I’m sure people will be interested to hear that Open Source Theology has been given a Hall of Shame award by Ingrid Schlueter on her ‘Slice of Laodicea’ blog. It looks like I’m going to have to take much of the credit for this honour:
Any source will do. Truth is contextual. There are no fixed standards. Don’t like hell or think it’s relevant anymore? Redefine it. Reimagine it. Discard it. This website does more to show where emergent is headed than most I’ve seen lately.
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
"Don’t worry about making yourself relevant, just tell the old truth and it’s up to God to make people listen. All changes in theology are human intervention. (Apart from, of course, the Reformation.)"
Everything looks silly if you stereotype it. At least emergent theologians have more fun.
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
Lathos, your wit is a blessing.
On my darkest spiritual days, the thing I cling to the most is Christ’s spirit. That spirit of love and encouragement I have sensed in interacting with the writings of McLaren and Wright, and also with the various participants here at OST. Jesus’ saying that "by this all men will know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another" rings true, which is why I get so discouraged when I read things like the Slice of Laodicea blog… God help us all to be ever more humble.
Peace,
-Daniel-
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
LOL!!!! She didn’t know what opensource means, but had no problem making the assumption that it was something evil. That is great entertainment! That makes me feel better about talking to all the fundamentalists on this site now that I have seen someone even more conservative demonstrate how silly that approach looks.
is shame fundamentally a good thing then?
Hey, danutz, if it’s had that effect then perhaps naming and shaming is a good thing?
b/t/w what is a fundamentalist?
please no modern analytical answers ;)
shalom! - johnRe: OpenSource
i thought it funny how she confuses open source (OS) with open theism or something else she would consider heretical. Of course, Ingrid is an "expert" on the emergent church because (1) she’s been in radio for 18 years, (2) She’s a Calvinist, (3) She’s a member at (name of Calvinist site will remain anonymous), and (4) She read D.A. Carson’s book.
That’s what qualifies as "expert" currently. But, of course, it’s the postmodern/emergent groups that are relativists.
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
Given the overbearing elitist attitude of their articles and comments, I wouldn’t take that sites’ criticisms too seriously… what frustrates me is that a lot of Christians will.
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
I knew there was a reason I read Slice! I keep going back to it - It frustrates me because I sometimes agree with their posts (I’m not a big fan of Purpose Driven Life) and sometimes they make me simply furious (their attitude of having the moral highground, and their refusal to recognise other Christians as brothers and sisters. If they really cared about the "apostates" they blogged on, they’d be interested in correcting the incorrect theology. It seems to be more a place for glorifying in how much better they’re doing than the rest of Christendom. Ugh!)
I read Slice because it leads me to cool sites like this :) I enjoy your (well, OST people’s) honest take on theology. I think sometimes if we want to know the truth we have to ask even the fundamental "stupid" questions. I went to a seminar once that was supposedly to help people answer hard questions "for evangelism". I suspect that most people just went to get their own hard questions answered. I certainly did ;)
Will be back. There are a lot of interesting posts here and though I don’t agree with all of the ones I’ve read, I’ve seen that there are commenters who agree with me. Now that’s what I call community :)
Slice and homosexuality
After all these critical comments about Slice of Laodicea, I thought I’d post a positive: I went to Slice earlier this afternoon, and it pointed me to an excellent article by Brian McLaren on homosexuality in the Church. :-)
I thought I’d share.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2006/cln60123.html
I would love to hear reactions to this article (even if this may not be the place for it). As usual, McLaren shows more patience and wisdom than we usual let the Spirit grant us (myself in particular!).
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Slice and homosexuality
Well, I’ll briefly respond here, although there is a section called "Rainbow People and the Emerging Church" that discussion like this might fall under.
Brian’s heart is golden in this article. As others (on the Leadership Journal Blog) said, "There is always a question behind the question, and Brian is right to spot it."
I’m struggling, though, with his suggestion that we should only speak when "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us." What if a community of faith believes that Holy Spirit comes down hard on one side of the issue or the other? As theologian Walter Bruegamman (sp) says in his book The Prophetic Imagination, the gods of empire or the status quo are the ones who want to understand both sides of an issue. Prophets, on the other hand, are speaking because they believe the Spirit moves them to, even before all the "relevant data" are in. Although I am more on the affirming side of the issue, it could cut either way.
The shocking thing—which shouldn’t be shocking by now—is the reaction to Brian’s comments that there are some Evangelicals (!) who believe that not all homosexual relationships are wrong. The comments about Brian’s statement only regurgitated the conclusion that the Bible is clear about the total sinfulness of homosexual relationships. There was no engagement with the related revisionist exegesis. Some people were more gracious, yet their statements eemed tired—we’ve heard it all before.
It hurts me more personally than I care to admit, sometimes, that Evangelicals with honest questions about evangelical interpretation cannot be respected and loved in some quarters. Why is it, in our zeal to defend the gospel (or maybe the idol called "inerrancy"?), that we have forgotten how to love each other even in our disagreements?
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
I literally am flabbergasted by most of the comments attached to the Award on the Slice website that are not written by people from OST. Can anyone refer me to books or sites that can give insight (historical, theological, spiritual) on why Fundamentalism (historical definition, as in The Fundamentals) is so anti-intellectual?
I grew up in Fundamentalist household, and I am sorry to say that I often sinned against many non-believing people and many Christians by speaking what I thought to be the truth without any visible measure of love. I can only speak for myself, but in my own life, I see the kind of thoughtless castigation that I did as a demonic power, as a form of security-seeking that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ.
Glorious Father and incarnate Son,with Holy Spirit who are three in one:We want to worship in Spirit and Truth;with joy and thankfulness we come to you.Because of Jesus, we choose to be wholly yours.Amen.
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
Spiritboi,
Fundamentalism requires a great measure of brainwashing and brainwashing requires that no critical thinking be done. Why would you want to believe anyone that starts their argument with "don’t think too much" or "have blind faith" or "just trust these ancient texts". Their belief system is totally dependent on people that don’t think. In Christianity, 90% of what we say is metaphorical language (born again, children of God, kings and kingdoms, demons, satan, hell, parabolic stories, dreams and visions of beasts and damnation, etc). We have lost the points behind the metaphors. Can we blame the average person for getting lost in that maze of metaphors? It took me 30+ years to get out of those weeds and I’m well educated.
The blame should fall on our theologians (us!) that have done a poor job of interpreting theology in the language/metaphors of the day and presenting the ideas behind the metaphors clearly. The blame must be accepted by modern liberals that have not given a clear simple alternative to fundamentalism. Most liberals are deep thinkers that have not taken the time to present their ideas in a form that average people can grasp. It really isn’t that complex, but liberal views have always come from highly educated people that don’t write and speak to the common man. Cudos should go to people like Brian Mclaren, Marcus Borg, and Steve Chalke who take the time to present modern liberal theology in a form that is now spreading rapidly thanks to their attention to the presentation instead of the details. Liberals also need to practice what they preach so that their message will be respected! Somebody needs to take a book like Andrew’s "coming of the son of man" and translate that so people that don’t read theology books can understand it. We need to stop trying to impress each other with our research and writing skills and begin to learn some communication skills. Modern theology seems to end at the exit of our seminaries.
Most people don’t want to think. They prefer to be lead and that is why fundamentalism and "big E" Evangelicals have grown so much. They always throw in that little message at the end of everything they say that goes something like… "anyone that presents a crafty intellectual argument against me is the devil". That concept keeps fundamentalism and ignorance growing.
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
As a former fundamentalist, I particularly identify with hearing your last statement, "Anyone who argues with me is listening to demonic voices." And may I humbly say, as a 25 year old theologian (and hopefully a responsible one!), that I can only add my loud "Amen!" to the need for communication skills. I wonder if one can actually do good theology without serving the Community of God with the insights gained?
I have to say, though, that I am not quite as…forgive me if "dismissive" distorts your meaning…as you seem of big E evangelicalism. This is because many of my favourite theologians identify as Evangelical; two that spring immediately to mind are Alistair McGrath and NT Wright (who, if I may say so, are postmodern in the best sense). There is room for thought, and careful thought at that, within the Evangelical movement. The problem is, in my circles, that Evangelical churches tend to have Evangelical pastors (more often than not) and fundamentalist congregants. I also find that non-creedal matters tend to take on confessional status far too quickly (ie., women in ministry or homosexuality).
I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "metaphor" in much modern(ist) liberal theology. I do not think that reducing Easter, the Virgin Birth, angels, and demons to "metaphorical realities" does justice to the truth of the gospel (or the Gospels)—I say this with a firm belief that taking these things as Real is fully consistent with what modern (and certainly postmodern!) culture has to offer.
When I read, for example, that Marcus Borg (and certainly John Spong!) does not believe in the full humanity and full Deity of the historical Jesus of Nazareth whom we worship as "in very nature God", I feel "modern" theology is taking a step in precisely the wrong direction. (As you can probably tell, I’ve never been able to hear the distinction between the "pre-Easter" and "post-Easter" Jesus[es]). I feel relieved, quite frankly, that a man with the intellectual credibility and pastoral experience of NT Wright shares my discomfort. (Marcus and Tom engage in public debate quite frequently and are good friends.)
Your thoughts? Thanks for your comments…very stimulating, indeed!
Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
Spiritboi,
Language often fails us in theological discussions…
Are you getting that information 2nd hand or have you actually read Marcus Borg’s own books (excluding the book that is divided with NT Wright and doesn’t really do justice to either viewpoint).
I try not to critique someone unless I figure out their logic. I don’t think you have figured out Borg’s logic so what you end up arguing against is your misinterpretation of their logic. That is an arugument that you will always win but never resolve. This is an important point in theological discussions. We need to first seek to "get the drift" or "understand the logic" of each side then we can be sure when we disagree we are disagreeing with their true intentions.
Spong is intentionally seeking shock value so his comments are extreme. I don’t particualarly like that about him but I have read one of his books. I probaby agree in theory to some degree, but I don’t think it helps to be so controversial about the presentation. Borg on the other hand is a wonderful writer and has a wonderful heart for people that results from his solid understanding of scripture. If you are interested in really understanding Borg (who is not what would be traditionally called "modern liberal") try reading his book "reading the bible again for the first time". If you ever wanted a great perspective on scriptural interpretation you should read that book. It made the bible come alive to me. I learned how to love the bible and not "check my brain at the church door". I use to ignore parts of the bible, but thanks to Borg I love every word and value every word. All my questiones melted away once the little light switched in my mind and allowed me to "get" what he was saying.
The pre-easter/post-easter Jesus line of thinking is something that I’m sure you would acutally agree with if you understood what he was talking about. It isn’t that complicated or goofy. It simply AFFIRMS that there really was a historical Jesus! Then it goes on to say that there is an aspect of Jesus (Christ) that continues to effect our lives us today. That "post-easter" Jesus is the larger than life person of Christ that has become the centerpiece of Christianity.
You should also realize that in these theolgical discussions you are not going to find people that you agree with 100% and you have to learn to appreciate the the parts you agree with and not be judgemental about the others. You need a "generous orthodoxy" otherwise you will end up on an island since the only person you are going to agree with 100% is yourself. For example, have you read much about your favoirite theologian’s view on universal salvation (NT Wright)? You might be surprised what you find (or you might already know that). The reason I read theological books is to find a nugget of truth that helps my overall picture. I’m not looking for one person to provide the perfect picture.
It is painful to deconstruct our theology because we fear that we won’t be able to put it back together and get anything solid. I’ve found that what I’ve been able to rebuild for myself is so much more fruitful because I’m no longer questioning the stability of the foundation. For me, the foundation is a solid understanding of what the bible acutally is. So much of traditional Christian theology is based on a questionable understanding of the bible. Everything built on that foundation requires some "creative architecture"(i.e. virgin birth, trinity, 6-day creation, God being directly responsible for earthquakes and floods, etc). Those are all attempts to fix the cracks that resulted from the problems in the foundation.
I don’t mean to say that the bible has cracks, instead I mean that our traditional understanding of it has cracks. This is obviously off subject, but I wanted to address the points you brought up.Re: Hall of shame award for Open Source Theology
Here’s a thought:
I’m a fundamentalist. I adopt that title in as literal a sense as possible, parsing the word’s meaning out from its roots. I’m a fundamentalist because I attempt to think/live Christianity according to its fundamentals, and to put emphasis on its peripherals only when (and to the degree that) the fundamentals require me to do so.
It’s not my fault that some folks focus on the peripherals to the point that they disregard the essentials, and then get paradoxically labeled (mostly by other people, more than by themselves) “fundamentalists!”
Perhaps the better criticism of such folks is not to adopt and popularize the “fundamentalist” misnomer through continued usage, but to call them non-fundamentalists and call their attention to the way in which they’ve allowed the peripherals to get out-of-balance, and the fundamentals to be lost?