lies in God, not in any institution. But transformed people will transform things outside of them, too.
About Luke 17.21, note that many (most?) Biblical scholars do not see “within you” as the best translation. The NET Bible translates “in your midst” and adds this translation note:
Some other translations:
NIV: “within you” (footnote: “among you”)
TNIV: “in your midst” (footnote: “within you”)
NASB: “in your midst”
NLT: “among you” (footnotes: “within you”, “in your grasp”)
ESV: “in the midst of you” (footnotes: “within you”, “within your grasp”)
CEV: “with you” (footnote: “in your hearts”)
HCSB: “among you”
All this to say that it’s probably best not to use this passage to demonstrate that the Kingdom of God is “inside” people as opposed to “outside”.
The greek word used is entos, which is a fairly straight-forward word meaning within. The only other use is in Matthew 23:26, where Christ tells the Pharisees that outward cleanliness is empty, but they should instead be clean within.
Which fits in rather nicely with the whole IM-EM thing.
Well, I don’t know. I don’t have access to the Liddell-Scott right now, but the Thayer has:
Guys,
I firmly acknowledge that the passage I chose has some lexical variations. I wanted to find one in-your-face verse and that one came immediately to mind. Others exist, yes. The whole point, though, is that the NT reinforces this idea over and over that true Christianity comes not from external trappings and motivations but springs forth out of a heart transformed. Because it doesn’t put its confidence in external structures, it’s truly free and unvanquishable.
The problem with the dichotomy you’ve raised is that Christ didn’t just send the Holy Spirit, he also instituted certain things that are visible and external: in particular the church, the proclamation of the gospel, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, the final paragraph of the Creed, concerned with the Holy Spirit, is the paragraph that deals most with these externalities: “the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins [i.e. baptism - cf. the Nicene Creed], the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.”
So I think you have created a false dichotomy here. There are in fact two problematic directions that Christianity can take. The first is to what could indeed be described as “EM” Christianity, in which Christianity becomes an empty formalism, of people going through the motions of church and ministry without any real belief in Christ.
The second problem comes where people then react to “EM” Christianity by saying, “Let’s ditch the externals”. The work of the Holy Spirit is turned into a direct and unmediated experience to which the church’s ministry of word and sacraments is at best incidental. The problems with this form of “IM” Christianity (i.e. Pietism) include individualism (it’s all about me’n'Jesus and “my spiritual experience”) and, frankly, spiritual pride (”I thank thee, O Lord, that I am not like those EM Christians over there, who need the crutch of externalities rather than experiencing the direct work of the Spirit”).
So in terms of the road-sign image with which you illustrate your post, I’d say that both forks in the road are wrong. The place we need to be is at the root, where the “externals” of word, sacrament and church and the “internals” of faith and the indwelling Holy Spirit intertwine and nourish one another.
PS: as for Luke 17:21, most contemporary translations render this as “the kingdom of God is among you”, not “within” you (see, e.g. NRSV, ESV). Jesus is not talking about an “internal” vs an “external” kingdom, but about the Pharisees’ failure to see that kingdom actually happening in front of them, in the person of Jesus and the community of believers gathered around him.
John
Consider the institutions Christ set up. None of them are in structures that can be readily attacked from without. They’re almost all internally-based, highly unlike the institutions EM Christians support.
I’m also not saying that IM Christianity has no externalities it supports. Obviously, the Church has an external presence. But even then, the source of that external expression of Church is internal. The only way to destroy the Church utterly would be to kill every Christian on the planet, and the chances of that happening are slim to none. The fact that Church doesn’t exist as a building but as believers illumined from the inside by the Holy Spirit makes the Church itself a poor example of the kind of external structure that EM Christians support.
EM Christians are more likely to have a devotion to the Church as a building. But the Church is actually you, me, and the rest of those who believe. IM Christians force the distinction there and it’s a big distinction.
Well, I would have to agree with John H. The way I see your listing of the differences between the EM and IM is that it is quite judgmental. In other words, there are two types of Christians, those who group Christians in two groups (us=better and them=worse) and those that don’t. Neither group is right (in this case), but at least one is self-justified and prideful.
I should say, that “John H” and “Jonathan Hurshman” are two separate people, despite the fact that they have never been seen in the same room together.
Wonderful, Dan.
I think, John, Dan’s used of the term Motivated, assumes where our actions are coming from. From fear? (External sources) Or from love? (Internal sources). So how we then “act” is going to look far different if we are acting out of fear or acting out of love. (Am I getting it right, Dan?)
I don’t think Dan’s suggesting we don’t act at all, the gospel compels us to act. But what occurs and how is completely dependent upon the why (or the motivation).
Again, Dan. This is great stuff. Thank you.
Lisa,
Yes. I should know that a better writer would explicate the issue more clearly! Thanks for the clearer assist.
Cerulean Sanctum » The Two Christianities…
Link: Cerulean Sanctum » The Two Christianities. A great post by Dan at Cerulean Sanctum. Are you an EM Christian or an IM Christian? What does that even mean and how will that affect Christianity in America?…
Heavy stuff, Dan, and I can see why it kept you awake. My little church is dealing with “heritage” which is, perhaps, another way to look at your EM focused Christianity. “This is the way we do it” is the Christian version of death by a thousand cuts, and is primarily focused on the external “look” of a body of believers. The moment Christianity becomes liturgical rote, rather than heart-felt belief, the dry-rot sets in. If you’ve ever sat in Church and pondered how much you dislike the look and feel of the service, start asking yourself why.
Looking at the response of Caleb and John Hurshman and John H, I think you’ve missed the primary point of Dan’s missive: Motivation. Yes, our inward belief is manifested in outward actions, but the actions are not our motivation. We are not saved by good works, rather, good works are evidence of our inward motivation of faith. Our motivation is not to baptize, disciple, or give, it is the evidence of our inward motivation to be be faithful to God. If we are motivated by work, then we will soon be lost. Christ did not approach calvary with His primary motivation being the salvation of the world, but rather obedience to God.
But as a bow to John H, not all EM churches are confrontational in fearing threats to their heritage: Most turn inward, darting down the Christian rabbit hole and “hiding” from the world. Not so much a false dichotomy as merely another direction we need to look when questioning our own walk, and that of the body we worship with.
David,
Yes. Nice summation.
Like I noted, I’m not saying EM Christians are not Christians, only that they’ve either not understood where godly motivation comes from, or they were once that way and let their faith focus on externalities to find motivation for continuing in the Faith.
I think you hit a nerve on this one…I think the concept of a “world view” is something that needs to be reviewed every once in a while, if only to show us that our words and actions are motivated by something even if we haven’t really thought through what it is.
Lisa: thank you for your response.
Had Dan expressed himself in terms of “fear-motivated” Christianity and “love-motivated” Christianity then I would have been in far more agreement with him.
However, I don’t see how “love-motivated” can be equated to “Internally Motivated”. On the contrary, the gospel teaches us that love comes to us from outside ourselves, as a gift given to us by Christ, by means of the word and sacraments, within the context of the church. It is not something we “work up” in ourselves as a motivation for action.
If anything, the message of the gospel is: love comes from without, fear comes from within.
John H,
But the EM and IM perspectives aren’t simply the difference between fear-based and loved-based Christianity. They also reflect where value is placed. That’s why I used the terms I did. EMs place value in structures they erect that may or may not have any value at all, then they tend to live out their faith via those structures. If the structures get attacked, they counterattack, often viciously. And they use fear to motivate their adherents.
To the IM Christian, the structures may be nice to have (or not), but they aren’t the source that functions as the repository of faith in Christ. IM Christians can suffer loss after loss of those structures and still function because their faith doesn’t depend on “godly” structures to prop it up. An EM Christian undergoing those same losses may either lose their faith, become bitter, descend into rage, or develop a martyr complex.
David: your comment crossed with my latest. My reply to Lisa may clarify where I was coming from.
I suspect we would differ over whether baptism and the life of the church are merely our response to an internal change, or whether they are the means by which God effects that internal change.
Well, then that would explain the direction you are coming from. I would tend to be in the camp that looks at baptism and our actions are a response to our salvation in Christ, and not our method of attaining it.
Just to clarify: I didn’t say baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the preaching of the gospel were “our method of attaining [salvation]“, as if they were our works by which we achieved our salvation.
Rather, they are God’s means by which he works faith in us through the pastor. There is no “work” by us involved in these means: we simply receive and believe.
[...] Edelen has a great post this week on two Christianities. Dan draws a difference between those whose Christianity relies on external structures (e.g. [...]
I don’t know about you folks, but I’ve tried it both ways and I’m here to tell you, it is impossible to live out the “Sermon on the Mount” unless you die to self and put Jesus on the throne of your heart. He is the only One who can “turn the other cheek”, “walk the extra mile”, “love those who revile and hate you”, etc, etc. (IM)
This is the Kingdom of God, Christ in you, the Hope of Glory. He is the Radiance of the Father’s glory and upholds all things by the word of His power. Unless He lives His life in you, what you do in your flesh is in vain. The Father is glorified when Christ is at work in us.
We must be dead so He can live. He erased our sin in order to prepare us for His undwelling. When you come to this point (death), and I’m not all there yet, the “outward” show of this is manifested in your mortal body. You will love others with His love, you will speak Truth into others’ lives with His Word. He performs these things through you. You CANNOT turn inward and hide His Light!
This makes the sacrements all the more meaningful! Baptism is your outward declaration that you no longer rule your life, but Christ is now on the throne. The LORD’s supper becomes the partaking of the LORD’s body as He told us to. Drink My blood and eat My flesh in remembrance of Me.
I am only a simpleton, and pray that I have not presumed anything from the above comments that is incorrect. I simply wanted to state what the LORD has written on my heart concerning the Kingdom (IM).
Thank you Dan, for a new prespective on this. This blog reveals to me that, even tho Christ lives in me, I am still way too EM focused.
Marie,
Thanks for adding to the conversation.
You say you’re still too EM, but I wouldn’t say it’s just you. I think most Americans are this way for no other reason than we been given an opportunity in this country to place our faith in the systems and institutions we’ve erected in the name of God. But if all that were to vanish tomorrow, we’d be forced to change. I suspect a huge number of people would simply abandon the Faith, but others, even though they may have EM-leanings, would be able to make the switch.
Like I said, the EM position is a waypoint on the path of Christ. Our problem comes when we think it’s the arrival point. It’s not. It’s perhaps one of the early checkpoints. We simply can’t stay there. If tough times force us out of that point, then the better for us and the Church as a whole. But if we stay there, we’re in deep trouble because we simply won’t last should excruciatingly difficult times come.
Good post and a lot of good discussion. When I read this, I had the same concerns that some above posted as far as the Platonic separation of material (and acting in a way that brings good to the material) and spiritual, but you have clarified that for me.
What I’m still a bit worried about is the strawman approach that sets up two easily definable stations, one “bad” through and through and one “good” through and through. I think we would all say that we strive to be an IM the way you have defined it. I know some that you would say fit in the EM, and while I agree in general with you, the more I openly discuss (or should I say openly listen), I find that they desire to serve God as much as I do (or more). For example, in the first illustration you listed with the anti-homosexual movement. Personally, I did not vote in last years big to-do against homosexual marriages. I don’t want to make that my platform. However, I know many who voted against it because of an honest loving heart for children, both Christian and non-Christian who have suffered from the instability of family life (not just because of homosexual marriages, but also divorce and a number of other things). Personally, I struggle with the issue of abortion because of its disrespect for life. This does not mean I hate people who have had an abortion or what-not but because I love God’s creation.
I’m rambling on here, and I believe that the heart of your post is right-on with its focus on motivations. I hurt for the people who will read this and see your definitions as tearing down.
Heather,
I think one way to explain the difference between EM and IM is to unpack that issue of homosexual marriage and its impact on kids.
The EM Christian immediately thinks of this as a government issue. By controlling the government (an external institution), we Christians can maintain traditional home and family.
The IM Christian looks at this issue and understands that the government is an unreliable means by which to effect change. Change only comes through Jesus Christ and the new birth. All other means of change are subject to entropic forces and the whims of the age. But Christ trumps all that. For the IM Christian, the means to bring about change is to be personally involved in the lives of others (even opponents on this issue) so that the IM Christian can bring the light of Christ into the lives of others. That’s the only assured means by which the homosexual marriage issue can be rendered moot.
The big problem for us as Christian in America is that we run to politics (or lawsuits) to get our way. That’s totally EM. If our government were different, we could not function as a Church in this country using EM principles. We’d have to be IM. The crazy thing is that IM is where we need to be anyway. Our politics actually stymies real growth. That’s why the Church in countries that persecute Christians (or permits them no earthly power) thrives. It has no power to change others using politics. It instead changes people through the true life-altering experience of coming to know Christ!
Okay, I see what you’re saying, and I absolutely agree.
I’m still concerned about the wording (and I’m speaking from personal experience) because I’m learning that God’s truth is spoken through the unity of His people, and though I am frustrated with what I see of EM (and frustrated with my own failings as well), to love each other in a way that shows the world who Christ is, I need to be the one to extend love.
For myself, I doubt that the mild debate occurring in the comments here represents an actual difference of opinion. As far as I am concerned, I reacted to my (mis)perception of a pietistic thrust.
Following Jesus involves a transformation of the inner person into someone who increasingly resembles the Master. That transformation does not (cannot) remain internal and private, but expresses itself outwardly in action which manifests God’s future within the present age, and this both in the behavior of individuals and in wider societal effects.
Renewing of the inner person -> renewing of external behavior -> renewing of all of creation
All this occurs by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by our own strength.
I think that expanding “…concentrate on the real mission of evangelism and disciple-making” to something broader, like this list from “The Only Difference”: “evangelizing the lost, training the young, feeding the hungry, fighting injustice, stewarding the Earth, and befriending the friendless” would be a more complete picture of what the mission of God’s people is.
(I continue to object to the use of Luke 17.21 in this context, but “good sermon, wrong text” is a pet peeve of mine.)
John H,
I’m not sure you’re making the distinction here because I think you’re thinking that IM Christians have no outward focus. They do. It’s simply that their outward focus isn’t concerned with propping up systems and institutions that others have imbued with a hallowed purpose. It’s not about outward behavior in itself, but the reason why the outward behavior takes on the flavor it does.
I’m not John H.
Jonathan,
Sorry. The limitations of my screen size and the similarities of names tripped me up!
“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another - and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” Hebrews 10:19-25 NIV
And things like this keep us spurring one another on toward love and good deeds. It is the agape (unconditional) love that drives us to want to “act out our faith” not a desire to make things nice, good, neat, proper, politically correct; EM things. However, if we loose focus on a “meeting place” like a church building (EM), and focus completely on the internal or individual appearance (IM), the world may never know we even exist. But then, I suppose, that even this website could be called a meeting place - let us not give up meeting together!
Nice insight Dan! Thought provoking as usual.
Aaron,
Yes, that agape love by its very nature moves us beyond institutions and systems because it simply can’t be found within them. IM Christians lead with love first and let everything else follow. EM Christians lead with systems and then try to imbue them with a hallowed purpose. That almost always fails because you simply can’t make a system or institution love unconditionally.
Yes, yes, yes! What blows me away right now is that God is speaking this message to a variety of people throughout our world. I have been longing for the IM life for a while now, even as I fill a role in an EM system.
I don’t believe that we can sidestep the need for revolution which requires revolutionaries. I want to be one of them. With a clear focus on pleasing our Father through his Son Jesus it is what we should do. I’m praying how I can be involved in seeing his kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. And I see how clearly I need his Spirit to empower us all for the task.
Thank you Dan. May the peace of the Lord be with you. Pardon me if I send a trackback too.
Dan: I’m responding to your various responses in one here.
I agree with Heather that part of the problem is setting up one wholly “bad” position in contrast to one wholly “good” position. My POV remains that both EM and IM as you have defined them are distortions of what the true position should be: namely, that the divinely-ordained “externals” of church, word and sacrament are the means by God creates the “internals” of faith and the indwelling Spirit.
This balance is set out well in the Augsburg Confession, especially the highlighted words:
So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments as through instruments the Holy Spirit is given, who effects faith where and when it pleases God in those who hear the gospel…
So both external and internal sources of life/motivation are needed. All you have shown in your post is that some Christians choose the wrong externals, not that externals are inherently bad.
Historically, creating an external/internal dichotomy (to the detriment of the former) almost invariably results in an extreme Pietism in which the ministry of word and sacrament are not merely neglected but actively denigrated. This is as deadly to the life of the church as an empty and formal “EM Christianity” is to the life of the individual.
John,
I think this is part of the misunderstanding.
The Word of God is not an external. If it were, removing all the Bibles in a country that persecutes Christians would signal the death knell for the Church.
If the Word of God is an external, how do explain that most Christians in the world and throughout history never owned a Bible?
I don’t believe the Word of God is an external. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit automatically makes it an internal because now Christ (the living and eternal Word) dwells inside the believer. No matter how hard you beat a Christian indwelt by God, you cannot beat the Word of God out of him or her. No one can take that away. That automatically makes it internal.
The sacraments have an external practice, but that does not automatically make them an edifice like the structures EM Christians erect. You can no sooner wipe out the sacraments than you could wipe out the Church. The kinds of EM systems and institutions I’m talking about can be easily wiped out by altering a few things here or there in the way they’re accessed and administrated. With a stroke of a pen they eliminated school-sponsored prayer, for instance. But no stroke of any pen can destroy the sacraments. As long as Christians exist, those things will be practiced.
Dan: I wonder if we are using “external” in the same way. I would say that the Word of God is very much an external in that it always comes to us from outside and beyond ourselves.
Even though most Christians have never owned a Bible, all Christians have received the Word from outside themselves: through preaching and the sacraments, through the public reading of Scripture, or just through being told it by parents or others around them.
The fact that this external Word may then dwell in our hearts doesn’t mean it didn’t originate from outside and come to us by external means: not just books, but primarily through speech, water, bread and wine.
If anything, this apparent difficulty with agreeing on what an “external” is shows why the word is such a problem. To maintain the “external = bad, internal = good” approach we end up having to redefine what is external and internal.
And I’d tend to invert your final sentence: as long as the word and sacraments endure, the church (and hence Christians) will continue to exist. The existence and activities of Christians do not make the sacraments what they are; rather, it is the promise of God bound up in the sacraments that makes us what we are.
[...] Edelen has hit yet another home-run with his post The Two Christianities. I say yes to every square inch of [...]
Dan, nice post. I just wanted to add a smidgen of a comment. In the past ten years or so, your “EM Christianity” has reared its head in politics. Christians who didn’t tow the conservative line have been punted from the field and many times their very salvation has been questioned.
My wife and I are lawyers (she’s much better than me) and many times we’ve been cornered by the “EMs” who wanted us to prove some political point through scripture. And since we are lawyers, we are probably more acutely aware how politics (liberal or conservative) does not equate to faith.
Again, nice post.
Peter,
You’re in a tough spot as Christians in the legal field. I can bet that neither side understands you at all. I think it may be even worse that you come from a Pentecostal background. That must really throw some people into a tizzy. “Wow, Pentecostals who can actually think!”
Excellent post. I’ve been struggling with this very thing but not able to put it into words. I think I grew up in an EM environment but long to be (and perhaps I am) IM. I think an properly placed internal motivation will result in the right externals - the right actions, etc. It’s comforting to know this seems to be an ancient struggle. Thank you for your excellent and thought-provoking thoughts.
Dianne,
Thank you for commenting and telling your story.
This issue is a tough one since it resembles the “red pill/blue pill” idea from the movie The Matrix. I think that much of EM Christianity suffers from not seeing there’s a greater reality at work. When you’re drowning, the entire world seems to be made of water.
I’m not a regular reader, but a friend forwarded me a link to this post, and I wanted to thank Dan for bringing up this important issue.
I actually approach it from a different angle, and I’ll get right to the point:
Being a Christian shouldn’t relegate you to the sidelines of important cultural issues. The logical conclusion to Dan’s line of thinking is that we create—by default—a ruling class of anti-God atheists.
I also find this argument:
“… those who follow an EM Christianity find themselves subject to the whims of forces having nothing to do with the expansion of the Kingdom of God. …”
… very incorrect. Especially for someone who is so eager to introduce grapes to his crops, as he explains on the “about” section on his blog. Dan, what do grapes have to do with the expansion of the Kingdom of God? To avoid any distracting “whims,” shouldn’t you sell your land and give it to the poor—ala the early church?
Here’s my point: Before Christians organized to defend their values in the political and legal arenas, the secular left had no real opposition to its agenda. The consequences? Prayers and invocations banned from schools and public locations . . . a legalized holocaust of abortion . . . illegalization of any lesson that suggests to children they are anything but advanced pond scum . . . a radical reduction in monuments to our nation’s Christian heritage, including war memorials. On and on it goes. Christians sat silently and watched.
Dan, does any of this matter? Because these are the consequences of the idea that Christians should avoid “damaging” their witness by abandoning public issues.
Let me offer two God-given victories—out of many others possible—that were won because Christians were finally internally inspired to take external actions:
Today, public schools have been reopened to the Gospel by way of Christian attorneys winning at the Supreme Court (google Good News Club v Milford). Had this case been lost, schools could kick groups off of campus like Young Life and other student ministries actively working to advance God’s Kingdom.
Next, what about parental notification laws: Dan, are these worth fighting for? Or should Christians—for the sake of the Gospel—have continued fostering statutory rape and allowing strangers to take our under-age daughters over state lines for abortions?
In these and many other cases, the idea that taking a public stand destroys a witness is irrelevant. Consider: I’ve been trying to witness to these Nazi guards, so I guess I’ll turn in the Jewish family I’m sheltering. After all, if they found out I was hiding these people, my witness to the SS would suffer.
Moving on, the idea of EM Christianity’s reliance on charismatic leaders is equally pointless—Dan, can you name one movement on earth that relies on boring, dull, uncharismatic leaders? Or that doesn’t suffer to a degree when one of its leaders is shamed?
And the idea that it’s good that the Chinese church prays for our persecution is not just irrelevant, but wrong—something Christ tells us not to even do to our enemies. On a side note, shouldn’t we praise God that “EM” church affluence is funding, by His grace, so much of the church expansion in China?
Other statements are misleading too: It’s true that the Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA) and Episcopal Church are not just not growing, but shrinking rapidly. But ironically, these aren’t the churches that Dan alludes to as so-called conservative “EM” churches—they’re the ones that have whole-heartedly embraced his ideas of self-silencing their public, moral voice—actually going a step further and embracing many of the causes Dan implicitly criticizes so-called EM Christians of fighting.
On the other hand, evangelical churches—the ones whose members have undertaken the task to save God’s plan for marriage, build a culture of life, protect Ten Commandments monuments, etc—have been blessed with solid, God-given church growth.
So ultimately Dan, to be blunt, you can go on living on your farm, harvesting crops that don’t advance the Kingdom of God, and thinking you’re better than EM Christians—a distinction of motivation only God can really judge—and you can take your freedom to home school your child, worship as you choose, and blog for granted too.
But the fact is that the people you clearly look down on—those you believe do not share your internal motivation to build God’s Kingdom—are fighting every day for your religious freedom. In my opinion, this is wrong and myopic; believers are inspired by God to many different purposes—some of which fall under the culture war—and all of which remain under the umbrella of God’s Kingdom and the Body of Christ.
Jeff
A good friend of mine has been to China several times and the persevering Christians, living under constant watch, risking their very lives everyday for the sake of the Gospel of the Kingdom (IM) are asking that the American church no longer come or send their pamphlets, etc.
The reason? The American Gospel is too watered down. Those who are “converted” by the American Gospel soon revert back to their old lives. This Gospel cannot sustain life.
I hope they continue praying for us. They live the true meaning of internal motivation and the Holy Spirit spreads like wildfire when He is able to work without all our human institutions muddying His message.
Jeff,
Thanks for stopping by!
Nearly everything you mentioned as defendable in your comments is secondary. None has much to do with the primary goal of the Church: to evangelize the lost and disciple them to faith.
If anything, those things prove my point because they are EM issues that have distracted the Church from its primary mission. EM Christians have flopped priorities and forgotten the primary purpose of the Church. This fully explains why the Church is not growing, not evangelizing, and not making effective, reproducing disciples in the United States. It has instead compartmentalized the Faith into these secondary issues and therefore must spend all its time propping them up.
This is what you may not wish to hear: none of those issues you mention are all that important to the IM Christian. The Kingdom of God come