What is Truth?
Pilate once asked Jesus a fundamental question, and it's a question that many are asking whilst scratching their heads and trying to ponder the emerging movement: 'What is truth?'
Well, here's a great little essay by emergent pastor (not quite in the mold of Mclaren, but emergent nonetheless) Darrin Patrick the pastor of 'The Journey' in St.Louis
[What is Truth| http://journeyon.net/html/pages/resources/essays/on-truth]
Click the link and have a read...
You can read more of my stuff at [...daylight|http://www.stephenmurray.wordpress.com]
- Stephen's blog
- 2222 reads
Stay updated
Who's been visiting?
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.
Comments
Darrin Patrick article?
Hi Spooh,
Can't access the article via the provided link. Can you forward the URL?
Regards
Willem
P.S. Great little comment by Jesus in Jn. 17:17 regarding truth - (a statement that time after time seems to go right over the heads of emergents and post-modernists) "Sanctify them in your truth; your word is truth." I once found that so plain and simple and sure. But sadly, the simplicity has been fogged up for me by so many well-put post-modern and emergent variations of Pilate's question that I feel rather, well... fogged up - plain stupid and backward. (Post-modernists and emergents often make me feel that way). I am beginning to realize that guys like pope "Brian" and his cardinals IS way too clever and cool and into the future for me. Think I'll just stay where I am and try harder to be less like Pilate and more like Jesus.
Forwarding URL
Here it is:
http://journeyon.net/html/pages/resources/essays/on-truth
Thanks
Thanks for the article, Spooh - a goodie :) Makes truth seem friendly, rather than a big stick to hit people with. Reminds me of the comment "We need a hermeneutic of love rather than suspicion" when it comes to interpreting the Bible.
Postmodernism and truth
Some people think that postmodernism is antithetical to truth. This is not the case.
Here is a snippet from [a response | http://www.youthspecialties.com/articles/topics/postmodernism/open_letter.php] to an anti-postmodernism article.
"In your article, you pronounced “postmodernism” dead, or on life support, or at least losing strength. You’re kind of right, because the kind of postmodernism you describe – “the philosophy that claims there is no transcendent truth” - was never really alive. It’s a straw man, Chuck, a bugaboo not unlike Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” used to create fear, galvanize sympathy and support, and perhaps raise money. (Everyone knows how a good enemy is a fundraiser’s best friend.)
What you describe as postmodernism – a claim that “there is no such thing as truth,” a rejection of all moral values, or their reduction to mere preferences – may have been purported by a few crazed graduate students for a few minutes at a late-night drinking party. But to paint the whole movement with that brush is just plain irresponsible. . ."
And from the [TallSkinnyKiwi | http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2003/12/postmodern_trut_1.html] (who also writes [a poetic response | http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2003/12/postmodern_trut.html]):
"Truly we both have a dizzying, interlocking world in which we live, a confusing mixture of modern and postmodern.
So we are at a stalemate? Not even remotely,
I am more modern than you anticipated, and your thinking is more postmodern than you thought.
Maybe we should both list that among our assets?"
And I'm sorry you feel unrespected when talking with post-modernists and emergents, Willem, as all sides to this debate would want to agree that mutual respect should be the starting point.
Antithetical?
Hi Roger
Unfortunately the general trend, even amongst academics in the secular arena, is to equate postmodernism with a complete lack of truth and so many people do think that postmodernism is antithetical to truth. I came up against this time and time again during my three years of undergraduate study at the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. And so although in a stricter, defining, sense postmodernism might not be antithetical to truth, at grass-roots level it is. And I know this is a generalization and so will not be true in all situations but I think it is important that we recognize the reality of it because it impacts on what 'emerging' looks like in the church.
The emrging church is attempting to address an issue that is near impossible to pin down and define - and so at the moment all we have are responses, or emerging out of 'symptoms' rather than the entire structure. This is why I think emergents, whether you're a theologically conservative emergent - like myself, or if you're less conservative have to be very careful how they communicate themselves to various groups. Each group is in a different place and has different reading of postmodernity and modernity etc.
I'm going on a short-term missions trip to Malawi in 2 weeks time and I highly doubt I'm going to bump into a small group of Malawi pastors discussing the emerging movement - they're in a completely different place.
The reason I say all of this is that emergents tend to throw blanket statements over the church and it's quite clearly, not always helpful. I think the 'dismissal' of the modernist church that comes across, for example, in Mclaren's works, whether he intends it or not, comes about because of such a blanket mentality - which I'm not sure he realises that he has. Maybe I'm missing him - but it sure comes across that way, and I can easily see how others might see it that way too.
That's helpful
Thanks Spooh, that's helpful. Good luck with your Malawi trip - great people - and I agree, Malawians won't necessary be talking about the emerging movement but I would think somewhere their headspace is in is post-colonial church. I think this can be one of Africa's big contributions to the emerging conversation (and others) - how we figure out how to do church in a continent where "before the Europeans came we had the land and they had the Bible. Now they have the land and we have the Bible." I'd love to hear feedback around the trip and if you think this particular angle is useful. Check out [Amahoro East Africa | http://www.amahoro-eastafrica.info/]for some specifics.
In terms of postmodernism being antithetical to truth, I have not come across a single scholar (Christian or non-Christian) who would state this - that would be irresponsible (the statement "There is no absolute truth" is self-refuting).
The best sense of using "postmodern" would be to understand "post" as "after" - so we'd talk about something like the "post-Reformation" church or the "post-apartheid" South Africa. I think we all agree that the modern era is gradually drawing to a close and ''something'' has to take its place...we don't yet know what that something is and something new is always first defined as what it is not (i.e. cars were first called "horseless carriages"). Hence, ''post''modernism.
I've found this article (["The 3 postmodernisms" | http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000071.html]) to be really helpful in nailing down the evolution of the word.
"...it is understandable that people get confused with the term postmodern.
As a follower of Christ, I am less interested in articulating the ideal definition of this movement in words than I am in helping contribute to what the postmodern world becomes in reality. I am hoping that many people of faith and vision can play a formative role in what will happen beyond modernity and adolescent postmodernity: seeking to be salt and light, seeking to do good works, seeking to do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with God."
Leading Deconstructed Horses to the Water?
Hi Roger,
If modernism was the age of reason, would "post"modernism then be the age of "post"reason? If Modernism was the age of logic, would postmodernism then be the age of "post"-logic? I could go on. I ask these questions because my problem with postmodernism is that no-one knows what it is, except to say what it has left behind, yet everyone is responding to it. It seems to almost be a status symbol these days to be a fundi on postmodernism. But the simple fact is everybody knows where "it" comes from, but no-one knows what "it" is. My problem with "it" is not so much what "it" is embracing or will be embracing (although I do have a problem with especially "its" (non)-epistemology), but rather what "it' seems to be rejecting, or at least moving away from - modernistic reason, logic, the notion of falsehood and counterfeit, to name a few.
Then, to say that the pursuit of the graces you mention is more important than defining "postmodernism" because it will contribute more to what it will become as a "movement" sounds a bit like saying we must contribute by means of such pursuits as morality (salt) and truth (light), "good" works, justice, love, mercy, humility and even "God" to shape a zeitgeist that seems to find its very impetus in its aversion to and movement away from these things (or at least these things "modernistically" understood). It sounds a bit like saying we must work to shape postmodernism by somewhat modernistic means (for these graces are certainly nothing new in the church nor a tenet of the emerging church exclusively). This would be akin to the approach that Millard Erickson (in His Postmodernizing the Faith)calls "leading deconstructive horses to the water" by using deconstructed water, deconstructed ropes and first deconstructing the horses. I could live with such an approach but I am not sure if that is what you advocate. Spooh certainly in some of his comments (to me) seem to favor such an approach if I understand him correctly.
As for me, I prefer the Schaefferian "Escape to Reason" response to postmodernism. I still find it the most reasonable and Evangelically faithful approach to "IT".
Learning to breath again
I am astounded that we would be having a conversation about how we repond to "it" (postmodernism) and if we should engage it etc. That is like one fish saying to another - "what is this whole water thing?" Many of us and increasingly more of us are living in a post modern environment - now you can choose to swim in it with an air tank strapped to your back but at some point you need to learn to use those gills God gave you and breath water or you will drown.
This is the real problem with the modern church - the environment has changed and they are desperately trying to hold their breath - at some point they drown - in Melville Johannesburg some 20 churches have closed down in the past decade - they drowned in the new post modern environment. In Jhb the NG church have lost 60% of their members in the last decade. The church is drowning in a new environment - lets help our friends in the church to adapt to the new environment.
Blanket Statement Mentality
Hi Sean,
I appreciate your concern that we address post-modernity- it is a real concern and DOES need to be addressed - because as you rightly say, many of us are living in that environment. However it is not helpful to say that the problem is modern church. This is an unhelpful blanket statement.
It would be better to say that a lot of modernist churches are struggling and battling to come to terms with shifts in our western culture. For example, in Melville you have some 20 churches closing down in the past decade BUT you also have Melville Union Church pastored by Dave West. Now by Brian Mclaren's standards, West's church is a modernist church, and yet they seem to be thriving at the moment. So maybe the problem is not the modernist church as such but just the sheer lack of churches and church leaders (modern, post-modern or ancient) who really address their culture and community around them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The modern church
You are right the issue is not the modern church - the issue is feeling like a fish out of water when one attends church. There are three reasons all those churches closed in Melville. Some (about 10 of the mainly the older churches) just dwindled away because they became irrelivant to the changing community. Some of the new church plants crashed because the leadership messed up badly. And other church plants imploded because they were built on hype not on values and when the thing got too big or conflict arose there were insuficient roots to keep the thing alive. These were generally quite messy breakups and left many people skeptical about church.
Many of the church plants would have seen themselves as "postmodern" and "missional" but they ignored some of the age old, well tested, truths of the church.
I know Dave West and Melville Union and they are doing a great thing - and yes they are more "modern" as are the AGS and the Angican and the NG - all lead by great men of God, whom I respect and meet with often - my point is simply this - someone has to do church in a way that reaches post modern thinkers - in time maybe more and more of us need to.
Open-gilled fish or blaring "vuvuzelas"?
Hi Sean,
Thank you for your comments. I agree that we are (as we always are)in the midst of some cultural realities that some people for reasons (or conveniences) of their own lump together in a set, and then for some reason call "postmodernism". I am swimmng in those same waters, as you put it, and I am swimming with gills wide open to the Holy Spirit's response to "it". But I am neither a postmodernist nor an "emergent" in the popular "postmodern" sense of the word. Nor do I HAVE to be in order to be an open-gilled fish. I am an Evangelical of the classic variety. I am a benevolent critic of "emergence" (as it is applied to the church. It probably has far more validity in the business world, but only because the business world does not mind blindly adopting or being pushed about by whatever cultural whims come their way as long as they make money).
I am a critic of the way in which the emerging church (a term, and possibly even a concept, they stole from the Catholic church, by the way) panders to the whims of an undefined zeitgiest called "postmodernism", and in a way that leaves them "astounded" that not everybody understands the world in the way they do. Do I spot some common old garden variety "modernistic" intolerance and intellectual pride here?
I simply and really don't agree that the world is the way "postmodernists" say it is, and there I am in good company together with many other theologians, sociologists, philsophers and even scientists (like Richard Dawkins, for instance). But that is not to say that I am blind to what is going on around me in the real world. I simply understand and define that reality differently and therefore respond to it differently. I consider that valid, and my right.
When I say that I am "benevolent" critic of the emerging church, I mean that I find charming, encouraging and even reservedly exciting some of the emerging church's emphases on community and "missionality". But I do not think that these graces are anything new nor by a long shot peculiar to the "emerging church". I find more troubling their unflinching tampering with central tenets of the Christian Faith, such as penal substitution, for instance, as McLaren is fond of doing.
Sean, I must say again that I have no idea how postmodernism is defined outside of the field of architecture where it had its origin and I have never come accross anyone else who does. Postmodernists like to challenge everyone else's set ideas. But here they have an undefined set idea of their own that they keep on blowing like a "vuvuzela" (those soccer trumpets) and then they too often respond like "vuzela-blowers" do in defence of their culture when they are challenged on it. Do you agree that their philosophical critics have a right to challenge "postmodernists" on their all too set ideas, especially the idea of "postmodernism", seeing no-one can define it as yet?
Good to meet you
Sincere regards in the Lord
Willem
What's our common ground?
I'm really enjoying this conversation, especially considering our local South African context (we don't need to figure out how to do things in post-Christian Europe or the polarised United States). If we can together think through what our own common ground is (what we agree on) and then do something with that, the possibilites are more exciting that having a modernism vs postmodernism debate (which nonetheless is interesting, and some comments are challenging my own thinking which is the point of a good debate, so thanks for that :). If a more rigid definition of post-modernism is required I'll do some thinking and gladly give it :)
So I'd propose these things as our common ground/starting point:
- the world has changed and is still changing. The modern era is drawing to a close, just like the medieval era transitioned into the modern era.
- many people have left the Christian church and there is a great possibility our churches will follow after the great churches in Europe: fantastic tourist attractions but empty of people.
- we South Africans are in a privileged and unique situation due to our diverse nature and the recent pain of our nation. We are free to practice our faith in this country and how we shape our future has possibilities to speak into other context.
- We believe God is passionately involved in human affairs and we want to both listen to him and do what he requires.
Any others?
Common Ground
Hi Roger,
I think you have touched here on a very important matter. This is precisely where I often struggle with my contemporaries. We are as filled with unchecked presuppositions as we accuse previous generations to have been. I am not saying that those presuppositions are necessarily wrong or fallacious - but they are unchecked and therefore we cannot take them as firm ground, let alone common ground. My suspicion is that it is precisely here that the real debate between the "emerging church" and the traditional churches (for lack of a better term) lies. We simply do not see and understand present and past realities the same.
For example: First: You flatly say that the world has changed and is still changing. But what do we mean when we say that? What are we to make of the "change"? (The inverted commas are not a denial of change but merely an indication of its undefined nature - a distinction some emergents miss, proving a point I make below). Is there really anything new under the sun (cf. Eccl. 1:9)? My point is that it is not enough to simply point out that the world is changing. We need to more carefully understand how it is changing, why it is changing, what about it is NOT changing, and so on. I find the thinking of postmodernists very simplistic and shallow with regard to these things and I am uncomfortable with that. Furthermore, not only postmodernists, but trendy people in general often display intolerance towards those who do not see or understand the world the way they do or who venture to think outside of their boxes (they have those too!). They seem to think their "coolness", which gains them greater popularity in the crowd, proves their intellectual superiority. Therefore I cannot merely accept the flatly stated fact of a "changing world" as common ground. It is, as yet, at least, no ground at all - it is at best murky water.
Secondly: Again: You make the statement that many people have left the church. But, even if this is true, we cannot knee-jerk (as Sean does) from that fact to the deduction that it was "postmodernism" that had that effect on the churches. That is a logical fallacy. We need to answer such questions as: Who were these people who left the church. Were they ever IN the church in the first place? Why were they there if they were there? What were their expectations? I would offer one guess that a great number of them left because they were disappointed for not having recieved in the church, not valid things that the church failed to deliver, but things which they had no right to expect in the first place. So to flatly say that the emptying churches are in themselves proof of the reality of (as yet undefined) "postmodernism" is simply to get ahead of ourselves. It is also very lazy and simplistic thinking. I am very uncomfortable with the diagnosis called "postmodernism" (I am not even so sure what, if anything, "modernism" is or was. These labels are often more a hindrance than a help and they are equally often the cruthces of lazy thinkers). I am entertaining the possibility that "postmodernism" may well, once properly defined, turn out to be little more than a "nothing new under the sun" social and cultural ailment, or blend of ailments. And so I am uncomfortable with Christians wanting to turn it into a "safe strand" for Christians in order to accomodate in - and lure into the church those who already suffer from it and enjoy its effects in a twisted sort of way. The mere fact of emptying churches (which is not even true in the same way in every place, respect or sense) is therefore also no ground at all.
Your third common ground expresses admirable sentiments.
The fourth ground is the only ground we have ever had. His Kingdom come, His will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
Thank you again for this forum. Very challenging and stimulating.
Kind regards
Willem
More common ground
The thing that always surprises me is how we seem to always retreat to our battle lines and fire shots across no-man's ground at each other. I agree with Roger - let's find common ground and then work our way towards the edges.
For me the most important common ground statement (and maybe it is so due to the DaVinci Code) is the Nicene Creed (or the Apostles Creed). Most of us have grown up in churches that used it as a basis for our faith. Many of us in the more evangelical and charismatic streams have lost the creed from our worship services, however, it is for me one of the best summaries of our common ground. And I have to note (for Williams sake) that it says nothing of penal subsitution or any other atonement theory (because those theories where not developed at that point). Maybe most significantly, people where saved, in relationship with God, knowing Jesus as Lord and saviour, born again (use any other term you like) for many hundreds of years before the penal susbistution theory became popular. Yes I know it is supported out of the book of Romans but our current formulation of the theory only came a long time later.
But lets not get bogged down in that - lets at least agree that the creeds capture a good summary of the truth for us - the unchanging, absolute truth - and yes I am a post modern and still believe in absolute truth.
Sean
What Battle Lines? What Common Ground?
Hi Sean,
I do not understand what you mean by "we" retreating to battle lines and "firing at one another". I certainly do not feel fired at. Nor am I firing at anyone. I am having a good conversation with my brothers, among whom I count you.
The Apostolic Creed is a very broad statement, and certainly not the most suitable common ground for anyone except the most accommodating ecumenicals. For instance, do you feel yourself on common ground with Roman Catholics? If you do, they would only agree with you if you understood the term "catholic" in the creed as "Catholic" (capital "C" meaning Roman Catholic, as many of them do not like to be called). Believe me, I have much contact and conversation with them and I know. despite all their Vatican II talk, they would regard you as a "separated" brother, did you know that? Please, do not understand me to be arguing the demerits or not of Catholicism here. Nor am I entering into a discussion on Catholicism here or picking a fight with them. I am talking about "Common Ground" here. Understand that I am merely using Catholics as an example (and nothing more than an example) of folk who hold to the Apostolic Creed, yet do not regard it sufficient (let alone the most important) common ground between themselves and Evangelicals. I therefore acknowledge your right and I respect your freedom to see the Apostolic Creed as "the most important common ground". But I hope you will repay me (and Roman Catholics, for that matter) the honour when we don't so readily join you in that.
I am sorry if my reference to "penal substitution" threw you. I did not mean for the term as such to become a point of debate. I used the phrase for the sake of brevity and not to promote it as such. I have no problem with calling it that, or NOT calling it that, for that matter. I am aware of the historical cradle of the term. But it is not McLaren's questioning of the TERM that I was expressing concern over (in fact, I cannot even particularly recall him doing so specifically). It is his tampering with the way in which we have always understood Christ's atoning work (which we have come to call "penal substitution, for brevity's sake) that concerns me. It is a vitally important aspect of the way of salvation. And so McLaren's tampering with it concerns me. It concerns me because in it (rather than in the Apostolic Creed) we find the most important common ground among Christians, don't you think? Does it really not concern you that McLaren comes more than close to tampering with that? Or do you feel that I am just withdrawing to "my" own unimportant and divisive "battle line" when I express concern over Christians tampering with the Gospel?
Sincere Regards in the Lord
Willem
Not Entirely True
Hi Sean,
It is correct to say that the Nicene Creed and Apostle's Creed do not formulate the doctrine of 'Penal Substitution' however it is incorrect to say that it was not present in the theology of the church fathers, in a slightly less formulated way then perhaps during the reformation.
I've just finished writing a paper on John Chrysostom's Old Testament hermeneutic in light of the other church fathers' hermeneutics. One of the things I discovered (and I don't have the references at hand at the moment - sorry), was that in their interpreting Genesis 22 with Isaac on the altar the most common application was 'Penal Substitution'- that it was a picture of God sacrificing his Son for our sin. It was prevelant amongst the church fathers - particularly those from the Alexandrine school of allegory such as Clement and Origen. So they definitely taught it and it was definitely an idea that was being formulated long before the Reformation.
Regards,
Spooh.
Post-reason and post-truth
You've written a lot there, Willem, so I'm just going to respond to your first paragraph for now (and btw, I wouldn't consider myself - or want to be - a postmodern apologist). My quick answer is: "No, we're not moving away from logic and from reason" (by the way, some of the most oppressive systems of the 20th century were built on these 2 pillars, so I think a healthy suspicion of them is a good thing). Thank God for those! We need both logic and reason to understand ourselves and the world around us. The problem comes in when we ''only'' understand the world around us through these 2 lenses.
In some cases, this is obvious. We don't enjoy a great sunset because of its fine and reasonable logic; we enjoy it because it's beautiful and perhaps there's something transcendent and mysterious about it (as with listening to the ocean or star-gazing).
Logic and reason become problematic when we use them exclusively to understand Scripture and relationships. When dealing with people of course we use reason and logic, but we also use other faculties, such as intuition. Modernity tends to deny anything that can't be proved (hence the 4 Spiritual Laws face a problem when someone says, "Prove God to me.") and especially things that can't been seen (we Christians believe in the unseen world - the Spiritual - but Modernity has always been suspicious of it) and denies the mysterious (like personal experiences of God). This is seen in modern reductionistic rationalism - the oppressive idea that all reality can be reduced to mechanisms that the mind can understand via validation by the five senses.
Using logic and reductionism to approach Scripture is quite interesting, especially when taking a verse and breaking it down into it's component parts, then looking at the original words and seeing what they meant when they were writing. ''But that's not the only way of looking at Scripture!'' We can also use a lens of narrative, putting ourselves in the story or looking at a scene through the perspective of a lesser character. These things bring Scripture alive too - and there are others.
So my point isn't that logic and reason are bad, but modernism has tended to elevate them above everything else (and I think that's where the idea of "personal truth" came in, as a reaction to this kind of idea).
And yes, the problem with postmodernism is that it hasn't been defined - that's because it's still being formed (see my "horseless carriage" example on this page).
Narrative's Already Being Done
Hi Roger,
Just a comment about reading scripture. We must be very careful when we say that all modernists do is break down the Bible verse by verse and study each particular word to derive it's meaning. We must also be careful when we say that modernists don't use the lens of narrative in biblical interpretation. We need to remember that the discipline of 'Biblical Theology' or the 'Redemptive Historical Approach' has been practised throughout reformation theology. It is simply not fair to just say that modernists use one method.
For example one can read books like 'God's Big Picutre' by Vaughan Roberts and 'The Drama of Scripture' by Bartholomew and Goheen (I concede that these books are fairly recent) - I think all three of these authors would be labelled modernist by most emergents (I may be wrong?) and yet they're publishing books teahing us to read the Bible as a story.
It's been done at an academic level too. Moore Theological College in Sydney, which is a reformed college, is arguably the leading college in the world concerning 'Redemptive Historical Theology' - thanks to the likes of Graeme Goldsworthy, and Prof. Gerhardus Vos was teaching it over half a century ago at Princeton.
In his book 'The Gagging of God' D A Carson, who has written probably the most thought-provoking critique of the Emergent movement to date, has called on evangelicals to promote reading and interpreting the Bible in storyline fashion rather than in a propositional truth (systematic theology) fashion (although he does not deny the existence of propositional truth derived from the scriptures - and neither should we).
Narrative reading of scripture as a hermeneutic is not something that is exclusive to the emergent movement. If there's any confusion over my use of the phrase 'Biblical Theology'(or even if there isn't) then check out this great site from a bunch of Irish lads about [Biblical Theology|http://www.beginningwithmoses.org]
Regards,
Spooh.
Narrative and Meta-narrative
Hi Spooh,
Good points. The emerging church in particular may be able to live with what you say (or many in it, at least), but potsmodernists in general have an instinctive aversion to such concepts as "the big picture". They call it, not "narrative" (which they like), but "meta-narrative" (which they don't like). In fact, an important (I sometimes wonder if it is not the most important) tenet of postmodernism is that it rejects the notion that there can be only one account of reality (meta-narrative) that describes and explains life.
Good and necessary points, nevertheless. Thanks.
Willem
Yes and No
It is right to say that postmodernists reject an over-arching narrative, particularly in the secular arena. The problem with this is that it creates a whole bunch of people who go about business day to day believing that there is absolutely no point to their lives - because they don't have a story to fit into. This aspect of postmodernity makes people extremely dissolussioned!
This is great news for Christians - because we have a brilliant story to give them. We give them a stable meta-narrative which they can then make their own story - it's great really! So it's easy to see why DA Carson, in the 'Gagging of God' opts for storyline evangelism over systematic (propositional truth) evangelism.
So yes, they've dismissed the meta-narrative but at the same time, to our benefit, they've created a desperate hunger and desire for a meta-narraitve - wonderful!
Reason-post and truth-post
Hi Roger
My post was on the undefined estate of "postmodernism" and not on the value or not of reason and logic in understanding Scripture. So I thought to post something in response to your "post-reason" and "post-truth" post and to call it my "reason-post" and "truth-post".
I am sorry if I caused you to understood me to be making a case for the exclusive use of reason and logic to understand the Scriptures. That has never been my point of view. Reason and logic are important (to prevent us from going totally "airy-fairy"), but in and of and by themselves, these, more natural means, are not sufficient means to grasp the things of God. In fact, I am not even sure if they are a good starting point. They were my starting point at one time and they certainly kept me trapped in atheism for a long time - good old reason and logic.
Far from believing that reason and logic are our sole keys to unlocking the treasure of what God has to say to us, I do not even believe that they are our primary keys. I believe with Paul that "the natural man recieves not the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).
I merely used them as examples of certain things that I see postmodernism getting "post" to, as a starting point to see how we may move toward perhaps gaining greater understanding of exactly what it is that postmodernism is getting "post" to. Your "horseless carriage" is an incredibly valuable starting point for moving towards greater understanding of what postmodernism is and is not (anymore). It seems to me that we must describe both the carriage and the horse and see why they no longer need to be together.
The question is, what did the horse that darted look like and why can the carriage now do without it? Is objective truth, morality, justice, etc., for example (and only for example) part of the carriage? Is it still there and where and how is it? Or was it part of the horse? Is it horsepower that is now built into the carriage in another form? These, I think are important questions to understand our times. For now , it certainly seems that metanarrative, at least, was part of the horse. I am not so sure if and how its "horsepower" is now built into the carriage in a way that makes it still present in some form. It is important that it be there, because meta-narrative in a Christian context is "Salvation History".
Regards
Willem
A slice of logic
Since I actually like logic quite a lot, here's a quick example of it in action. Willem wrote: "It sounds a bit like saying we must work to shape postmodernism by somewhat modernistic means." The modernistic means you refer to are "morality (salt) and truth (light), 'good' works, justice, love, mercy, humility and even 'God'."
Interesting! How did these things become specifically modernistic?! Your "leading deconstructed horses to deconstructed water" example ''only'' works if I was using specifically modern constructions, which justice, love, mercy etc clearly aren't.
Read carefully
Hi Roger,
I did not call morality, truth, etc. "specifically modernistic", as you can see if you read me again. In fact, I took great care to avoid calling them that and to refer to them as "somewhat" modernistic and THAT in the specific context of reference to "postmodernism" which certainly has at least a measure of aversion to these things as they are traditionaly defined. So what I mean is, if I understand you correctly, and I think I do, you seem to be suggesting the employment of concepts such as "truth" and "morality" and "justice" as these things are TRADITIONALLY defined (for you state no qualification) to shape a Zeitgeist that has as one of its central tenets the questioning, if not rejection, of the traditional (modernistic) understanding of them. That is what I mean by my statement that you seem to be suggesting that we use "somewhat" (because of the definition that postmodernism will not own) modernistic means in our response to postmodernism. If you feel that I am missing it here, how would you define "truth", "morality", "justice" without them sounding even "somewhat" modernistic? For that is the task at hand if we deny them to be that, considering postmodernists' less than full acceptance of the traditional modernistic understanding of these concepts?
Sorry about the missal again. If it comes to your mailbox, would you please let me know? (By the way, the missal helps with the Latin too). And yes, I am "catholic", not secretly, openly, but in the sense the Apostolic Creed intends the term. But I am not Roman Catholic, although I do have full access to St. Joseph's library and go there once a week. Thank you for putting up with all us opinionated oafs and even our mail glitches. I like that part of emergent very much.
P.S. I really like having Spooh around. And you too. Looking forward to meeting you.
Blessings from my heart to yours
Willem
More about the post-colonial era
Africa is often symbolic of despair. When we want to point to an extreme case for poverty, disease, or political corruption, Africa is frequently our image of choice. While there are enormous challenges facing the continent of Africa, there is a tremendous sense of hope that is rumbling just beneath the surface, eager to emerge.
Africa has entered what historians and sociologists are calling the Post-Colonial era. The future of this era is uncertain, but there are voices from throughout Africa calling for an era of innovation, of creativity, of justice, of peace, of hope.
In May 2007, these voices will continue this conversation with leaders from North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia. They will gather in Uganda to share their stories, their struggles, and their dreams.
From: [Amahoro East Africa | http://www.amahoro-eastafrica.info/]
The creed or the gospel
Hi William
It may suprise you (or maybe not) that I am a product of the Charismatic renewal in the Catholic church in the 1970's. So in one sense I am catholic - at least my local parish priest always used to say once a catholic always a catholic.
And for me as a catholic and a Catholic and an evangelical and someone committed to ecumenicalism I am convinced that the creeds provide us with a starting point for unity not a division point. They are the place where the whole church agreed - not the catholic church - the whole church.
I am also convinced that many (even most) non-evangelicals - those who are main stream protestant and those who are Catholic - are Christian. They are not outside the faith or the church. They may express their faith in a different way but they are not those without faith.
As a Christian I am deeply committed to the gospel - but I dont necessarily define it in the same terms that you seem to be. Furthermore I am certainly not a spokesperson for McLaren and dont buy everything he says without weighing it. But one thing I do know, having spent time with the man, is that he is a Christian too. And will be in heaven with us regardless of what we think of his theology.
For me the gospel is so much more than God (which includes Jesus since we believe in the trinity) who is judging my sins and condemning me to hell for then and Jesus (who is also God) dying a subsitutional death to appease God (himself). I dont like that God - he just sounds angry and judgemental.
And the it is equally much more than the ransom theory of atonement in which God is cornered by the devil and is forced to pay ransom - with a bouncing cheque it now seems (since Jesus rose from the dead) - again I dont like that God cos he is weak and dishonest.
For me the gospel is more clearly captured in John 3:16 - Because God loved us so much - he came to be with us - to show us love not to condemn us. That is a God a like - and one that I see in Paul's writings as well in place like Phil 2 where God emptied himself and came to be with us. It is a gospel of incarnation and love.
In this gospel I am motivated to live a holy life not out of fear of judgement but out of a deep love for a God who loves me and is with me.
Are you CRAZY?!?!
Sean, you realise you're taking on a Reformed Baptist pastor in this specific area which is not only a non-negotiable, but is highly sensitive, so to even question it seem heretical and un-Christian?! Hehe :) I've started some of these types of conversations before and the response is usually a very angry one; I wait with expectation to see how Willem will respond...
Nuns and Gospel Knitting
Hi Sean and Roger,
First Roger: Roger I am so sorry to hear that some of the brothers responded in anger. I love my Reformed brothers dearly. Sometimes I have to work very hard, though, to help them and me remember that we are not only to hold to the Doctrines of Grace, but, more importantly, to the grace of the doctrines.
Sean, I simply love you to bits, my brother, and I am not going to respond in anger and for a few reasons. First, I really mean it when I say that I don’t feel fired at and I am not firing at anyone. I am having a really cool conversation with my brothers (although to outsiders we must surely sometimes look like a bunch of nuns knitting!).
Second: I do not feel insecure enough in what I believe to get angry. Third: I respect you and your convictions. Fourth: I am trying to make up for my brothers who got angry with Roger.
But now, speaking of nuns knitting, I do believe you have dropped a few stitches. Let me try to point them out for you:
First: I am neither surprised nor shocked to hear that you are a product of the “Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church of the 1970’s”. (So is John Michael Talbot and I even have a link to his website on my blog, a fact that my Reformed friends are working hard not to get angry about). But I am not so sure what to make of your parish priest’s statement, “once a Catholic always a Catholic” (actually an Ignatius of Loyola assertion, if I remember correctly). Can you help me understand better what you mean? Do you agree, for starters, with the Catholics that “extra ecclessiam nulla salus est” (outside of the CATHOLIC Church there is no salvation)? Do you agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If you do not, then you are not a Catholic, you are a bad Catholic – in their view at best a “separated brother”.
Second: I can see quite clearly that you define the gospel differently to me (and to just about every Evangelical I know). Except for your clear and somewhat angry (why is god the only one who is not allowed to get angry?) rejection of God as Righteous Judge, Man as fallen creature, Jesus as our only appeasement of God’s wrath, all clearly stated and unambiguous Biblical facts, I am not so sure what gospel you do believe. Can you be a bit clearer as to: Why we needed a Saviour? What He saved us from? How he saved us from whatever He saved us from? What Paul means by “the wrath of God”?
Third: No serious Evangelical that I am aware of believes the Ransom Theory and I am truly pleased to hear that you do not either.
Fifth: If your understanding of Jn. 3:16, that the Gospel is more clearly “that God loved us so much that He came to be with us”, is sound, why do you then find it necessary to make the disclaimer that God did not come to “condemn us”. I don’t understand. How does the possibility of condemnation fit into the equation at all? What reason could there possibly be for a God a love to condemn people? Can you think of one? If not, why bring condemnation up at all?
Sixth: I agree that the Gospel motivates us to live a holy life, and not out of fear; not to repay God, but out of sheer love and gratitude. But what do we make of the fact that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”? Are you not pushing the needle too far through the knitting here? I’m just asking.
Seventh, and lastly: Let me show you how I understand the elements of the true Gospel, with the help of that great clarifier, John Stott (sorry I can’t give you the bibliog. details. Just discovered my book is still in the hands of a good Baptist Book Keeper, two words).
The stitches of true Gospel knitting are as follows:
Two Gospel Events: Christ died and rose again
Two Gospel Witnesses: According to the Scriptures of the OLD- and NEW TESTAMENTS
Two Gospel Realities: He is seated at the right hand of God as SAVIOUR and LORD
Two Gospel Promises: He promises FORGIVENESS of SINS and ETERNAL LIFE
Two Gospel Requirements: To all those who REPENT and BELIEVE.
Is this how you see the Gospel? If so, how do you reconcile that with what you say in your post? If you do not see the Gospel that way, how do you see the Gospel? Would you describe yourself as "post"-gospel or as simply "post"-that-gospel?
I ask these things because I am desperately trying to find some common ground with you from where we can work to the edges.
Happy knitting
Willem Bronkhorst
Well Said
I consider myself postmodern and emergent (with some clarifications) but I have to AMEN what brother Willem has just posted - because that has to be our common ground. This might dissapoint some emergents but then I'd have to say that we need to read our Bible's carefully and have a holistic view of what God does and doesn't say.
Some Questions for Sean
Sean, just to further try to establish that common ground that you and I both desire, I would like to ask you some additional questions in response to your post “The Creed or the Gospel?”.
You describe yourself as “a catholic and a Catholic and an evangelical (was the lower case “e” intentional?) and someone committed to ecumenicalism (sic)”.
1. As a “catholic” (lower case “c”) do you believe in a universal church that cuts across denominational boundaries but never across the boundaries of the Biblical Gospel? Or can it cut across Gospel boundaries?
2. As a “Catholic” how do you feel about the following composite statement: “Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, to the glory of God alone?”
3. As an “evangelical”, how do you feel about the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?
4. As a person who is committed to “ecumenicalism”, are there boundaries beyond which you will not go in who you will fellowship with and who you will not? If so, where do those boundaries lie? The Apostolic Creed?
5. How do you determine whether someone is a Christian or not? By judging their character, their confession, their conduct, or more than one, or all, or none of these? Do you simply go by gut-feel?
6. Are you really serious when you say that you “don’t like the God who is judging your sins and condemning you to hell for them and who sent Jesus (who is also God) dying a subsitutional (sic.) death to appease God (himself)”? I agree that, as you say, God is much more than this. But can you see that He is not less than this? Do you really not like Him?
Sincere Regards
WILLEM
Entering into the hornets nest - with my brothers
Well I guess I have stirred things up quite nicely. Let me boldly enter this hornets nest and try to answer the numerous questions raised:
1. Do I agree with no salvation outside the Catholic church? No but I do agree with no salvation outside the catholic church. But then again so do most Catholics. The real question is do we believe in the possiblity (or even the likelyhood) of salvation in the Catholic church - I certainly do - and my Catholic father and mother are living proof thereof.
2. Why do we need a saviour? Because we are alienated from God - the relationship is broken - that is a very different framing to "God has judged us guilty".
3. Why mention condemnation in my Jh3:16 quote? Well simply because the bible does and condemnation is what I feel when I frame the Gospel in language that judges me guilty: JN 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,* that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
4. The fear of God is not a blind panic fear of punishment but rather a respect for the one who loves me so much yet is so awesome
5. I too can say AMEN to your "true gospel knitting" - mostly because it says nothing about penal substitution - does it.
6. Where does the boundary lie in my ecumenical fellowship - all the way to the end of the catholic/universal church - there are no brothers who I would not sit down with - there are some who would not sit down with me - in my experience they mostly fall into the evangelical camp. In asking if it extends to beyond the "Biblical Gospel" is to assume that we agree that there is one right Biblical Gospel and that as evangelicals we know what it is - that in itself is a very arrogant statement.
7. Like most Catholics and catholics the teachings of the Pope (Magisterium) are taken with a level of seriousness yet are not seen as truely infalible - in the same way that we all have fathers in the faith whom we look to for guidance and interpretation. I encourage my congregation to think for themselves, even to doubt and explore and come to hold their faith deeply - in doing so many of them look back to me or to books or to others for guidance and interpretation. Does that make me non-Catholic? - if so then my Catholic father who ministers the eucharist each Sunday in his local parish is also not Catholic.
8. What makes someone a Christian and how do I determine that? Is it character, confession or conduct? - in one sense it is all of the above and in another none of the above - I know that as an evangelical one would like to say confession but that leads us to "if only Hitler had said the prayer" - and I cant go there. And if I say character then it is all about being a good person and if I say conduct then it is all about reading my bible or not sleeping with my girlfriend or feeding the hungry - it is all and yet all fall short and so it is by grace.
9. So I agree with your "by grace alone, through faith alone..." statement but my question is how do we define faith - I certainly think that faith has an element of the works of love involved in it as both Paul and James indicate.
10. And yes I really dont like painting God as this angry guy who is out to get me.
I too am enjoying this dialogue. Let me ask one more question of you guys:
What is the gospel to someone living in extreme poverty. Is it that God is angered by your sin and wants to save you into heaven, or is it more than that? Does it include an element of social action?
Only 1 Question...
Sean, just one question...
Why (as you have said) are we alienated from God?
You define it as a broken relationship. Now if God offers mankind a perfect relationship, and we reject it, which I take it is the point of Genesis 3, then does not God have a right to be angry with us? Wouldn't it be a justified anger? Wouldn't it therefore also be possible that he can perfectly maintain his love and goodness and still be angry? I guess what I'm saying is: Isn't it possible for God to be justifiably angry with people who reject him and yet still completely uphold his love and and goodness (primarily by sending his Son)? Don't those two things come together perfectly in the doctrine of 'penal substitution'?
You see the gospel you are offering me presents a god who is devoid of justice. I can't accept that - and neither can the mother of a four year old daughter who has been viciously gang-raped. Or for that matter a starving, poverty stricken child who is in the situation they are in due to exploitation from the wealthy.
In my mind a God who is both perfectly loving and perfectly just (and therefore angry), is a far more appealling God to people in those sorts of situations.
I can't cover up all the terrible one sided teaching that has just taught Jesus as an angry judge (and I deeply regret it), but at the same time I'm not about to go all the way over the other side.
Thoughts?
Spooh.
P.S. Here's an interesting exercise: Contrast the picture presented by John of Jesus in his gospel with the picture he presents in Revelation. Whose blood is that on Jesus' robe in Rev 19:13 (cf.Isa 63:2,3)?
Penal Substitution
Sorry Sean, one more thing...
You're probably aware of the writings of Steve Chalke and his dismissal of 'penal substitution'. Well here's an article written by Garry Williams of Oak Hill Theological College in London in response to Chalke. Williams also engaged in a public debate with Chalke and so he has entered into extensive dialogoue with him. If you've got a bit of time take a look at his paper:
[Punished in our Place|http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/bigger/punishedinourplace.htm]
Is anger the godly response
Surely you are not suggesting that anger is a most Godly response. Was Jesus out of sync with the rest of the Godhead? Was Paul mistaken? Let me explain...
When we reject God his response is - this is how you know what love is - while we were still his enemies he died for us.
When the rich young ruler rejects Jesus - Jesus response is one of sadness not anger
When confronted with enemies Jesus says love them not hate (and I would suggest that include anger)
When confronted with revenge Jesus response is love
Non of this sounds like anger as the appropriate response - now if this is how God expects us to act surely he also acts in the same way.
Let me bring it home - should I be angry with you - or should you be angry with me - because we have chosen to disagree - no - but if I disagree with God then is it ok for him to be angry with me?
Has he not rather called us all up to a better way - a way of love
How do you explain?
Perhaps the Bible contains responses from God that are 'not godly'? Now that makes things rather interesting doesn't it?
How do you explain Jesus' actions in John 2:13-16 (and Matt 21, Mk 11 and Lk 19)? What about Romans 1:18 - what exactly is God's wrath? What does Jesus mean in John 3:36? And Romans 5:9? Paul explicitly says we are saved from (not alienation) but God's wrath.
Sean please deal with the texts. If you can't then perhaps the issue is not so much a theological debate about God's anger but rather an issue of the authority and inerrency of scripture.
Please consider these verses thoughtfully.
In Christ.
Spooh.
Good stuff, Spooh
Willem here, Spooh. Good stuff. Are you getting my comments over at your blog?
Not About Hornets. About Finding Common Ground.
Sean, really, we are not hornets and we have no nests and we are not on battle lines and you credit yourself with having stirred up too much, my brother. Everything’s cool. Let me now first respond to your responses (point by point).
1. Of course you agree with no salvation outside the catholic church. We all do. But you disagree with no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Interesting. In what sense are you a Catholic?
As for the question of whether or not a person can be saved as a Catholic, I would, now that I know that you have loved ones who are Catholic, out of respect for you and for them request that we close that part of the matter here, except to point out what a friend of mine once said: for a person to be truly saved as a Catholic, he or she would have to be very loosely Catholic. Besides, I never intended getting into the whole Catholic thing as such, as I have tried and seemingly failed to point out to you. I used it ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE (pardon the capitals, I can’t find the italics. I don’t mean to shout) to make the point that, to my mind the Apostolic creed is too broad a base to serve as common ground. You disagree. Fine. I hear you and can live with that. Let's move on. That's not common ground.
2. You say: “Why do we need a saviour? Because we are alienated from God - the relationship is broken…”.
Of course we are. Can you tell me what alienated us from God and broke the relationship between us and God and what are the effects and consequences of that alienation and broken relationship on us and on God?
Then you say: “’That is a very different framing to "God has judged us guilty”.
Sean, for the record: I believe every word that Scripture has to say on the love of God and the mercy of God and the grace of God – every word – and I rejoice in that. You really are not alone in that. You know that, surely? These things, more than wrath and judgment shape my devotional life and my relationship with God and set the spirit and tone of my ministry to saint and sinner alike. But you are surely aware of what the Bible has to say on the wrath and the righteous judgment of God? Do you agree that Scripture speaks on that? Or do you want to say that Scripture is silent on the wrath and judgment of God? Or do you simply not accept those parts of Scripture? Or do you simply redefine them out of he equation?
3. You say: “Why mention condemnation in my Jh3:16 quote? Well simply because the Bible does”.
I know that Sean, but you are dodging the question. Why does the Bible mention it at all of it is not a reality?
You say: “Condemnation is what I feel when I frame the Gospel in language that judges me guilty”.
Then you quote Jn. 3:16 to me (thanks for that) right there. Why? What’s your point? As an aside, seeing as you know Jn. 3:16 so well – what does it mean that “God gave His only begotten Son”? What does the GAVE part mean? Why did God have to do that? Why did Jesus have to die on a cross? Why couldn’t He just have chatted us back into a relationship with God?
4. You say: “The fear of God is not a blind panic fear of punishment but rather a respect for the one who loves me so much yet is so awesome”.
See what I mean by redefining out of the equation Biblical terms that are troubling to us? Where did you learn that definition? Do you know what “fear” means? You are confusing respect and reverence for “fear". Surely you know the Greek and Hebrew words for “respect” and “reverent awe” and "fear"? You cannot redefine Biblical terms to suit your theological bias. We must not change the Scriptures to make it acceptable to us. We must let Scripture change us to make us acceptable to God (“sanctify them by your Word”, Jn. 17).
5. You say: “I too can say AMEN to your "true gospel knitting" - mostly because it says nothing about penal substitution - does it”.
Umm…does it indeed? Let's see. Again (and only for instance): Why did Jesus die? By the way, not my knitting, John Stott’s from the pattern of Scripture.
6. You say: “Where does the boundary lie in my ecumenical fellowship - all the way to the end of the catholic/universal church - there are no brothers who I would not sit down with - there are some who would not sit down with me - in my experience they mostly fall into the evangelical camp”.
Sorry to hear the brothers won’t sit with you. Are you beginning to see why?
You say: “In asking if it extends to beyond the "Biblical Gospel" is to assume that we agree that there is one right Biblical Gospel and that as evangelicals we know what it is - that in itself is a very arrogant statement.”
Well, what can I say? You believe that here is more than one right Biblical Gospel? How many right “gospels” are there, Sean? What would constitute a “right Biblical gospel”? Is it important to hold to at least one “right” one or can one believe more than one?
And speaking about arrogance, are you saying that one can only be a person of one conviction out of arrogance? Do you see the intolerance and near arrogance of that? Do you even see that you have your own gun turned on yourself? You expect Evangelicals to be humble enough to only loosely and with accommodation and reservation hold to their conviction, yet you unreservedly declare your conviction that they are arrogant when they don’t? Well, you have me wide-eyed and gaping!
But, let me now remind you (lest we land on a tangent) that we are only indirectly speaking about what the right gospel is, remember? We are doing so in an effort to find COMMON GROUND, or so I thought. Now I learn that you seem to have all along believed that Evangelicals who believe that they understand the right and true Biblical Gospel (which conviction you clearly don't share with them)are, in your view, arrogant? Were you sincere in your effort to find common ground with them, or were yu just quietly trying to get them to come over to your way of thinking?
7. As I said earlier, given the fact that you have dear ones who are Catholics, I would rather, if you don’t mind, and out of respect for you and them and their convictions close that part of our discussion.
8. You say: “What makes someone a Christian and how do I determine that? Is it character, confession or conduct? - in one sense it is all of the above and in another none of the above…”.
Huh? You’ve lost me. Let’s just let it go and get back to the common ground thing.
You say: “I know that as an evangelical…”.
How are you an “evangelical”, Sean? In the same way as McLaren by first redefining the term for his own purposes? I mean, how are you an Evangelical in the classical sense of the word?
You say: “I know that as an evangelical one would like to say confession but that leads us to "if only Hitler had said the prayer" - and I cant go there”.
I think you have missed what I mean by “confession’. I don’t mean it in the Catholic sense, but in the sense of CREED - what one believes. Can we leave poor old thousand times dead Hitler out of it?
You say: “And if I say character then it is all about being a good person and if I say conduct then it is all about reading my bible or not sleeping with my girlfriend or feeding the hungry - it is all and yet all fall short and so it is by grace”.
I now that salvation is by grace. (By the way, grace towards what and whom?). But that is not my question. My question is how do you discern whether a person is a Christian? How does one ‘by grace” discern that a person is a Christian?
9. You say: ‘So I agree with your "by grace alone, through faith alone..." statement but my question is how do we define faith… - I certainly think that faith has an element of the works of love involved in it as both Paul and James indicate”.
There you go again tampering with well-known and widely accepted definitions. Are you a pastor, Sean? If so, does your congregation know that you have reservations about how faith” has been historically understood? Do they share you reservations?
10. You say: “And yes I really dont like painting God as this angry guy who is out to get me.”
You are answering a question I did not ask, Sean. Here is the question you answer that I did not ask: “Do you like painting God as this angry guy who is out to get you?” Here is the question that I asked, that I would respectfully ask you to answer: “Are you really serious when you say that you “don’t like the God who is judging your sins and condemning you to hell for them and who sent Jesus (who is also God) dying a subsitutionary death to appease God (himself)? Do you really not like Him?”
Towards closing you say: “I too am enjoying this dialogue”.
I can no longer say that I am, Sean. I am truly sorry, but I do not find it edifying to be tussling with people who call themselves brothers over what the gospel is at this late hour in redemption history. If that is what the emerging church is, then God help us. If the emerging church and the emergent conversation is about finding out what the true gospel is and not so much about how to truly live and minister and worship and fellowship and serve and love in what we already know to be the true gospel, then I shall be hesitant in wasting too many more sentences and precious time on it. The Gospel is my ground. I don’t want to sound like Luther (no, I DO!). Here I stand: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, to the glory of God alone, as all these things are traditionally and Evangelically defined. So help me God. I can do no other.
Finally you say: “Let me ask one more question of you guys. What is the gospel to someone living in extreme poverty? Is it that God is angered by your sin and wants to save you into heaven, or is it more than that? Does it include an element of social action?”
I think you know the answer to that question, Sean. I just cannot understand why you ask it. Let me respond anyway:
The Gospel in one sentence: The Gospel is the good news that Jesus died FOR MY SIN (for which God was angry at me) on my behalf and rose again, and he is seated at the right hand of God as Saviour (of me from my sin about which God was angry) and Lord, and He promises forgiveness (God no longer angry) of sin and eternal life (heaven in me and I in heaven) to all those who repent (turn from sin to Christ) and believe (all the above).
You ask; “Does it include an element of social action?”
Do you mean by “it” the gospel, or the sharing of the gospel? Either way my answer is that the Gospel is one glorious and holistic social action on behalf of God for and in His people and through His people, for and in the whole world.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide. Solo Christo, Sola Scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, from my heart to yours,
Willem
Well I guess that ends it then
I am off to NYC in the morning and wont be able to continue this conversation as I will be travelling.
One last point - I dont speak on behalf of the emerging church so dont judge them all by my rantings.
Yours
Sean
Go well
Go well, Sean, but I do hope that you will give some thought to what we have been discussing and perhaps give some replies when you return?
I hear you that we must not judge the emerging church by your rantings. That is a relief. Then, if some of the things that you have been saying were mere rantings, that would be merely irresponsible, (especially if you are a pastor), but a relief, nevertheless. But they seem much more serious than that. You realise, I am sure, that to the bulk of Evangelicals (as the term is traditionally defined), what you have to say is rank heresy and they would hope that you never fill churches with what you believe, let alone work with you to fill them with people of similar stance? At the same time I acknowledge and respect (as I am sure my brothers will) your freedom of conscience and of expression of that conscience.
Go safely and enjoy the Big Apple (if that is what you mean by NYC).
Regards
Willem
Post new comment