I am in the process of finishing a course on Spiritual Direction. A recent article is entitled "Don’t Resist Resistance: The Hard Work of Change." or something like that. Rather than trying to pacify or move around the resistance to new ideas and change, the author encourages us to ENGAGE, RESPOND, and EXPLORE.
That basically means to reflect back what’s been said for the sake of clarity. Share your own experience of what’s been said. Especially if their accusations are hurtful. And, finally, search within what has been said for the kernel of truth that they are sharing. Even if what has been shared is an attack or threat.
As the emerging church continues it’s upheaval, which I’m sure we all feel is a good thing, it will be important for us to remember that we’re shaking people’s foundations. That’s a scary thing. Condemnation and/or demeaning are rather common defense mechanisms.
With regard to the Orthodox and Catholic (and Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, if they got wind of this) it seems to me, they feel that we aren’t taking seriously all the work and thought that has been done by Christians up to this point. They seem to feel that we’re starting over rather than reading differently what’s been written. It’s very judgmental to label the emergent church so quickly. And I, for one, resent the assumption that I would neglect two thousand years of Christian soul-searching. At the same time, they are right to point out that a lot of thought has, indeed, been put into these matters. Perhaps the emergent church is being too flippant with the tradition. Especially when it comes to issues so central as Jesus’ divinity/humanity.
I wonder, what do you all hear as the real issues behind the Catholic and Orthodox responses? How would you respond to clarify the emergent position? And, what is at stake for them and others that they resist these emerging ideas?
Re: The Emergent Response
[FWI, my buddy Clifton has written a post explaining where he is coming from with his attacks on postmodernism. I highly recommend it.]
Susan Peterson has left an observant comment at Pontifications that suggests that the emergent church’s "paradigm for the development of theology would imply that religion is a production of humanity and therefore making it a collective production could only make it better." Supposing this is true, then from an Catholic and Orthodox perspective, no amount of ENGAGING, RESPONDING, and EXPLORING will do any good if it is not infused with the Holy Spirit. Similarly, no amount of ENGAGING, RESPONDING, and EXPLORING will do any good if we do not thoughtfully consider the past - for if we believe that the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding us to truth, how much more was leading and guiding the Christians who came before? (For a good example of someone whose rediscovery of tradition led him to seek a recovery of the tradition, consider John Henry Cardinal Newman.)
I would, of course, interpret the hostility toward the emerging church differently. Let us say that you, as a parent, have a child who sees the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. This child, who is intelligent for his age, concludes, based on personal experience, that the Sun must be revolving around the Earth. When you try to tell him otherwise, that the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, he cannot grasp it; after all, the Earth doesn’t feel like it’s going in circles, and it certainly doesn’t feel like the entire is sphere is moving around, suspended in space! Yet something so evident to us, like the difference between the words ‘to’ and ‘too,’ seems so hard for the child to understand, because he is young and immature. Likewise, the Catholics and Orthodox have been caught up in an ancient tradition, and their responses to you (from what I can see) are not out of feeling threatened - they are rather like a parent rolling his eyes at his child for insisting that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I must stress again: the problem is not only that the emerging church isn’t taking seriously all the work and thought that has been done by Christians up to this point. (It seems obvious to me that they are not taking the work and thought seriously as they don’t seem to have studied in depth Church history, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the worship of the early Church all together.) And the problem is not that the emerging church has neglected two thousand years of Christian soul-searching. No, the problem is that, from an Catholic and Orthodox point of view, the emerging church undermines the work of the Holy Spirit in Christ’s Church for the past two thousand years. It does this by assuming that we can not only question but reject such central tenets of the faith as "Jesus is God," and still call ourselves Christian. The definition of the word Christian has always included the belief that Christ is the God-man, and as Chesterton pointed out, you will necessarily limit yourself by what you call yourself. You can’t be an atheist who believes in God; you can’t be a theist who doesn’t believe in God. And from a historical standpoint, saying you’re a Christian who doesn’t believe in Christ’s divinity is, frankly, nonsense. So with regard to your concern that the emerging church is being too flippant with issues as central as Jesus’ divinity/humanity - I would say that’s progress.
It is good, in my opinion, that those involved with the emerging church are having their feathers ruffled. When something as precious as truth hangs in the balance, there needs to be more than cordial discussion - there needs to be a serious stand that rejects all other claims. The statement, "Well, this is what I think [Jesus is God, for example]… but I could be wrong" is a sort of false humility in which, if I may borrow from Chesterton again, the speaker doubts the truth but ironically never himself. But, once again according to Chesterton, a man should always doubt himself but never the truth. This is true humility - to trust that something or someone bigger than you decreed timeless truths that no culture, modern or postmodern, can alter. So maybe the emerging church’s confrontation with the real, historical branches of the New Testament Church will force emergents out of their spiritual lethargy and into a real struggle for the salvation of their souls.
Re: The Emergent Response
I am not qualified to respond to this post, but I have a couple thoughts, so I will share them.
First, the emergent church must be open to criticism. Hence the conversation we are having is a good one.
Second, the emergent church cannot let itself be controlled by past thinking. Mind you, it must be (and necessarily is) informed by tradition, but to have someone telling us that certain (not that heretical) views are a priori off limits, well… that’s simply not helpful. Do we trust that the Holy Spirit has been at work in Church history? Absolutely! Do we believe that humans can be stiff-necked and hard-hearted? Absolutely! This is why we cannot let 2000 years of soul-searching end today. The soul searching must continue.
Perhaps from a historical perspective a Christian who cannot give intellectual assent to the proposition that ‘Jesus is God’ is an oxymoron—but I thought a Christian was quite literally a Christ follower. A disciple of Christ. Granted, one’s views about Jesus will shape how he is followed, but I cannot agree that rejecting the ‘Jesus is God’ equation makes one ‘not a Christian’.
The hope that the "emerging church’s confrontation with the real, historical branches of the New Testament Church will force emergents out of their spiritual lethargy and into a real struggle for the salvation of their souls" strikes me as somewhat interesting… Those of my friends who think of themselves as ‘emergent’ are in fact the least lethargic Christians I know. Perhaps my American evangelicalism is clouding my eyes, but too many ‘Christians’ I know have clung so tightly to the ‘truth’, that their discipleship has gone down the drain (Kierkegaard would roll over in his grave)! Also the ‘salvation of their souls’ terminology sent me for a little spin. I’m not convinced the ‘historical branches of the New Testament Church’ have always been as gung-ho about our immaterial souls as we seem to have become in the past few centuries. The true Christian believes in life before death. Ah but I am no scholar.
"When something as precious as truth hangs in the balance, there needs to be more than cordial discussion - there needs to be a serious stand that rejects all other claims." Truth is important yet. As is humility. But you know what I think is more important than truth? Goodness. Now, I believe that an appropriation of the truth will lead to goodness, and I also believe that goodness leads to truth. But the one I’m most concerned about spreading isn’t ‘truth’.
Blessings in our Lord and in the Savior of our lives,
-Daniel-
Re: The Emergent Response
Please keep in mind that I am by no means representative of the people on this site, let alone the emergent church, and that I have no theological qualifications with which to intelligently respond to your points. Instead I would like to respond by acknowledging the points that you have raised, make an attempt at changing my actions accordingly, and explain how the emergent church has already taken some of your comments on board (in my experience of the emergent church anyway).
In keeping with PastorPete’s intention for this thread, thank you for your reminder that, when it comes to understanding God, we are only children. This reminds us how important our humility and open-mindedness is when we are in discussion. We also need to keep a sense of freshness and wonder at what God has for us to learn in our discussions. Although I personally fail at this, I have found very few places outside the emergent church in which Jesus’ words (Matthew 18:3) are taken seriously.
Thank you also for your reminder that we should always look to our Father for answers (Matthew 23:8-10). As you say, this is the second part of humility, trusting that we can always rely on Him to guide us to the answers that we need, in His time. It is not through strength of argument, or authority of established position, that we will recognise the truth, it through the Holy Spirit in us, although He may use a variety of methods, including discussion or traditional dogma, to bring the truth to our attention.
We need to remember to take the work of the Holy Spirit very seriously, as He has time after time brought back his straying nation and then his straying church. We need to make sure we are part of this bringing back rather than further straying. I have personally found Andrew’s and Peter’s explanations of N.T.Wright’s work helpful in this regard.
The Holy Spirit has also deepened understanding as he has worked in the church. However the fruit of this deepening must be the true fruits of this Spirit. This reminds us that it is praxis and not dogma or philosophical correctness which is the true test of whether we are straying or remaining true to God.
We need to remember to be accepting of groups that see things differently, so that they don’t feel like their faith is being undermined. God is not asking other people to question the same things He is directing us to question. Paul reminds us to always be sensitive to the faith of those around us. Any questioning should have the motivation to build our own faith rather than destroying other’s. It is up to God to lead people in His direction, in His time.
Maybe we need to remember to be open to a little more biography in our discussion, when appropriate, to explain to others why we feel that our task is urgent and important rather than just idle talk. This would also emphasise the incarnational aspect of theology. There have been many posts here in which people have done this, and there are whole sites where people discuss this side of things. Maybe the emergent community in general needs to be more conscious of the necessity and power of biography in its conversations with established traditions. Dave Andrews has modelled this well in his books. Thank you PastorPete in encouraging this with your post.
A personal response to David’s post
I do not think that you would like to attribute every statement or action of every church leader to the Holy Spirit. So would you like to suggest an alternative method (other than personal prayer and reflection using all of the resources God has given us, including honest, respectful discussion with fellow Christians) by which His true presence can be discerned?
As we discuss with other Christians we are opening ourselves up to the possibility that the Holy Spirit in that person will ENGAGE with us through that person. We need to ENGAGE in a reciprocal way, RESPOND to the word of the Holy Spirit that came through that person, and EXPLORE the consequences of that word for us. This is also the way we need to engage the revelation of God in nature, special revelation in scripture, historical revelation beyond scripture, and Christian tradition. We need to allow God to speak to us through all these things. Can you explain your problem with this model in more detail?
The reason that I left the established church was that the “struggle for the salvation of my soul” was being impeded rather than assisted by the established church. The church I was in regarded manipulation and authoritarianism as valid ways of relating to people. As I was entering into ministry I became disguisted at my tendancy to pick up these habits, so I left the established church in fear for my soul. I found this a very difficult experience, as most of my community and tradition was tied up in the church, however my soul was more important. The examination of my faith to root out this error which seems to have infected much of the church has been the most important aspect of my life for many years. Most of the emergents that I know are similarly vitally concerned for their souls.
This has been my personal journey, so please understand the reluctance of myself and some of my peers to place the revelation of the Holy Spirit found in the church creeds and traditions on a pedestal above the Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture, in history, in nature, and incarnated in the Christians around me.
Re: The Emergent Response
I would like to add to Richard’s comment that the christian tradition of many emergent christians goes beyond of just one tradition of christendom. For me Eusebius of Casarea, St Athanasius and Martin Luther are part of that tradition. It has been said that we disregard martyrs that have died for their faith on which the church stands. But I also want to regard my orthodox brothers that were slaughtered in the 13th century by catholics; as well as the catholic brothers that were slaughtered by protestants as well as protestants (like Jan Hus) that were burned to death in constance by catholics. And then I do not want to forget anabaptists that were killed by the reformed. And I also want to regard those Arians that were persecuted along with Athanasius that were persecuted as well. History of christianity should make it clear that martyrium alone doesn’t prove anything. It does sadly prove though, how far christendom and especially established Chrsitendom has shifted far, far away from Christ.
As much as I want to accept christian tradition I do not want to forget that some councils were held in the midst of aggression and violence not only of those which voices were not heard in the councils. In the light of this there should be an understanding of a certain kind of carefullness towards the outcome of councils tolerated.
Furthermore to say to accept the christian tradition still doesn’t asnwer everything; since not all creeds and councils are acceptied likewise by all chruches.
On a personal note, David; your undertone ond those of others, especially after reading your comments in Pontifications, saddens me. Maybe even some followers of the established church can learn just a little bit also from the emergent church in their understanding of christian history; that scornful and diminishing baehaviour towards other churches might not be very helpful?
Re: The Emergent Response
Why can’t the emerging church be the product of (rather than undermine) the Holy Spirit’s work in Christ’s church for the last 2000 years? Is there any way to know for sure except "by their fruits?"
Re: The Emergent Response
Oops, I missed responding to you. I guess the question is, how do you know that the emerging church really is a product of the Holy Spirit?
Re: The Emergent Response
Daniel:
First, what I am proposing is not that the emerging church should be controlled by past thinking, but that it should be illumined by ancient practice. Surely we can be creative in the way we understand and present the Gospel of Christ, but we should work from the framework of what has been passed down to us, never altering it in favor of a hip new postmodern idea. While I get what you’re saying about how the soul-searching must continue, such a search will be aimless if we do not consider the millions of saints - not to mention all the modern converts - whose search has ended in either the Roman Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox Chuch. And what did they find there? Fullness. Completion. The ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the community and in the life of each individual. And you know what else? An in-depth study of Christian history (both East and West) will show that even with an established tradition, the saints have expressed their devotion to Christ in the most imaginative ways. In that sense, the historic church carries on the story that emergents are trying to recover, the story of God’s kingdom advancing in the world, and it keeps in mind where it is headed.
If Jesus is God and, historically speaking, Christians always believed that Jesus is God, then no, one cannot be a true follower of Christ and reject his divinity. In so doing he rejects the Christ that Christians have always followed. Your talk of "life before death" kind of confuses me. For those who are in Christ, there is no death, for death has been abolished. On a side note, I am not using the word salvation in the sense of "getting into heaven." Also, I would not place goodness on a higher level than truth: Christ did not say "I am goodness" but "I am… the truth…" In fact, they are rather inseperable as truth is goodness, and what is good and right is true. To contend for an untruth means contending for a lie and thus it doesn’t matter how nice or humble we are - what we believe will not not good, and we are no more good for believing a lie. Let me ask you: if the one you’re most concerned about spreading isn’t ‘truth,’ then what is the one you’e most concerned about spreading?
Richard:
You said that, "The Holy Spirit has also deepened understanding as he has worked in the church." With this I wholeheartedly agree, but if God is truly immutable (which emergents seem to question anyway) then the Holy Spirit will not lead early believers to accept something that later Christians will reject. Case in point, does baptism save? The early church seemed to think so, but now many denominations reject any outward ‘work’ to which we attach our salvation. Is Christ really present in the Eucharist? The early church and even the Reformers seemed to think so, but now many denominations say that it is a "pure memorial." So, in order for us to recognize how the Holy Spirit has deepened the Church’s understanding, we should look to the past to see how it the teaching developed. It may be that the earliest Christians did not really grasp the concept that Christ is one of three hypostases of God, who has one ousia. Why then, when the Holy Spirit reveals this much to them, do we have emergents in the 21st century who say they respect the Holy Spirit’s working in the church and yet reject the teaching that Jesus is God? I sense an inconsistency here. (Sorry I keep using the "Jesus is God" example, but it really represents what I consider to be the type of extreme deviation from Christianity that the emerging church seems to have fostered.)
I appreciate that you feel the need to explain why your task is urgent and important rather than just idle talk - for since I stumbled upon the emerging church, idle talk is all it seemed to be. Emphasizing the Incarnational aspect of theology is the best way to start, but here I must advise you to be consistent in your application of the Incarnation. If you study each of the seven ecumenical councils, you will see that if one does not center directly on the Person of Christ, it will come back to the Incarnation in some way. Some questions to consider are: Why the Incarnation? That is, why did the Incarnation happen in the first place, and why should we filter our theology through an Incarnational lens at all?
Now to your personal response to me: of course I would not attribute every statement of every church leader to the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostles, by themselves, could be wrong - Galatians 2 is a perfect example of that. What we need, then, is the community of believers, the collective experience of a body that can trace its lineage back. We need the collective experience because the Holy Spirit speaks through the community, and I find this evident in Acts 15 when the Apostles established the principle of conciliarity. We need to be able to trace the lineage of a body back to the Apostles for the following reason: Christ as God became Incarnate in time and space, and therefore His body will continue to exist both in time (historically) and in space (geographically). So here we have three principles now to consider. We have the principle of consensus, that which the entire community believes; we have the principle of antiquity, that which has always been believed; and finally, we have the principle of universality, or that which is believed everywhere. I hope this model helps to make sense of what I mean when I speak of the Holy Spirit working in the Church.
One last note: I do not intend to "place the revelation of the Holy Spirit found in the church creeds and traditions on a pedestal above the Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture, history, in nature…" In fact, the dichotomy you seem to be drawing (institutional church vs. organic church) is foreign to my thinking. To paraphrase the Apostle Paul, concerning the spiritual gifts: "It’s the same Spirit." The creeds were written in order to preserve the Christians’ way of life, not to put strictures on it. Here it might help to quote St. Irenaeus: "Tradition is Scripture rightly interpreted."
Paul:
I know that some have been rather harsh in their assessment of the emerging church, but you must keep in mind that questioning such fundamentals is, for them, trying to re-invent the wheel, notwithstanding the jargon of "re-reading what’s been written." But what about the undertone of my comments either here or at Pontifications saddens you? I have tried my best to remain civil and not simply lob hand grenades. Sure, I get a bit worked up at times, but nothing that is meant to intentionally offend. To me I am just defending the truth while trying to get you to look at it a different way. If I have said anything you find truly disheartening, quote me on it and I will straighway apologize.
Re: The Emergent Response
Greetings David. I am enjoying the conversation you seem to have sparked. It seems that the posting on OST goes in waves. This is definitely high tide.
You asked "if the one thing you’re most concerned about spreading isn’t ‘truth,’ then what is the one you’re most concerned about spreading?" In context, I was implying that I’d rather spread goodness than truth. I would hope for both of course, but all the debate about truth tends to take away from the goodness, when I feel it should do the opposite. For this view I am informed by Jesus’ parable of the goats and the sheep. Based on how I understand it, what matters to God is less what we believe, and more how we live. It is those who clothe the naked, give food to the hungry and visit the imprisonned who advance the Reign of God… whether they’re trinitarians or unitarians doesn’t seem to matter that much in the cosmic scope of things.
Now of course, I would argue for a trinitarian understanding of God. I think it best deals with the biblical text, and that it gives us insight into who God is and what God’s project is. It also highlights the centrality of Love. Might I point out, since you seem to come back to this fairly often, that many ‘emergents’ (to the best of my knowledge) would be just as uncomfortable with the statement "Jesus is not God" as with the statement "Jesus is God." I think what the conversation has revolved around is how either of these statements simplifies biblical reality too much. My point is simply that true Church (what the emerging church strives for) is missional.
As for the three principles you mention to Richard… I am skeptical (no surprise there) of their use. The principle of consensus depends too largely on which community we’re talking about. The Roman Catholic consensus on birth control is not by virtue of the consensus right (I realize, your point was more nuanced than simply saying ‘what everyone believes is true’). The principle of antiquity flounders on the basis of the plurality of the Church’s past—not only this but the Roman Catholic Church (and I pick on those dear brothers and sisters only because I know much less about the Eastern Orthodox Church) has done much theological damage (masses in Latin, a faulty soteriology, etc.). The principle of universality is perhaps the weakest one. The Church is far too diverse for this principle to be useful for more than application to the simple question of Messianic divinity. I guess my biggest frustrastion with your principles is not that I disagree with them. I think they highlight views which should be weighed before disagreeing. They are significant as dialogue partners (and cannot therefore be ignored). But the emerging church is wary of oppressive metanarratives. To say that "everyone, everywhere, through all of history has believed this way, and so you can’t believe otherwise" strikes me as unhelpful at best and oppressive at worst. Am I making sense?
And so we return to your question, how do we know what the Spirit has brought about? Well… I’m not sure. I’m not sure we’re called to be sure. I think we’re called to use discernment, to ‘weigh the spirits’ if you will… but we can never be absolutely sure. As has been previously said (by some here, and by Jesus too), a tree is known by its fruit. The project of the emerging church will stand or fall based not on its theology, but rather on how its ‘members’ are transformed and how they transform the world (again, truth is not irrelevant—it is deeply important, and we must therefore always seek it, but orthopraxy is far more important than orthodoxy). As my pastor says, the Kingdom of God (and therefore the work of the Spirit) can be recognized because it is whatever looks like Jesus, dying on Calvary, for the very people who crucified him. Sacrificial love is the heart of the Reign.
Cheers, shalom, and good day to all!
-Daniel-
Re: The Emergent Response
What you present us with, Daniel, is a false dichotomy: goodness over truth. You have yet to define what you mean by truth, but I suspect that it is something along the lines of "all the right intellectual and spiritual ideas." That is not what I mean by truth. From what I understand, truth is in fact personal, because it is a Person - namely, Jesus Christ. Viewing truth in this way breaks down the subjective/objective distinction; it also bridges the gap between propositional truth about God and experiential knowledge of God. But that’s a subject for a later time. My point is simply that there is no reason to prefer goodness over truth: being a nice guy does not save; truth does. But it is not the reduction of truth to a few propositional statements about who Christ is, if there is a Trinity, etc. Without disregarding those things, truth rather has to do with the full revelation of Christ as experienced by the Apostles and their successors. As for the parable of the goats and the sheep, there is also the parable of those who say, "Lord, Lord - look what I did in your name!" and the Lord says: "Depart from me for I never knew you." So simply spreading goodness doesn’t cut it. We need a fuller revelation of truth, a context in which to spread that goodness.
I would say that it is incredibly important whether or not one is Trinitarian or Unitarian - not because it marks you as ‘in’ or ‘out’ of this or that social club, but because the Trinity is a reality to be experienced. If God is a monad, then He needed to create in order to express love. If God is a monad, then what exactly does it mean for us to be made in His image? The problem lies not in that the concept is abstract, but in our minds when we assume that this has little relevance to our daily lives. In fact, whatever we think about God is immensely important to our daily lives and to the salvation of our souls. With regard to the emerging church’s hesitance to say both "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" - why not respond to my post with an excerpt from the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith? Also, where do you derive this idea that the true Church is missional?
You are right that the principle of consensus relies heavily on which community we’re talking about (and accordingly I have little faith in the consensus of this community), so to make it easy: the first five hundred years of Christianity, the consensus of the Church Fathers, the consensus of the laity, and the life of worship in the Church. After about the 500s AD, the East and the West became more and more culturally estranged, and their developed the greater plurality which you refer to. But consider first the writings of the Apostolic fathers along with those of the New Testament, and you will find a consistency. Moving along to their successors, the Ante-Nicene fathers, you will see development, but also more consistency. The teaching is never altered, though it may be clarified. Of course, the three principles of consensus, antiquity, and universality cannot be taken in isolation from eachother. If there is no modern consensus on what the Apostles taught on a certain issue, we are to look to the past to see what was done before. If there is no record of what the Apostles taught, then we are to look at the established consensus. And if neither of these things can be discovered, then we look at what Christians everywhere practice. Likewise, if there is no consistency in what Christians everywhere are doing, we should look back to the past and see the consensus of the Christians who have gone before. I realize that this seems overly-simplistic, so let me just say that we should not rule out the diversity which Christianity has always allowed for. But it is a diversity that took place within the tradition, not without it, and it is a diversity that recognized the Holy Spirit at work in the Church at large - on a scale bigger than my individual needs or personal expressions.
It deeply troubles me that you would say "we can never bee absolutely sure" when it comes to how to know if the Spirit is inspiring the emerging church. Here your postmodernism finally comes out: but if we can never be absolutely sure that the Spirit is inspiring the emerging church toward its exciting new conclusions, then how can we even be sure that we can’t be sure? I don’t mean to sound like a smart alec, but if you would but taste of the fruit of the lives of devout Catholic and Orthodox believers - not those who have left their faith, but those who, despite all their troubles, have remained for whatever reason - maybe you would see that the tree from which they come is not so rotten after all. And at the very least, I guess this is the best I can do: invite you to become aquainted with the historic Church, to seek to understand, even when you do not fully comprehend, why the Church has always taught and practiced what it has taught and practiced. We may not be able to tell if the Spirit is moving in us nowadays, but I will stand on Christ’s promise that he led those early believers into all truth.
In the peace of our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
David
Re: The Emergent Response
David. I think you and I do not view things so differently. A large part of our disagreement, I think, stems from the language we are using (as if often the case in many disagreements). Allow me to clarify some of my earlier comments.
First of all, the ‘false dichotomy’ which you mention (truth/goodness) is in fact a false dichotomy. You are correct. I never wished to present it as such, but rather intended to say that we (and by we I mean American evangelicals) have made it so—I have known too many people who have held orthodox views (on issues like Jesus’ divinity), and yet, who have been anything but ‘good’ to their neighbors. And so in distinguishing the two, I am only referring to how they are lived out.
Second, you say that truth is subjective and personal, because it is Christ. I think this is a helpful way to think of the issue (which, as you rightfully point out, breaks down the aforementioned false dichotomy). However when you say "My point is simply that there is no reason to prefer goodness over truth: being a nice guy does not save; truth does," you are unfortunately not being consistent in your differentiation of the two. In my language game, I would say that truth doesn’t save. But that’s because what I mean by truth is ‘holding orthodox views about Christ’ (or any other theological subject) and what I mean by goodness is ‘being Christ to others’. This could evolve into a discussion of salvation quite quickly. Suffice it to say I am deeply indebted to McLaren in my soteriology. It is not excessively sophisticated, but it places an emphasis on salvation from sin (and not from hell)—this finds echoes in Campbell’s latest book, by the way. If you want to avoid the goodness/truth dichotomy (a noble goal that I would tentatively share depending on my audience), then I don’t think you can elevate truth above goodness. To do so would be to contradict your premise.
Concerning the parable of the goats and the sheep, I am thankful because you have presented it in a new way. I will have to mull it over. In my understanding of the parable, I thought Jesus was arguing that knowledge of God is in fact equivalent to good works (clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, etc.)—in which case, the ‘I never knew you’ is Jesus’ interpretation of their lack of Christ-like behavior. Am I making sense?
I am sorry that you are ‘deeply troubled’ because I am not ‘absolutely sure’ that the Spirit is moving in the emerging church. Allow me to reassure you that I deeply believe the Spirit is at work in our community, and I feel an awesome sense of God’s presence when I read authors such as Brian McLaren… there is a humility and a sense of mission and love that reeks of the Holy Spirit. I suppose I may have simply enacted the post-modern recoil from your search for some sort of criterion of certainty for the Spirit’s involvement. Absolute certainty is a myth, though practically speaking certainty is acheived closely enough every day. Paul gives us the criterion for Spirit-involvement: the fruit of the Spirit (peace, patience, goodness—not truth!, kindness, gentleness, self-control, etc.). In my experience the emerging church exemplifies this, to the glory of God.
I will whole-heartedly affirm however, that the Spirit is moving beyond the emerging church. I would never claim sole ownership of spiritual fruit! The historical church has displayed these, as do many congregations today. I never meant to denigrate anyone who does not think of themselves as ‘emergent’. I simply meant to highlight the positive focus of this movement.
Blessings,
-Daniel-
Re: The Emergent Response
David,
I think you are right and my statement was too much of a generalization and I apologize for this. the sentence ‘Your tactics appear suspect to me’ stroke me a bit though. I was not trying to apply any tactics and was not meaning to ‘narrow down’ anthing. I should have been more precise to start out. Sorry for that.
This leads me to a request I have for you. Some time ago I started a post ‘different views of the trinity’, and I would honestly apreciate the view of an informed roman catholic in this matter. I think you would be very good for that and if you have the time to contribute, I would be most thankful. Again: this post is a question and I am not putting forth a finished opinion and I am looking for others to help me that know more about the church fathers. the post you can view here: node/750
thank you.
feeling God's pleasure in the enquiry
I found the "interaction" of the Pontificating crowd and that of the Orthodox group, which Andrew refers to, quietly, but sadly, comical.
Before expanding, I will first go along with Paul Chen’s suggestion that we be a little more biographical in an endeavour to provide some background to my comments. I have personally had very little interaction with any traditional churches and have no axe to grind with them at all. I was brought up in my faith within a pentecostal (sic), world-mission-focussed discipleship background. It has taken me many years to begin to appreciate (by dint of opportunity, as well as attitude) older traditions such as Anglicanism and Catholicism, or at least, of the faith of people within them. My participation in the "emerging conversation," principally through OST, has coincided with this emerging appreciation, and only deepened it. I have not consciously encountered any sense of scorn or cynicism regarding these older traditions. My only complaint regarding emerging chuch conversations is that they too frequently draw upon "straw-man" arguments with regard to evangelicalism or fundamentalists
(being British, I’m still uncertain whether I’ve ever met a fundamentalist… I’ve certainly never seen one thump his Bible, which I’m led to believe they do incessantly :) )
How ironic then that both the above mentioned critques of e/c also fell so readily into the "straw man" trap. Here is a interesting post that might have / yet help genuinely interested parties to discern the wood from the trees : seven habits of successful emerging discussions.
I also noticed within another discussion on the Pontificating site examined whether or not whole denominations / rafts of the Christian community ought to be excluded from the understanding of the "one true, apostolic, catholic church," - so it is not only e/c which is re-examining ancient theological battles that have previously been done to death (sic) in earlier periods.
~
Thus, back to my quiet, sad comedy. Perhaps I missed something, but the ire of several of the parties which took aim at e/c seemed to amount to little more than annoyance at (our) perceived (or indeed measurable) lack of ignorance and perhaps at our doubting too. I was tempted to cite St Paul, directly, upon the Pontificator site:
But I thought it would only add fuel to the smouldering fire, rather than the more needed "light and love." Perhaps that’s a sign of my insecurity though, if Pontificating contributor, Sue Sims, is to be believed:
I wonder whether any of us would identify with that. I do think it’s an interesting point, even while I doubt whether it was made in real earnest. I’m not even sure what kind of insecurity is being thought of: personal, psychological, spiritual, theological, debating skills? It’s particularly interesting to me after the robust debate Richard and I had regarding persecution; a debate which, at times, got us both a little hot under the collar, yet which we both clearly found quite motivating … would that suggest we were less secure or more secure? Perhaps only someone like Sue is qualified to say.
But, in a sense, isn’t the raising of this sort of issue typical of the kind of easy side-swipes which many are seemingly ready to take at the e/c? And does perhaps suggest that, in fact, the e/c conversation perhaps quite readily breeds insecurity in some others? Or perhaps we look in vain for such insecurity: perhaps it does simply breed ire, as said before, at our (corporate, with exceptions) apparent ignorance or at our (corporate, with exceptions) doubt. But why be annoyed because people are coming out of the woodwork and discussing these things? We were all out there already and no-body from the various orthodoxies (be they Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical) etc, seemed particularly concerned to "find us" as per the good shepherd who went looking for the one lost sheep? Is it ok that we are out there and questioning, doubting, debating… it’s just when the e/c adopts / gains a particular profile that it now so clearly irks?
All of which left me wondering whether, in fact, the real issue that representatives of orthodoxies have with e/c is not, in fact, of the title "church." Emergent / conversation etc…. these kind of buzzwords would not get in the way, I suspect, or raise any ire. The issue - in a way that brings to mind some of the ire which Jesus himself raised in identifying himself with the seemingly vaunted office and perceived inheritance of the Messiah - is in the assigning of the "emerging" moniker to the seemingly vaunted title and perceived inheritance of "church."
I’m not sure what the answer to that is - although a deepening impression of the real nature of Messianic calling : to learn obedience through suffering, might help - but to go personal again, I have, over the past few years, trained myself to think, instead of "church," in terms of Christian, or rather, Messianic Community, precisely in order to get away from the cultural baggage of the terminology of "church" and to examine what really "makes the kingdom of God grow." I have found that a liberating and fascinating experience, though it has it’s own downside too. Like many others of the contributors on OST, I do not have a classical philosophical or theological training with which to compare this kind of thinking. I have only the four cornerstones which John Wesley suggested with which to practically do my theological thinking: scripture, reason, experience and tradition.
My personal experience and conversations suggest that genuine Messianic or Christian faith is robust enough to stand up on that basis to fairly robust investigation and scrutiny and indeed to actually bear quite significantly good fruit, the kind that suggests evidence of an "abiding in the true Vine." It might not be the prescribed or preferred litmust test of the orthodoxies, but, as Eric Liddell famously elucidated, "God made me fast, and when I run, I feel His pleasure," an idea I think many within the emerging church / conversation might like to adopt, in order to say (something like), "God made me philosophical and when I enquire, I feel his pleasure."
shalom! - john
Re: The Emergent Response
In lieu of a comment I suppose I would make a request… that people would please take care in terms of how they "characterize" one another. I’m not saying *don’t* characterize, I’m just asking that care be taken.
In part because in a public debate or inquiry (as the case may be), there are so many personal assumptions made that are just not helpful. As much as Team Emergents dislike it when someone from Team Confession takes on just one of them as being representative of the whole (whether its taking on *just* McLaren or Paggit or Seay or andrew… or etc), the same is true in the reverse. Take care not to assume that Clifton/David (said with enormous respect for him) is representative of the entire Orthodox Church… and I am sure that the same could be said for the Catholic bunch as well. Although on the parts where David/Clifton asserts that Jesus is God… well, its pretty safe to say that at that point the Eastern Orthodox church is being quoted-for quite accurately!
And speaking AS an Orthodox Christian… I *would* remind/emphasize here a vaunted Emergent-type value: relationality. If you want to encounter how the Orthodox Church would respond to these questions… then I would offer that you must do more than just type and read typing. Minimally… go experience the Diving Liturgy, speak with a Priest, befriend some thoughtful committed Orthodox Christians, learn how we pray. Because for the Orthodox, mere rational discourse (ie, just assertions & re-assertion of concepts) is not where Elvis lives. Not that it doesn’t have value (it really does), but as the Orthodox addage goes, theologians are those who have direct experience of God in prayer, not those who pontificate. The mere pontificators are architects, they do not necessarily live in the house. Theology is Theoria first, encountered in the whole Ecclesia. This is NOT to say that Ortodoxy is anti-rational… etc… but I assume you all do understand the difference in hermeneutic between apophatic and cataphatic approaches? And I daresay that if encountered beyond our blog-dom, many Emergents will find that the Orthodox Church does indeed speak-into and address so many of the questions, concerns, and issues that Emergents face… holistic, community-sourced, experiential, relational, mystical, sensual… to use just a wee bit of jargon. And how many times have I heard from (at least) McLaren that Emergent Theology needs to become "more Eastern" (knowing that McLaren is not representative of all Emergents, and that becoming "more Eastern" does not mean becoming Eastern Orthodox per se).
At any rate, in my Orthodox communitie(s) I encourage the same in reverse.
And I do make this request out of some degree of experience. I’ve found over the years that at least in conversations between Orthodox and Emergents… they simply just "go-better" when there is some degree of relationality involved… when we can GET each others concerns and questions and experiences that are deeper and less-safe than what can be done behind computer screens.
Also, while it is important to establish some degree of common ground, it is also crucial to acknowledge that there really is a different hermenteutic involved here East and West… it goes much deeper than typing about what does it mean to assert/deny/question propositions about "Jesus being God". (So much about-ness…)
So I guess I’m hoping that a clarification of hermeneutic, some common ground, and a little relationality will help this conversation become more than all the other blog-debates that I’ve seen between Team Emergent and Team Confession that have been already gone down very similiar paths, in similiar ways, with similiar outcomes.
Lastly, if the above can’t happen (we’re busy people, live all over the world, blah blah…), then at least sprinkle many grains of salt on the impulse to make single voices representative of the whole.
And for the record on the "is Jesus God" question: we even say it in pictures.
- S
http://www.nowandever.be
Re: The Emergent Response
Thank you for this, and pray for me, a sinner.
Re: The Emergent Response
Re: The Emergent Response
PastorPete, I am intrigued by the ongoing discussion regarding your original post. I do not necessarily align with your apparent emergent line of thinking, and one reservation you hold against the Orthodox/Catholic/etc. church piqued my interest. You originally wrote….
"They [Catholics, Orthodox, other churches] seem to feel that we’re [Emerging folk] starting over rather than reading differently what’s been written."
It is a difficult task to find the distinction between starting over and reading differently. When does “reading differently” become “starting over?” How do we know that an effort to “start over” isn’t just “reading differently what’s been written?”
I am unsettled by the postmodern/emergent idea of “different reading.” What concerns me is the amount of different “readings” of Scripture and Christian history there are. Anglo-American, postliberal, postmetaphysical, deconstructive, reconstructive, feminist, radical orthodoxy… the list goes on forever.
These readings originate when individuals frame their life around their present circumstances, context, and traditions. This framing then determines their theology. This strikes me as “starting over” because such a reading requires the reader to ignore the original context in which the text was written, and replace it with his or her present circumstances.
This “flippant” (to use your word) handling of Christian tradition inevitably leads to a reframing/retelling of Scripture and the development of new understandings and approaches to Christianity. This strikes me as a non-realist approach. You may find value or even comfort in this understanding of the text and history, but I have a hard time understanding how. I appreciate David’s comments – what role does the Holy Spirit play in this process? Who has more precedence, the reader and his/her contextual framework, or the Holy Spirit?
You mention that the emerging church is bound to rattle some foundations. Is this completely necessary? Rattling foundations strikes me as being a bit flippant. Why must the church’s foundations be rattled? Is there something inherently wrong with the church’s methodology?