I asked, “Can faith be based on a book”? I have not seen a single reply that suggests anything other than yes, of course. In fact it must be or there will be no faith. All answers rely on a quote from the Book itself or by a writer on the subject. Where does that leave an emerging theology, open or shut? Very clearly shut.
The emerging church will have to rely on nothing more than a tinkering with existing theology, as it always has because it is always emerging: emerging from the political turmoil of the early 1st century eastern Mediteranean; emerging from many similar belief systems and sects pre-existing in the same period; emerging from a confusion of unattributable late 1st, 2nd and 3rd century writings and editings; emerging from violent early church divisions; emerging from brutal attempts to permanently wipe other belief systems of the face of medieval Europe; emerging from equally violent attempts to crush new competing belief systems in the Holy Land; emerging from the reformation power struggles and dynastic wars; emerging from failed attempts to subvert alternative, ancient belief systems around the world; emerging from further internal splits and divisions and so it goes on emerging from its own uncertainty and insecurity.
Is there no voice out there that wants to follow a theology that never justifies war in its name; that is never an agent of political corruption; that is secure enough in itself that it can tolerate alternatives in its midst; that will be a true source of fearless joy a million years from now when we have truely evolved from our pre-stone age state?
Again: How open is open?
Albannach, this is a powerful critique.
1. At risk of repeating myself, you need to keep in mind that what this website seeks to nurture is not an ‘open theology’ in any absolute sense but an ‘open source theology’ - a theology that is transparent, collaborative, community-based, user-driven, and responsive to contexts of usage. It does not mean that this theology - or an emerging church theology - lacks parameters or purpose. An open source computer programme is designed for a particular purpose and it has to be more or less bounded by that purpose, otherwise it becomes useless.
An emerging theology will inevitably make certain presumptions, will establish rules for collaboration, and will define for itself a general purpose. These presumptions, rules and definitions will be made either explicitly or implicitly; they should be open to amendment as we learn or as circumstances change - part of the process is a conversation about the process. But there is no reason why an emerging theology should not consciously develop within a particular tradition. In this case, we are simply trying to understand what it means to belong to a community that in some way is in historical, spiritual and practical continuity with the person and mission of Jesus Christ. That commitment sets boundaries to the conversation, and to that extent an emerging theology is ‘shut’, as you say. But I would argue that any theology is shut in that sense because theology is always contextual and traditional - ‘shut’ and ‘open’ in relation to any intellectual or cultural activity are relative categories. It doesn’t mean that the boundaries are clearly defined, or that everyone agrees where they are to be drawn - we can’t close down that debate. But we can’t pretend they’re not there. Our commitment must be to integrity, honesty, candour, creativity, openness, and so on, as we pursue this conversation rather than some other.
2. Does that mean that faith must be based on a book? Well, I would say that it means that faith is based on the preservation of a tradition; and faith in Jesus Christ is based on the preservation of a tradition about who he was, what he said, what he did, and about the religious and historical context in which he thought and acted. The process by which this tradition is transmitted and developed is extremely complex, but we can’t get away from the fact that the Bible, and the interpretation of the Bible, is central to it. Even the pursuit of an internalized, idealized image of Christ is the product of this tradition. I am not at all advocating an unthinking, uncritical acceptance of Scripture as the ‘word of God’, but I do think we are learning how to define a very serious commitment to follow this very particular figure - Jesus who was Israel’s messiah and who has become Lord in my life to the exclusion of all others. What is so strange about learning this from the only texts we have that purport to give an account of who he was and how his immediate followers responded to him?
3. It seems to me that one of the most exciting things about the emerging church is its renewed sense of history, of being part of the messy landscape of history, of having walked through the ages with very muddy feet. We are right to be ashamed of the sins of the church, but we should not be ashamed of being part of a thoroughly historical, human, contingent tradition. We can’t afford to disown the grubby origins of our faith in pursuit of some high-minded abstract ideal. We have no choice but to follow Christ through our failures and wretchedness.
The Reliability of Imputation
I would argue that we can’t divorce ourselves from our historical context any more than our predecessors could, nor can we ensure that someone will not corrupt our theology even in our own lifetime, much less a million years from now. For we can control our readers no more than God allows himself to.
So our hope must remain outside of history and beyond corruption, and our standard of reliability in this world must remain by ongoing imputation rather than by inherent perfection (if such existed here). So we don’t call bad what God calls good, even though we know that as soon as speaks to us, his truth is corrupted because it falls on corrupt ears and is expressed by corrupt lips (or fingers) and perverted by corrupt intentions. And he and we can do that because, he having taken the only action that could simultaneously punish corruption and redeem us from corruption (whether we accept it or not), he has also effectively redeemed that which he revealed to us and is therefore inside of us – the us in this end of the sentence being everyone on earth.
But I would warn that this redemption is ongoing. One danger of cessationism is that it rejects God’s attempts to counter the accretion of our ongoing corruption of his revelation. Isn’t this as open as one could hope for? I agree with you that evolution should be embraced, but warn that even evolution springs from what has just evolved (and so on into antiquity). The best we can do is to expand on earlier forms.
In short, I agree with you that the book is not the immediate source of faith, but doubt that anyone in this world can invent something that does what it does more reliably. Because the book is an externality inserted "unnaturally" into our corrupted space/time framework.<\p> It is simply the best witness outside of God himself, and I can’t think of how God could do better given his holiness and our present corruption. I.e., the only way to improve would be for he himself to reside in this world, but he can’t simply stay in an unholy environment, for if he didn’t then destroy it, his holiness could legitimately be challenged. So he must separate himself and rely on such extreme contortions of the rules of holiness as he planned from the beginning and accomplished long ago in Christ. The main contortion being the cursing of the Uncursable, thereby enabling the indwelling by the Uncontainable (pre and post), thereby allowing the unreliable to reliably express the Inexpressible. And we here at OST are proudly carrying on this noble tradition by being contortionists. :)
One more demonstration: I’ve argued that the book is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation, but this does not mean that the book is not valuable. Just because a glass of liquid is neither necessary nor sufficient for a fine dining experience, doesn’t mean it is preferable to do without.