Joy Magazine on the EC
Last month (July 2008), evangelical Christian magazine Joy featured an article on the Emergent Church.
Graeme Codrington responded on his blog post called "Lies about truth", which I recommend, but I wanted to add my voice to his, because I think the general view as put out by publishers such as these are distinctly one sided. I feel full of hope and excitement at what the EC movement is bringing to us, and I can't watch those with the media say-so simply dominate the "debate".
The EC is, and has been, a phenomenon that needs a serious response from South African evangelicals. My concern is that many aspects of the EC seem to be misrepresented by the spin in the issue, and that this point of view betrays a lack of objectivity, or distance, from its own assumptions. (We shouldn't have to be telling those in a modernist paradigm about objectivity, should we? ;)
The article attempts to be fair. It gives a For (creative, energetic, authentic, relevant etc.) and Against (cynical, disorganised, reckless) summary. It seems to be in favour of the peer-to-peer dialog evangelism, social activism and acts of kindness - missional living - that the EC is known for.
In essence, it presents a few extracts from those supposedly pro and anti, the 3 pro's being Mark Driscoll, Rob Bell and David Lock (SA), and the 5 anti's being John McArthur, Mervyn Eloff (SA), John Piper, Philip Rosenthal (SA) and Martyn Kilian (SA).
In fact, Mark Driscoll in his statement (cut and pasted directly from wikipedia) is really an ex-emergent, and David Lock has expressed surprise at his inclusion as Emergent, so in fact the ratio is really laughably lopsided. 6 against, 1 abstaining, leaves only 1 "bona fide" emergent, Rob Bell. So, not even one real Emergent South African voice.
And furthermore, one of the key aspects of the EC, the post-colonial conversation, gets no mention. Post-Colonials emphasise a relevant response to God in African (or any ex-colonial) cultures. I would have thought that this, for a South African magazine which purports to inform, would have at least deserved some attention.
This sort of polarised, black and white, bite-sized-chunks approach is not really doing justice to the conversation. It wants to be seen to be fair and objective, but has not escaped the gravitational pull of evangelical orthodoxy to any sufficient degree. For example, in its response to its own question "What does the Church Look like?" it states,
"New EC followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' biblical interpretation method will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. It has been said that future generations of EC followers will probably slide all the way to apostasy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done."
This view demonstrates that instead of starting with an open mind, the writer sees the EC divergence as "straying" from, rather than perhaps "calling" evangelicals to a different, and possibly better, outlook. And the full extent of these beliefs becomes apparent when they bring in the evangelical-orthodox big guns when under threat: Apostasy.
This word means the abandonment of ones religion, coming from the Greek for defection or revolt; apo is "away, apart", and stasis, "standing". It's a serious charge, and is almost always used pejoratively, to reflect the view of the accuser rather than the accused, or even an impartial jury. In a world of constant change, how can one possibly know who is going to be "apostate" in the future?
To their credit, the writer admits that modernists have done just the same. In fact, in my own experience, serious straying from faith has been as a result of modernisms dogmatic approach to truth. Straying from ones religion is a matter quite separate from whether ones culture is modern or post modern.
I am also very suspicious of linking "uncertainty" with ethical compromise.
It has been shown (unless your cosmology - your way of knowing the world - predates the 20th Century) that uncertainty is at the heart of the universe. And, experientially, every believer, every person, experiences doubt. It's simply part of things. Doubt is not a sin; it's just a part of the duality of life.
Regarding ethical compromise; examples are widespread amongst the most pious or orthodox and in fact the more sickening for it. Consider paedophilia hiding under the cloak of priesthood, or the fraud, greed and sheer hypocrisy of many a televangelist or proponent of consumerist prosperity doctrines. Ethical compromise is not tightly coupled with intellectual certainty, and to suggest that it is simply bad thinking.
And this is the key problem: Doctrinal - that means intellectual - correctness, is not the way to salvation. But Evangelicals rail against the de-emphasis of the EC on doctrine, the so-called "low view of scripture". What is important is how the Word of God impacts our whole lives - ethically, imaginally, socially - not simply how well constructed our theology is or how many justifying verses we can decorate our lives with. In fact, Brain McLaren is one of the most well rounded biblical thinkers I have read.
So how might Emergents respond to the criticisms voiced in the article?
John McArthur says that if it's not defined biblically, then "that's not a church and you're not a pastor and you're not even a Christian ... they don't believe in any doctrine, in any theology." Well, that's sheer bigotry, John, and you seem proud of it, too.
I found John Pipers statement interesting, and honest: "... I don't understand the way these guys think ... that makes conversation almost impossible." But can he not find enough empathy and imagination to develop a conversation, or is he so entrenched in the evangelical worldview that despite his own learning he has no response to the unfamiliar?
Phillip Rosenthal claims that the EC devalues absolutes, questions certainty, and leads to moral relativism. He warns against "re-interpreting the bible through a post modern lens". Phillip, have you ever heard of contextualising? The incarnation of God into a culture is a prime example. You may be trying to defend Christianity, but you don't seem aware of how well you are actually defending the modernist value system.
Martyn Kilian's qualms relate to the threat to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, and he rejects Brian McLaren's statement "hell is false advertising for the cross". For him, the EC's questioning of the meaning of the Cross is a direct challenge to the dark jewel in the evangelical crown: Hell. Are you saying, Martyn, that the threat of endless punitive separation from God IS what the gospel is all about? This kind of reasoning is exactly what brought us the dark ages. Is not Grace the key issue?
The last part of Joy's EC investigation is an article by Christopher Peppler. He makes the distinction between interpreting culture via text, as evangelicals tend to do, and interpreting text via culture, as postmoderns and emergents tend to do. It's an interesting point, but the assumption is that the biblical text is somehow above culture, so that if we take the evangelical approach we will come up with a view untainted by culture. This is simply naive modernism talking.
The article concludes by claming that "the Word of God is not open to interpretation and debate". Well in that case, anything that has been interpreted from the Hebrew or Greek must be wrong, and the bible in English, or even Latin, is anathema. Even Moses, he of the Law cast in stone, debated with God. If debate is good enough for the Greeks and Hebrews, why is it so wrong for us?
"Relevancy is important but not to be prized above right standing with God." This statement creates a false distinction between Righteousness and Incarnation. Righteousness by definition creates right relationship between all things, it creates the true, authentic and relevant channel between the Creator and humans, between men and women, spirit and matter, between all things in the cosmos, and between people and the culture in which they live.
- Generosity? I'd love to say you tried to be fair.
- Openmindedness? Your mind was made up from the start.
- Responsibility? Diminished, I'm afraid.
- Good apologetics? " ... that's not a church and you're not even a Christian."
- Good hermeneutics? "Not open to interpretation".
- Conversational? "Not open to debate".
- Defensive? You tell us...
I challenge you to write more on the emergent conversation, because it is not going away. And to do so with proper research, journalistic integrity, an open, inquisitive attitude, and with a really representative opinion of both post-colonial and post-modern views.
Come on Joy, it's time you stopped pandering to your demographic and showed us some convincing reasons for the Joy that comes from the Truth.
- nicpaton's blog
- 1757 reads
Stay updated
Who's been visiting?
Comments
Joy magazine
So what did they say about it?
Or do we have to rush out and buy it to find out?
I see
Ah, only after I posted my comment did the rest of the article become visible!
Joy
I hope you sent(d) this to Joy magazine Nic. It'll be interesting to see if they would actually publish a response.
Steven
By email, yes
Hi Steve:
I don't have high expectations that they would want to, although it would be a very good thing if they did. I simply stated that I had published this blogpost.
Have you read the article?
joy
hi nic, i actually havnt read the article. I generally try 2 avoid joy mag and cudnt find the article online.
an expected response
Throughout Church history, emerging movements have always come under scrutiny. So I understand and expect this type of response. What saddens me is the apparent lack of authentic engagement with emerging church leaders and the failure to understand why this movement emerged in the first place. The world is changing, and a culturally compromised, modernistic, disconnected, and non-authentic expression of Christianity is clearly not what Jesus intended. Without a doubt, the emerging church movement is going to wrestle with issues, as has every movement in history. Rather than chirping at each other, let's seek God together, pray together, talk with each other, and endeavour to discern God's clear direction as we earnestly seek to be the people of God and engage a rapidly changing world with the good news of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "I will build My Church..." I believe Him. Bert Watson
building
Hi Bert. Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that it would be great to build together, and I'd love Joy to simply acknowledge this post, or even that there are other voices besides that of modern evangelicalism.
But you see what they have written - I don't get the impression that they truly value conversation. Why are we talking about "them", anyhow - if they don't come forward, its hard to put a face to the dialog.
To building, tearing down, and building some more...
move on from EC?
maybe its just time to move on from the name since there is so much confusion and misinformation?
What, no EC? Where will I go? What will I be?
Andrew - I agree there is confusion and misinformation. However, despite holding the term lightly, I don't think we should invest energy in finding another name right now, as we haven't seemingly started adressing the fundamental issues that the EC umbrella hosts. To do so would in my opinion would merely shift the problem.
It's apparent from the article that there is very little appreciation for issues raised by the postmodern debate. Once we can get these out in the open then perhaps we can start thinking about "rebadging".
Anyway, I like "emergence", I think its a great word, holding a lot a weight.
Anyone else for / against?
BTW Andrew why don't you register so your comments come up right away?
Many thanks for your perspective...
read it?
how do we access the article? can you quote some of it? and i am interested in who their sources of information were.
I'll ask.
I'm going to ask Joy for permission to republish it.
i asked.
I asked, and they said:
"No permission granted – back copies are readily available from our offices. R20 plus postage. 021 – 852 4061."
Very efficient, when it comes to protecting their sales. When it comes to open discussion, it's another story.
It sends out a clear message to me that the right model of business, (and also church and life), is that of broadcast, one way, quash dissent. The pulpit holds the power, and the minnows are there to consume.
I believe in multicast, two way, communicate and include.
Steve, may I suggest asking CNA or the like to get you one - it worked for me.
CALL TO BOYCOTT
Due to un/ JOY 's lack of Grace, I will be boycotting this publication and call on others to join me.
joy critique
In terms of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the E.C. I'm in agreement.
I don't care much for the selection of quotes from McLaren and Bell as they're not representative enough of either individual's thoughts, but rather bits of larger thought blocks, and don't relate to their description of the E.C. Further, many, like myself, leaning toward E.C. thinking have been influenced by the likes of Leonard Sweet, Eddie Gibbs and NT Wright prior to the individuals referenced. I'd prefer that Joy spoke about contributors to the movement rather than leader for and against. It is a bit of a leaderles movement and the language usage gives the impression of leadership.
However, the following statement about What does the church look like? is one I'd like to comment on:
"There are many different streams in the Emerging/Emergent/'missional' movement. The post-modern belief system itself encourages diversity of belief which makes it difficult to track what the E.C. will lok like in ten years. Different people joining th emovement have mixed it in different proportions with Biblical Christianity. Some are mostly Biblical and a little postmodern. Others are mostly postmodern and a little Biblical. Some fall within the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, some do not. New E.C. followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' Biblical interpretation will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly Biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. It has been said that future generations of E.C. followers will probably slide all the way to apostacy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done. Several Christian leaders and church denominations have kept abreast of the E.C. movement."
My major objection to this article relates to the idea that there is a Biblical Christianity and then there's the wayward postmoderns. This polarisation evidences little understanding of the relation of Gospel to culture and favours modernist expressions of Christianity as that which is truly Biblical and all else as deceptive, confused, lost and unfaithful. It would seem, and I believe not only to me, that modernism and Christianity are such tight bedfellows that the rejection of one is taken as a personal threat by the other.
I've commented, in the past, on the difference between Pagitt and McArthur related to their dialogue on Christians and Yoga. I believe that the differences between their POV are significant and that articles like the one put forward by Joy don't deal with the heart of the issue but rather serve to perpetuate division among Christ's fellow brothers and sisters.
Those who consider themselves part of E.C. see themselves as members of another culture who're seeking to worship Godde and read scripture from therein. It is the quest for an expression of Christianity from within rather than as imposed from without. E.C. churches are simply not intending to perpetuating modernist franchises by franchising their songs, lights and teachings do not recognise modernist leaders as their leaders.
Envoy
Here was my comment for Joy
Here was my comment for Joy Magazine:
"The 'Emerging Church' is an attempt to respond to the philosophy of Postmodernism by accommodating it in the church to varying degrees, both in doctrine and in practice. Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings, but devalues absolute truth and questions our ability to know it certainly. It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together. Aspects, of the Emerging Church, such as experimenting with new service formats, are not always harmful. But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism. We must defend the gospel against this undermining of our confidence in truth."
If you feel any of this is unfair or inaccurate, please let me know. If you do comment, please email me also at mail@christianview.org
already been down this road
Philip,
I've already been down this road with you and stated that you're out of line in your accusations and that you're creating tension and division where there need be none. Though I certainly agree that we "must defend the gospel" I believe that you're simply not willing to hear what the postmoderns are saying regarding truth, so so-called self-authenticating claim to it, and the abuses that ensue therefrom. Anyone spending more than ten minutes gleaning some literature on cross-cultural mission may understand that the E.C. conversation is just such an exercise - i.e. cross-cultural mission - rather than the usual colonial version.
Envoy
welcome, phillip
Hi Phillip. I sincerely welcome you to this discussion, and am very glad you have taken the time to do so.
Thanks also for restating your position clearly and fully. Where I agree with you, is
- "Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings". That's fair. But the postmodern ethos is more than that too.
- "encourages mixing of different ideas and methods" That is true enough, it is ecumenical.
- "experimenting with new service formats ... not always harmful". No, agreed.
But these are my issues with your view:
- The Emerging Church is responding to postmodernism. Yes and no. I only became aware of being postmodern when I intuitively sought biblical truth, "holding onto the good, rejecting the bad" (to paraphrase), seeing lots of bad practice and doctrine in the church, being "pre-emptively excommunicated" (my words) by the church, and then having a friend explain it to me. He said, "They are modern, you are postmodern." It made sense all of a sudden. I never sought to be postmodern, or to respond to postmodernity. I simply sought truth, and Christ.
- "It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together". Here you are suggesting that well worked out logic is a prerequisite to being church. I believe in experimentation, presided over by love. All creative endeavour requires experimentation. I would go as far as to say that we serve an experimental G-d. The belief that it has to be all "worked out" and systematised is quintessentially modernist. Jesus was very encouraging of being child like, and children as you know are full of chaos and unpredictability.
- "But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism". You will really have to convince me of this one. I have been avowedly heterodox for the last while, and if anything this posture has firmed up my resolve to know G-d and to live righteously. As for doubt, your abhorrence of it is again a feature of positivist modernity. There are many traditions with Christianity where doubt plays a pivotal role, such as the apophatic / via negativa tradition.
I don't see dualising doubt and faith as being new testament thinking, it's a combination of enlightenment and neoplatonic thought. For me, doubt and faith are the 2 sides of the same coin. True faith is simply impossible without doubt. This is not saying necessarily that I make doubt a virtue, but I accept it as a part of a walk with G-d. How can we define faith as "certainty"? Hebrews 1 makes it clear that Faith is "the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for". It has evidence, it has substance, but it does not equate with certainty.
For the record, what did you think of the Joy magazine article as a whole?
And specifically, do you agree with my critique of your statements above - that your hermeneutics (science/art of interpretation) we not contextual enough.
Thanks again,
Nic
or be all invitational then ;-)
Thanks for being invitational Nic, I missed that by a long shot in my response. Philip please accept my apology for that.
However, I do expect that you brush up a bit on missional thinking and that you consider placing greater value on constructive conversation and hearing what others are saying before critiquing so vehemently.
It is, from what I've gleaned from your online writing, as though you are creating a one-to-one relationship between postmodernism and E.C./post-colonial/missional thinking as a whole. In light of that you apply critiques against postmodernism to E.C. thinkers and practitioners.
Further, if one admits that there's a disparate call for reformation with a number of tangents then equally one ought to follow through with fairer statements related to that complexity. There is no monolithic E.C. to respond to just as there is no monolithic postmodernism either.
It's as though you've charged a toddler with the offence of not training for track races yet! Remember that those speaking E.C. are not in Rome anymore and need not become "modernist evangelical" in order to become "Christian".
Envoy
Tim - thanks for that. One
Tim - thanks for that. One hallmark of conversation is the ability to change and adjust and apologise and repent and grovel - HEY that sounds like the gospel, wierd! We all get hot and toasty about the things we care about.
"There is no monolithic E.C. to respond to just as there is no monolithic postmodernism either."
Thats a very important point, and well made. The EC movment is especially in SA, very nascent, very much in process. There is grace enough for all our explorations.
Friends Thanks for the
Friends
Thanks for the dialogue. In terms of the comments by Nic above, I think that before one can begin debating, properly I think both sides need to understand the rudiments of eachothers position - in order to define what the debate is about. That is before either side tries to convince the other to agree on positions.
I also appreciate people who can seriously differ but still debate in a way that is based on truth rather than emotions.
Nic seems to mostly confirm that I have fairly explained in the above statement the Emerging Church position, but doesn't agree with my value judgments of it. I think I am going to have to leave the debate on value judgements on 'logic' , 'heterodoxy' vs 'orthodoxy' for another time when I have more time to argue.
I differentiate between 'Modern' and 'Postmodern', but oppose both. I fall into neither category. Please don't call me 'modernist'. I understand both as different forms of liberalism. Explain here. http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-is-postmodernism.html
I have not previously found anyone denying the linkage between postmodernism and the emerging church movement so don't understand this.
Out of curiosity, I must ask why you use the Jewish convention 'G-d' and the new age word 'Godde' instead of the common 'God'?
God bless
Philip
i wont call you modern if you stop calling me a wolf.
Thanks Phillip
I have read your yesterdays post on http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com. You have put some work into it, I can see. I tried to post to your blogger site, but regrettably was not able to.
I think it might be beneficial to have a F2F (face to face) meeting in which we can explore our differing views, but while this is a blog, I'll comment and then copy to your site.
I quote from your blogger article.
"While Modernism tended to reject historic Christian theology, Post-modernism borrows from it regularly. Their teachers will happily combine recitation ancient creeds with aspects of Catholicism and Reformed theology. This appears to give them some historic authenticity. But the problem is that they way they do it is void of any logic or coherence. It is just a case of picking various different ice cream flavours and putting them together into one cone."
You are correct that I (or maybe us Emergents) borrow from orthodox praxis and theology. For example, I would use Taize chant, incense and crucifixes in our liturgies. But it’s not to give our spiritual life "historic authenticity", as though we lacked it and felt uncomfortable about this. I'm not saying we "have" authenticity, but we value it highly, and find it missing in much of protestant experience.
The chief virtue is thus tolerance of other cultural groups. Also called ‘Political Correctness’
Well, correct again, tolerance is a virtue. But you can't assume that if you are tolerant you are therefore morally deficient, or merely towing the cultural line. I object to reducing this aspect of my spirituality to the PC cliché.
I am not sure why you take such an emotive tone. For example, words like "threat" and "seduced" are quite alarmist. I'd truly like to understand this, because my actual experience is entirely at odds with your description of my experience. For me, post modernity is incredibly liberating; "it is for freedom that Christ has set us free".
I have been fundamentalist; I have been anti-liberal, in my earlier walk with God. It nearly caused a total break-up with my Dad, who was a life long liberal. My liberalism has come to me by way of knowing an Inclusive, and very longsuffering G-d. It is not contemporary culture that made me liberal, but my understanding of over 3 decades of the nature of G-d.
You asked about the missing vowel - that's just a little iconic observance taken from the Hebraic tetragammahedron which reminds me of G-ds ultimate unknowability, and keeps me aware that by spelling out "God" does not mean I have mastered the Divine. Thanks for asking. It's not a rule, it’s a gentle reminder.
Phillip, why are the chief sins you refer repeatedly to, homosexuality and abortion? This is strikingly similar to how American Fundamentalists bandy about these push button sins to the exclusion of a swathe of other issues affecting our lives today... consumerism, individualism, racism, xenophobia, for example.
"A lot of people end up in heretical belief and those who apply it practically, immorality in behaviour". So the theory goes. I am heterodox, I countenance heresy. You don't know me, but most if not all of my friends do not see this as resulting in immorality. For me, G-d makes me free, and so that I can freely give to others, being generous in every way. That’s the ideal, anyhow.
"If tolerated is going to lead people into serious sin and for some eternal damnation" Well this is a big can of worms. It's again emotive, and highly debatable. Hell as understood by most evangelicals is a theological construct with demonstrably errant thinking. I'm not saying separation from G-d is not a reality for many people, I'm not turning away from sin or suffering, but I do not buy the idea of "eternal damnation". My faith here did not come by way of the EC; it was far more conservative writers who convinced me of my position. Only after I had decided I refuted the evangelical idea of Hell, did I realise that the likes of Brian McLaren were questioning it.
"Wolves in sheep’s clothing that are preying on Christ's church?" That’s pretty unfair. I, Emergent, love people and see this time as an opportunity to bring people closer to G-d. It's far fetched to think of my fellow EC'ers devouring or even thinking of harming, the people of G-d.
I'll stop calling you modern, but many of your statements have to be described that way.
emerging threat
Philip,
You have, from the start, created tension. Not only is the very name of your blog post a reference to E.C. as a threat but you make the following statement, "We must fight the 'emergent church' heresy with all the strength we have." That's quite at odds with your usage of "friends" in your post don't you think? If we're your friends, why are you so threatened?
Personally, I feel that you're not valuing the distinction between gospel and culture or the reality of the gospel in culture. It sounds like you're being reactionary and alarmist.
So, my challenge to you is a few questions:
1. Which emerging churches have you been to?
2. What does the E.C. contribute to your church?
3. How are you being helpful to postmod individuals who're Christian? Or are they irredeemable aside from regressing their outlook?
4. Which of Caputo's works have you read regading postmodernism and Christianity?
I offer the following, in-depth review of the E.C. in the meantime on my blog and believe there should be enough meat for you to engage.
Perhaps the online dialogue is not conducive to exploring any of this in enough depth. How about meeting up for a cuppa?
Envoy
Am I calling all emergents wolves?
Dear Nic
Please forgive me if time constraints at present do not allow me to respond properly to all the issues of debate above. I will try to respond in future, but can't do so immediately.
Nevertheless, for clarification and to avoid unnecessary offence that might otherwise close dialogue, I did not call you or all emergents 'wolves'. The context of the article and others on the same blog indicate that I differentiate between different types of emergents and I don't know which type you are. The same differentiation has been made by other Conservative Evangelical writers and even by emergents themselves. The context of the statement was with regard to a certain prominent South African emergent leader promoting acceptance of 'monogamous homosexuality'. Such people I would call wolves - as I would those who question or call unimportant core Christian doctrines such as the substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth etc. As for many others who call themselves by that name but don't question core issues necessary for salvation - well I would warn them to be careful not to follow the teaching such people but I wouldn't call them by the same name. Please forgive me if I did not make this differentiation sufficiently clear in the article. Nevertheless, the leader in question has walked a path of progressively moving slowly away from orthodoxy as he questions more and more doctrines. I would urge other emergents (of the more conservative type) to take the warning where this path can lead.
I don't know why you were unable to post to the http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/ but I will try sort it out so you should be able to post soon.
Philip Rosenthal
conversation on...
Hi Phillip
Thanks for taking the time to do that. I look forward to a fuller response when you get the time.
I'll be checking in to your blog from time to time, and most likely commenting - are you averse to allowing anonymous comments? The problem I have is blogger is so fussy and really breaks up the spontenaity of conversation. If you get harrassed by postmodern guerilla blog bombers, or bitter post-evangelical spammers, you can always tighten it up.
If you want, please sign up on EmergingAfrica.info so your comments come out straight away and unmediated.
I appeciate your willingness to dialog, and value all sincere points of view.
To address Nic's concern, I
To address Nic's concern, I have edited my original post to add the following text.
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-is-postmodernism.html
[Certain Emerging Church leaders have registered protest at my reference above to 'wolves in sheeps clothing', so I clarify that, while I disagree with all of them in their response to post-modernism, I don't apply the term 'wolves' to all of them, but to those who stray into heresy or sow doubt or undermine the importance of core Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement (Christ dying in our place), the sanctity of life of the unborn, the requirement to keep sex within man-woman marriage only.]
Posting to my blog
I tested my blog www.emergingthreat.blogspot.com by login in under a different user name and had no problem posting to the site. Maybe try it again. Don't know what the problem was. Also have put up two other blogger sites which others have posted to quite happily. I don't see a reason not to allow anonymous posting, but I have had trouble in the past from commercial spam posting on another blog and don't want more of that.
Let me outline my own frustrations
Haven't been here in SO long. Man, I've actually missed it! Hope all you guys are well!! Work has been keeping me so tremendously busy with a host of projects (and other excuses...)
Anyway, let me outline my frustration with this whole gedava. Firstly, I'm not surprised at Joy's response to the E.C. I haven't read the full article, but of what I know about the magazine (which I never really read) I'm not surprised. What publications like Joy do tend to forget is the past. Do they remember how the charismatic movement got dubbed heretical only a few decades ago? Do they remember that the people they let advertise in their magazine have been branded as heretics at some stage? I've seen them often run pro-articles on Benny Hinn. Do they remember how he has been branded a heretic in the past? Why is he, all of a sudden, ok?
Alright, that was a bit of an emotive response but hardly my real frustration. My frustration is with the debate itself.
See, when Nic speaks of using " Taize chant, incense and crucifixes in our liturgies" something inside me gets excited about that. Even though I know that my friends and family would think I was super wierd for maybe attending a church where the worship service was like that, I still wish I could experience these kinds of ways of worshipping. I know they wouldn't feel comfortable in a worship service like that, yet I would feel just as normal as I do in any other worship service (except, here I may be more curious because I wouldn't have attended a service like that before).
What's my point? My point is that the argument is largely based on differences of interpretation and differences in ways of worshipping in God (in lifestyle) than in the real core issue. The core issue is "do you believe in Jesus?" Heck, yes. We all do, I know that because I know some of you personally.
The debate hangs around language more than understanding. It's not that we see two sides of the same coin, because this coin doesn't have two faces. It has one face - Jesus. But this is a coin we RELATE to, and each person relates to this person in personal ways. This is not an 'all religions lead to heaven' thinking, and I know that most emergents don't think all religions lead to heaven. They just know that God is a God of grace and that some people who have never heard of Jesus before in their lives may find themselves enjoying the new heavens and the new earth simply because God has judged them on his own criteria. Strikingly, a great deal of evangelicals believe the same thing, and would punt guys like CS Lewis who was pretty clear about his belief in this sort of thing.
See, it's the way it's articulated that seems to become the all-encompassing issue, and (in a way) it's good to critique the way we teach things so we can teach better. What's not good is assuming you know exactly what the person is saying, especially when you don't know them personally.
So, for me, this debate is all around the HOW you believe in Jesus, and the WHERE you believe in Jesus, and whether or not one way of believing in Jesus is superior to the other. However, the bottom line is that the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit tells us to believe IN Jesus. This is not that complicated. It's not WHAT you believe that's important, it's WHO you believe IN that is. This is the all important core of Christianity, the relational reality, the base of all spiritual experience, the straight and narrow road of true doctrinal living. You miss this one, you're in dangerous ground. You don't miss this one, you have every freedom in the world to live and worship as the Spirit leads. For the scriptures tell us that all things are ours.
The conservative strain is very worried that this opensource type of Christianity would lead to apostasy, especially amongst the younger christians who are so vulnerable to heretical teaching. For me, this places very little faith in the God who saves and is able to guide us ALL into ALL truth. It also implies that one may believe the wrong things about Jesus and somehow lose their salvation. That's simply ridiculous. Salvation isn't what you believe, it's who you believe in. Everything else is simply a journey.
Am I defending the EC? Well, I certainly don't defend post-modernity and its way of being suspicious of everything. I don't defend modernity and its way of formulizing everything. What I will defend is the relational reality of Christ and Christianity, and I'm frustrated that these debates never keep 'the main thing the main thing,' which is Christ and the relationship we have with Him (individually and communally).
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
the re-entry of the gentleman penguin
Stray - great to "talk" again. I'm happy you are busy.
As usual you have taken time and effort to help the conversation along. I like the fact that your emphasise relationship above other things like doctrine. I'm also really pleased that you are venting a bit, emotional intelligence can get quite compromised when we get too objective and theoretical. There's something very true - indeed, very sacred - about being honest (even if one misses the facts). Facts can always be corrected; it is the voice of the heart that needs primary attention.
While it is quite true that there is a problem in communication due to articulation - our words having different meanings, I think the real clash is at a structural level - the assumptions we carry in our worldviews and our cosmologies - how we see the world as structured.
For example, Emergents are getting criticised as undermining "certainty". But "certainty" is a concept from a previous cosmology - the enlightenment view based on Newtonian physics. I'm sure that in the 17th Century (or thereabout - my history stands to be corrected), the move to the idea that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe, caused untold chaos in theology. We have for over 100 years now been shown by science that uncertainty lies at the (currently understood) heart of things, via Relativity and Quantum theory.
And more worryingly, certainty is being taken to equate to faith - that's simply not correct, it’s trying to compare crab apples and prickly pears. So if I subscribe to an uncertain universe, I am branded anti-faith, which is patently wrong. It actually requires MORE faith in an uncertain universe than a certain one.
As I said earlier, the Hebrews writer makes a magnificent, timeless assertion "Faith is the evidence of things unseen...". What the modern biblical view is saying is that faith = certainty, which makes that scripture into nonsense. Logically, it implies "Certainty is the evidence of things unseen." That's like saying "Smoke is the evidence of a source of smoke". Yo all ye logicians, tell me if I'm wrong!
I maintain, faith and doubt are intimately related. You cannot have faith without doubt. I, for one, do not trust the person who says they do not doubt, or that thou shalt not doubt.
It's time we completely exorcised the "Doubtless Thomas" model of how to be christian, and moved into the 21st; OK make that the 20th century.
the grammar of faith
It's struck me recently that grammar has some contribution to make dialogue around postmod/E.C. churches. Admittedly, if one could fail grammar I probably would've and if there's a subject I really, really find boring it's grammar.
It would seem that those steeped strongly in Evangelical and modernist thinking put the nouns of faith before the verbs of faith; those discovering that they relate to postmodern thinking and the E.C. are putting the verbs of faith before the nouns of faith.
The nouns of faith include "what do you believe?" and "do you hold to an absolute (i.e. definitionable truth)?" while the verbs of faith include "how do you believe?" and "what does this belief mean to you?"
I think that the key thing here, which you highlight, is that there aren't two sides to this coin but one. Thanks for that.
Envoy
eats, shoots and leaves
or was it:
eats shoots and leaves.
Envoy - some very good points about grammar.
It makes me think of Thomas Berry's assertion of contemporary faith:
"The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects."
And to quote from Len Sweet: "Religion is danced out before it is thought out." (Anthropologist/cultural critic RB. Marrett)
I really think doing comes first.
verb first then later
And David Bosch, possibly SA's best missiologist, said: "Mission is the mother of theology." Which makes me think we're in fine company rather than company to be despised.
Envoy
Dear Nic, Yes, I am
Dear Nic,
Yes, I am suggesting that Hell is a central part of the meaning of the gospel. I prefer to speak more broadly of God's Judgement becuase it is a central theme through scripture. This theme culminates in several passages in this concept of an eternal judgement.
I will admit that the whole idea is very hard to deal with, but I do believe we are dealing with a few essential characteristics of God's nature.
God is infinitely Holy: If he is infinitely holy and we set ourselves in opposition to God's infinite holiness, should the punishment not be infinite?
God offers abundant grace: No person will have any excuse for not accepting God's grace becuase as Rom 1 tells us, everyone can see in nature that there is a God of order and of beauty and of love.
God is just: God will be a liar if he does not do what he has said he will do. Over and over he has proclaimed that sin leads to death.
God is incarnate: He became a man and he suffered for the sake of man's sin, why would he go to such lengths if there was not a desperate need to save people from a desperate condition?
Important Questions
Hi Martyn,
Nic's questions below are very good and the thought process is very important. We have to ask these questions if we want to come to a real conviction about hell.
After a few years I came to more the conclusion of what can be termed 'annihilationism' rather than Universal Reconciliation, which is where Nic is coming from.
Incidentally, though, you may be very surprised at the Biblical support Nic will offer to support his argument - much of which shouldn't be taken lightly and still often will make me unsure on my own eschatological views.
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
Congrats ye Penguins...
Stray - firstly major congrats and blessing on your engagement!
Would you be up for a blogologue on the Hell question, taking the annihilationist view? If so, who would like to defend the traditional doctrine of Hell? Martyn?
Big smiles
Thanks Nic - if you're coming down in December I'd love for you to meet her :) :) She's amazing.
I'm definately keen for a blogologue - I'm still milling over some of that Afrikaburns stuff, by the way. Don't want to post until I have some thoughts together on that (my thoughts are at least together on the hell thingie).
www.ryanpeterwrites.com
"The Glory of God is man fully alive" - St Iraneaus
To Martyn, Re Hell
Hi Martyn
Thank you for your response, and engaging this conversation. I'm glad you admit the difficulty of the concept of Hell, despite adhering to it doctrinally.
The central support in your view seems to be via God's character which is Holy and Just, not excluding Graceful and Loving. I am in complete agreement with you that
- Our eschatology - how things turn out in the very end - will be based on the character of God.
- God is Grace and Love. 100 % agreed.
- God is Just and Holy. Also 100% agreed.
- Sin is a desperate condition. 100% agreed.
But amazingly, I am more convinced about a conclusion quite the opposite of the doctrine of hell. My eschatology (which is work in progress, best described as hope rather than doctrine) sees Love triumphing over sin, self and death, such that God would through Christ "reconcile to himself all things".
If we wanted to have a decent debate around these things, some of the things we would need to address would be
- What exactly do those attributes - love, grace, justice and holiness - mean?
- Is our dualistic approach to the question the only approach; are the only categories to apply to the problem "heaven or hell", "saved or condemned", "liar or truth teller" for example.
- The role of punishment in transformation.
- The origins of myths of places of punishment, often from Greek or Scandinavian sources, and the understanding of the Hebraic notion of unperception (Sheol), especially how it is used by in the words of Jesus.
- The words Hell (Heb Sheol Gk Hades/Gehenna/Tartarus), Eternal (Gk ainos), and Damn themselves in scripture, and the translation problems brought in by the King James version.
- The history of the doctrines of universal salvation and endless punitive separation (Hell), and the reversal of core christian belief circa 650 AD.
- The political beneficiaries of the doctrine of hell.
- The underlying propositions in the popular view of hell. To cohere, I propose that these 4 things need to be true
• That the fire of “Hell” is material, and that its agonies are physical agonies.
• That the doom of “everlasting damnation” is incurred by the vast majority of mankind.
• That this doom is passed irreversibly at death on all who die in a state of sin.
• That the duration of these material torments is necessarily endless for all who incur them.
And that these propositions need to be firmly grounded in scripture.
I've probably exhausted you with that, but if you see any value in it, we can proceed.
All the best
Nic
Post new comment