The marks of a renewed theology

I’m in, but I’m turning the list upside down (call it the liberationist in me):

Purpose:

1. Justice/Righteousness: in the synoptic sense (dikaiosyne); in the Hebrew sense (shalom), in the Johannine sense (eternal life), in the Pauline sense (what’s a Romans equivalent here, "righteousness of God" perhaps?).  I don’t believe there is a renewal of creation without this purpose.  And it is God’s purpose first, before it is ours.

2. Worship: any activity towards God and towards neighbor done with a pure heart.

Theological method:

1. Practical theology (or a fascimile) - I don’t think any method is possible other than this one.  Here’s why: Emergent, to this point, is mostly about a bunch of white, male, middle-class, Protestant, neo-evangelical, North American, post-modern, above-average-educated people.  If we stay like this we are toast.  A practical theology grounds us in the reality of God’s world.  Take what we believe to be true (theory), put it on the ground (application), talk to others (feedback/correction), come back to theory.  Eventually this method will correct all of the other social-locked categories I mentioned. BUT,

2. Humility - we can’t do any of it without a humility that is costly.  It must take into consideration our own socio-theological locatedness and be willing to sacrifice our sacred cows knowing that God’s mission will always be a *surprising* corrective as we go.

3. Public Prophetic Ministry - Surprising?  It shouldn’t be.  I would hate to see Emergent turn out to be a social club or exercise in theological mind-stimulation.  If we believe anything, if we believe justice has any place in what we are doing we must be prophetic (in the not-priestly sense).  We MUST oppose the powers that be in the church and without if we are to participate in God’s Reign.  Jesus was the Son of God come in the form of a poor, marginalized, non-priestly class: in other words, much like Amos.

That takes me to Content:

1. The Reign of God - How can this NOT be front and center?  Take it away and you have 300 years of history that are testimony to the marginalization of the person of Jesus.

2. The renewal of ALL creation.  We can’t be anthropocentric here.  This, I think, echo’s Richard’s brilliant comments on the Life and Death thread.  Creation wasn’t ex nihilo: the "Spirit hovered over the waters" is our introduction to creation.  Humans were created, not on a special day just for them, but on the sixth day with the rest of the land animals.  And the birds (fifth day) were blessed just the same as humans and animals (on the sixth).  God’s creation must be cared for in anticipation of its renewal.  I think we need to start here when we speak of new creation.  Nuancing further tends towards anthropocentrism and neglect of our responsibilities toward the earth.

3. Lastly, you make Jesus explicitly front and center.  The whole Jesus.  And you start with the gospels — not Paul — and work your way out.

4. Here is, in my opinion, the most important point of them all.  Pneumatology: without the spirit, none of these things are more than nice history lessons.  The Spirit teaches us…and in whatever way it feels appropriate.  We cannot testify of the spirit’s authority (through the authority of Jesus) if we make the scriptures the first teacher.  Using the old method of sola scriptura, Peter never would have been able to leave that rooptop for Cornelius’ house.  Paul would have never been able to leave the desert after two years and reinvent the whole of Hebrew scriptures. 

And the whole of Christianity never would have advanced to the most dominant religion on the planet, despite our textbooks that tell us it was the priestly class that *created* Christianity through the centuries.

God matters.  Jesus matters.  The spirit matters.  Justice is our calling, prophecy our method, new creation our hope.

I want to start here.

If you’re looking for Paula’s penguins, they’re over here.

I’ll follow Makaden’s example and also switch it around.

purpose

Long term - “your kingdom come, your will be done” - God’s creative renewal/redemption of individuals, communities, and our environment

Short term - get Evangelicalism back on track (see Long term :-) )

theological method

I think there should be two streams of theology, each focused on its own purpose. The results of each methodology will resonate between the two streams.

1. Exploratory theology - new ways of believing, worshipping, and living - is focused on the long term purpose. It is respectful of the world wide community of followers of Jesus, has a creatively constructive focus, and has a critical but generous relationship with tradition. Apart from these general guidelines, I don’t think we should limit where God might take us.

2. Renewal theology - is deeply respectful of the Evangelical tradition, with a goal of reinterpreting this tradition in a more positive way (short term purpose). It should respect as many of the foundational values of Evangelicalism as possible (deep respect for the Bible, orthodox trinity, atonement?), and aim to redeem the focus and practical outworking of Evangelicalism. For now we can leave it to God to adjust the foundational values if necessary, until then let’s be all things to all men and do what it takes to save Christianity.

The discussion between the two streams will prevent the Exploritory stream from becoming irrelevant or the Renewal stream from stagnating.

In general - I think we mostly agree with a focus on narrative as the final product of theoretical theology, so that metaphysics, motivation, and practice are intimately linked. No more angels on pinheads.

content

God birthed the world, imprinting it with his personality. God remains intimately related to the world, indwells the world, and acts in/through the world.

The personality/pattern of God is sometimes called the Kingdom or Reign of God. This personality/pattern is characterised by creation through differentiation, harmonisation, and integration. God may have set backs, but in an emergent/viral way will overcome all the anti-patterns of separation, enmity, and subjugation by redeeming/reintegrating them.

Jesus re-implanted the seed/virus of the personality of God in the world. As it spreads, God nurtures this seed/virus in each person enabling them to incorporate the personality of God with their own uniqueness. Our redeemed, communal purpose is to be co-creators and redeemers with God.

I think fuller understandings of the role of the Crucifixion, and the internal relationships of God are still being developed. There is already much than can be said about these and other things, but I’ll leave that to others.

1. content: how would we characterize the distinctive beliefs, ideas, doctrines, of a renewed theology;

Modernety thrives off of polaritys, off of binaries. It finds it important to reduce things to small categories such as saved/unsaved, beliver/unbeliver, gay/straight, black/white. Postmodernity now moves into the area between these. We start dealing with the grey areas.

So to must postmodern theology start to deal with the grey areas. No longer can we see the world in absolute christian terms: were saved/your not, our religion is  the true religion etc. In fact after the last centurrys disasters at Christanities hands we no longer have the right to claim we have the one true God.

Instead, as we move into postmodernity, we must also move away from certanty. We must move into the mystery that we too, like all other faiths and people, have had an expierence of the living God. One that is transformative and that invites us into new depth of reality with God. A true Christian can no longer be marked easily. Being trinitarian/non-trinitarian, pro or con on the historical jesus debate etc no longer can mark one as ‘in or out’. Instead our criteria is for anyone who finds Jesus Christ to be theologically signifigant.

2. theological method: how do we go about constructing such a theology; how do we communicate it?

We must view the bible and all of Christian tradition - from the mystics and the catholics and dessert fatherst to the reformers and modern libereal and conservative scholars - as lines in an ongoing conversation. But no one model can be the final word on anthing. And none of us can have ‘the truth’. As Derrida points out we are always becoming but we never become. Who we are and what we belive is never static and always evolves. As christians we would call this our spiritual journey.

The bible then presents lines in a conversation. Mark presents a more human Jesus, one who denies being the messiagh and who refuses to be worshiped. John, on the other hand, has a more mystical (and racist) Jesus who claims to be one with God etc. Both of these are lines in the conversation that are valid (As is asking ‘how human’ is Jesus).

 We must also reclaim the bibles metaphores. Theology is all model creation. ‘If God is X then the universe Y" or "if the universe is Y then God is X". This then invites us to integrate science into our spirituality (Quantom Theology, Evolutionary Theology, Process Theology).

Some ideas:

God is male and female. But God The Mother has been so long denied that God is more mother now than father.  

The Christian expierence is a mystical one. Like the mystics before us we can through meditation, prayer and spiritual discipline find Union w/Christ.

We are not the only people who have had an expierence with God.

 The earth is Gods first incarnation.

 God is not out there but God is here. The world is Gods body but the world is not God. God is imminent - with in and under the whole of creation - and God is Trasncendent as well.

3. purpose: what are our overriding objectives? what motivates us?

We are motivated by the Holy Spirit to affirm the presence of God in all people. We are not to judge them or to assume that we aor they are more or less spiritual. We encounter them as fellow Sons and Daughters of God and journey together in our process of becoming.

We are here to declare Gods kingdom.

Gods unconditional acceptance of us with out our work.

We are here to see what the world calls the least and see there the greatest mark of God.

We are to stand up to the powers and principalities - those forces that would destroy the human spirit, deny rights to minorities, women, gay and lesbian people, the homeless etc. We are to be an alternative Kingdom, accepting all that the world calls unacceptable.

I’m reading Introducing Radical Orthodoxy by James K A Smith (2004), which attempts to bridge its Anglican Catholic origins and Lutheran positions. It is a text a profoundly disagree with but at least it tackles the issues. Radical Orthodoxy was established by John Milbank and argues against any correlation between theology and the Enlgihtenment project, that the secular is its own theology and life in the old Enlightenment secular dog yet.

The purpose is ultimately a question of personal and group salvation, however this is to be understood. It has to be compatible with the secular, and naturalistic, and practical. It is about reorientation, thinking again, repositioning, making adjustments. There is an eschatology to this, in that the readjustment is as if this day was the last. There is a kind of Jesus message in there, that the demand is to be prepared. But this is purely voluntary and, unlike Jesus, of this world and no supernatural end, nothing coming in clouds of glory. It is more Buddhist, so that a principal part is to understand the nature of attachment, and to loosen from attachment, and to seek clarity for this path ahead. For me, like the Buddhist, awareness is the key. A person should not even be attached to one’s own or a significant other’s life, but to recognise its value and yet allow it to let go when it departs. Tough to do, but religion is tough to do.

So in terms of method it is obviously multi-faith, finding what does the job, and naturalistic. It also understands religion as communication. It is symbolic, and a ritual exchange is a giving of something material for something higher and greater, the spiritual path. This follows the social anthropologist Mauss.

Also the language and symbol system is the maker and container of the religious content - it is not referring to anything "out there" so to speak. It either works, like a liturgy works, in its reorientating task, or it does not. Perhaps nirvana or heaven is when there is no more to be said and no more to do - no further ritual passing through.

http://www.pluralist.co.uk

Thank you, Andrew, for remaining true to the standards which you set out for the project and allowing critique, as well as involvement..

The most important distinctives, defining emphases, of a renewed theology

For me, renewed theology means freshly considered theology, which does use time-honoured ingredients, yet which makes subtle changes to the recipe; the “meal” is then served up, freshly cooked and brought to the table with generous hospitality.

Wesley insisted upon four cornerstones in the construction of his theology, a “methodological quadrangle” of: Scripture (trustworthy on all matters that it intends to teach), reason (which Scriptural revelation goes beyond, but never against),  experience (unless we have irrefutable evidence for thinking otherwise, we should accept that things are the way they appear); tradition (church tradition has a critical place in theological and philosophical dialogue.) I think this sort of lucid, practical thinking has an essential place in working out a renewed theology.

Meanwhile, to answer Andrew according to the question posed:

CONTENT / how would we characterize the distinctive beliefs, ideas, doctrines, of a renewed theology

1. A renewed theology should present God’s eternal purpose: a renewal of creation through an infusion of eternal life. (I reject the post-modern assumption that meta-narratives are out-moded. I am confident that people are willing to consider meta-narratives, so long as they are offered as a choice; the Messianic meta-narrative is extremely attractive.)
2. It should be re-considered and re-presented within a Hebraic worldview, rather than the Platonic worldview out of which the Renaissance and the Enlightenment projects grew. This automatically places the Messiah and the (Earthy) Creation for Whom, through Whom and by Whom it was made at the centre of the renewed theology.
3. From this centrality of the Messiah and Creation, the centrality of the Messianic Community, the human seed of new creation, should spring  dignifying and beautifying the struggle of humanity to emerge out of chaos and malevolence, including religious struggles – and incorporating, in particular, the provision of an appropriate identity to the Jewish people and allowing for a continued messianic purpose for them – whilst engaging in the nitty-gritty reality that this human emergence will always seem incomplete… until a time of “consummation of all things.”
4. The theology itself should essentially be constructed around a Covenantal framework - and primarily and particularly the Abrahamic covenantal exclamation regarding the blessing of all families / nations – which I suggest relates to God’s absolute commitment to fulfil his eternal purpose – to bring many “sons” to glory in a renewed creation.
5. A practical theology of engagement must incorporate both suffering and success; of pain and glory; of humility and leadership; of poverty and (godly) prosperity; of partnership and conflict; of friendship and of confrontation; of giving and receiving; of rest and of sacrifice.

PURPOSE / what are our overriding objectives? what motivates us?

1. to preserve and present the narrative of God’s eternal purpose: to fulfil the trust entrusted to us, in a manner that all nations, all ethnic peoples can engage with;
2. to  particularly engage with the poor of the world, for whom the Good News exists first of all; this implies an absolute dedication to the task of enabling all people of all cultures to hear the Good News, in a language and a cultural expression that will enable them to receive the Incarnation of the Messiah into their midst;
3. to resist the power and principalities which resist the knowledge of God which exists in the revelation of the Messiah; to engage in the conflict, both philosophical and political, which arises from faithfulness to the Messianic tradition, never militaristically, but through suffering; pursuing victory in life; victory in suffering and defeat for arguments and pretensions set against God
4. to ultimately demonstrate an authentically Christian / Messianic character in the manner that this renewed theology is done within and presented beyond the site itself, without which, we are just clanging symbols, are we not?  (By all accounts, I believe site contributors score very well in this regard).

METHOD / theological method: how do we go about constructing such a theology; how do we communicate it?

Andrew himself, through the title of the site and in this and this post, in particular, has set forth a practical model for theological method: based upon open source software. (I am unsure whether Andrew sees this outworking in the ost project thus far, or not) I think this is an excellent model, with real potential for community-based theology.

How might this be extended (or made more clear), more effective, or more practical?

1. The debate aspect of OST undoubtedly works well, emulating the traditional Jewish rabbinical bet hamidrash method in some ways. It is important that aspect not be lost with any changes made. This aspect can afford the fuzziest of edges.
2. I wonder whether there is not an opportunity to more overtly explore and eventually express the modular approach that Andrew originally intended to be a part and parcel of OST to be more obvious? Whether, now the community of OST has grown, their is sufficient energy / personell / interest for theological modules to be divested into separate areas of discussion, with the hope of producing a renewed theology with some real boundaries, something people can really get a handle on and begin to put into practice, before, hopefully, sending in their “bug reports” and “feature requests” for the development of the theological module…
3. Suggested modular categories could, in a radical, post-modern attempt at renewed theology, spring from a Hebraic creation-centred notion of worship. Building upon James Thwaites tri-partite spheres, I would suggest three interfaces / spheres of worship within which theology could be applied and worked out:

• family
• work
• community

As I said, a radical approach, changing the roots of our theology from a Scriptural jargon-based approach (systematic theology) to a worship-centred approach, which easily coincides with those spheres of life within which Christians have to interface most closely with those who do not necessarily share their faith.

Running out of time to proof-read this, hope it communicates something of value…

Shalom!
John

I’ll do my best to offer what the Reformed tradition can offer to this discussion.  "We" seem to be getting some bad press because of Calvin-ism, which is different than Calvin himself. 

Content:

What distinct kinds of things should the emerging movement share?  That’s tough.

Faith: not an assent to doctrine, but trust in our heavenly Father as shown through Jesus Christ and witnessed to by the Spirit.  Trust is the key word and worthy translation of "pistis."

Scripture: the Word of God is not the Bible but Jesus Christ.  Where we find witness to the Spirit of Christ in Scripture we have encountered the Word of God.

Salvation: Faith in Jesus is not a simple belief, but trusting that he is the way into eternal life.  In as much as we walk in Jesus’ steps we have "already" experienced salvation in restored God-human, human-human, and human-creation relationships.  However, we have "not yet" been saved.

Solidarity: charity is one thing, but developing relationships with the poor and outcast is another.  Calling for solidarity would be a call to suffer with (compassion) those in need.  This would be a less patronizing form of mission and better capture Jesus’ words to "take up the cross."

Ritual: baptism and Lord’s Supper need to be recovered in more relational and conversational ways.  For example, keep the historic words of the Lord’s Supper, but make it more a meal and hospitable gathering.  We need more creative, relational rituals and celebrations.

Theological Method:

The reformed tradition seeks to "semper reformada" or always reform.  Of course, this reformation or transformation takes place according to the Word of God, which is not necessarily the Bible.  According to Barth, it is first the person of Jesus Christ.

Calvin also offers the "internal witness of the Spirit."  The truth of the Scripture is not found in reason or argument, but by the Advocate within who testifies about God’s Word.  Discovering God, then, is done in a communal conversation centered on God’s Word through the traditional Christian practices (Lectio Divina, contemplative prayer, hospitality, sharing meals).

It seems to me that our theology ought to arise out of this kind of always reforming context and focus on the god shown forth in Jesus Christ. 

Purpose:

Again, Calvin commented that the three OT roles were fulfilled in Jesus: prophet, priest, and king.  As Christ’s body, we should enter into those same roles.

Prophet: Speaks for God as he/she confronts the powers and principalities, identifies false idols, condemns injustice.  May even speak against the church.  Speaks for humanity as she/he repents and pleads for God’s mercy.

Priest: Sanctifies the community of God; makes them holy.  Identifies what distinctive qualities of God’s people set them apart.  And provides the methods of atonement.  In our case it may have more to do with pure hearts and forgiveness.  However, this does not discount the importance of ritual (i.e. baptism and Lord’s Supper)

King: Ensures justice; especially for the poor, oppressed, widow & orphan.  I imagine this to be the Christian voice in governmental arena.  Works to make gov’t as much God’s servant as it ought to be.

As for what motivates us, I borrow from Calvin once again: gratitude.  In as much as we have already entered into the abundant life we can be grateful.  Someone as described evangelism as one beggar sharing with another where to find bread.

Briefly :

Content

Christ-centred, cruciform, trinitarian

Method

Not a new theology - but new packaging for an old theology; the approach would draw on a diverse range of methods rather than have one method which informs or excludes all others, and would be systematic - biblical - narrative - historical - literary critical - deconstructive - canon - tradition etc; each approach would provide reflection on the others. In the spirit of postmodernism, each approach would be accorded validity and a welcome at the theological table.

Purpose

To present Christ in terms relevant to a postmodern age without diluting the challenge. Theology would both inhabit postmodern thought-forms and provide a penetrating critique from within.

Content: The meanings of salvation for those who understand their humanity as belonging to a community dedicated to service under the salvational influence of Jesus.

Theol Method: An epistemology of faith in the past sources of revelation and including the ongoing inspiration of the spirit. (My current interest is philosophy. Because post-logical positivism now is less adulatory of scientific control, the potential linkages to a new naturalism [I do not believe it will be a supernaturalism; that’s the price.] have opened vistas for aesthetic, moral, and religious achievements. All the disciplines are in turmoil. So the question is whether to join in the hard work or rest on laurels.)

Purpose: To witness to the tasks of Christian practice, understanding prayer and sacrifice as paths to committed belief about why we are here.

(Hadn’t realized how traditional I’ve become in my old age! This has the advantage of being readily sayable while standing on one leg.)

content: The content is characterized in narrative form. It is the story of a humanity that is in exile from her creator. The reconciliation of this separation is accomplished through the implementation of a new kingdom, beginning with the covenant promise, climaxing in the return of the king, and pouring outward to the whole of humanity. The central figure is one who is hailed as lord (good news), and is the catalyst of a new community of restoration.

An important aspect of the story needs to be emphasized: The project plan of restoration would have made sense (to humanity) coming through the rule of a Caesar, a superior worldly empire, an established regime, etc… but in the scope of world history, the scandal of a salvific strategy was made known through an oppressed people (Israel), through a fairly insignificant person (a Jew from Galilee?), in a less than desirable context (poverty, oppression, weakness). In the climax of the plan, the crowning of the king was done with thorns (suffering), not with gold. 

theological method: We embody the story, and tell and retell it through word and deed: In service; in worship; in community; in family; in friendship; in music; in art; in film; etc… all of which is done in love.

purpose: To live as image bearers of a restored kingdom, making our Lord known in the current context of our history (post-modern world).

del dominus 

Makedon:

I like your points, especially (1) begin with Jesus (not Paul) and work your way out and (2) Pneumatology.

I have spent the last 2 or 3 years studying the imperatives in the teachings of Jesus…and evangelism and church planting strictly from the actions and teachings from Jesus…it has been revealing!

I/we have also been in a season of experiencing the mystical and pneumacentric side of the faith… there is all kinds of stuff we don’t know!

thanks

Joseph Holbrook