A Rose That Blooms Every 500 Years (by Rose Marie Berger)
At the Associated Church Press conference two weeks ago in Ft. Worth, Texas, I heard Phyllis Tickle, founding editor of the religion department at Publishers Weekly, speak about Christianity's every-500-years growth spurts. In her talk (and forthcoming book The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why), Tickle emphasized that Christianity is going through one of these "spurts" right now.
Tickle calls our present historical moment (read: the last 100 years) "Emerging Christianity." (This is not precisely the same thing as the self-identified "emergent church" networks, but there may be similar characteristics.) Historically, these great emergences are sometimes symbolized by a rose blooming forth from the rubble.
"Emerging or emergent Christianity is the new form of Christianity that will serve the whole of the Great Emergence in the same way that Protestantism served the Great Reformation," she said.
Emerging Christianity, posits Tickle, brings together – rather than divides - the best practices of the Christian traditions, practices that have been divided in the church and held within denominations for 500 years. It also looks back at ancient church practices and tries to apply them in fresh ways in the post-modern era.
Brian McLaren's newest book Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices, also examines Emerging Christianity as a "way of life" rather than a "set of beliefs." McLaren reclaims ancient Christian spiritual practices -- fixed-hour prayer, fasting, observing the Sabbath -- for use today. Dallas Willard has been playing with this same idea in his call to move the Christian church away from "sin management" and toward "discipleship" (see The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God).
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams took up a similar theme in an April lecture titled The Spiritual and the Religious: Is the Territory Changing?
Williams opens his remarks by quoting U2's Bono: "I'm not into religion. I am completely anti-religious. Religion is a term for a collection, a denomination. I am interested in personal experience of God."
Williams brilliantly unpacks the "spiritual, not religious" conundrum:
The Christian alternative to the post-religious spirituality outlined earlier is not simply "religion" as some sort of intellectual and moral system, but the corporately experienced reality of the kingdom, the space that has been cleared in human imagination and self-understanding by the revealing events of Jesus' life.
… Faced with the claims of non-dogmatic spirituality, the believer should not be insisting anxiously on the need for compliance with a set of definite propositions; he or she should be asking whether what happens when the Assembly meets to adore God and lay itself open to his action looks at all like a new and transforming environment, in which human beings are radically changed.
I've been at Sojourners for 22 years. At its best, Sojourners (in all its manifestations as ministry, Christian intentional community, church, magazine, Christian communications nexus, movement mobilizer, etc.) has been an experiment in Emerging Christianity.
We are evangelical in our roots and ecumenical in our expression—drawing on the best of Christian practices that are held denominationally. For example, when we are operating at our best, we try to take scripture as seriously as Protestants, understand communion as deeply as Catholics, rely on the Spirit as passionately as Pentecostals, preach a prophetic word of good news as zealously as evangelicals, and live a contemplative life rooted in the ever-present Imago Dei as humbly as Orthodox.
As a cluster of Christians, we strive to practice "open-source" spiritual leadership, or "priesthood of all believers," or authority rooted in gifts of the Spirit. Additionally, we understand following Jesus as a "way of life"—the Tao of Jesus, the Jesus Road. This "way of life" leads us also to take the doctrinal teachings of the church very seriously -- because we've lived them, not (necessarily) because we signed a contractual arrangement or took a loyalty oath with the church.
I'm grateful to Phyllis Tickle, Brian McLaren, Archbishop Rowan, Karen Ward, the New Monastics, and others who are keeping our rosebush tended.
As the 15th-century hymn celebrates, "Lo, how a Rose e're blooming from tender stem hath sprung!"
Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I’ll admit I’m a little confused as to what “emerging/Emergent Christianity” is. I don’t see the need to add an adjective to Christianity in order to define Christianity as a “way of life”. Christianity has always been a way of life. But I’m wondering, does the Emergent Church or Emerging Christianity not have a set of beliefs? Or do they just not believe that a set of beliefs is the sum total of our faith? That you also have to live these beliefs out… Or is Emergent/emerging just a way of saying "I'm not like those Christians that don't represent my faith well".
Anyone have an idea?
Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 12:38 PM
Well, I've explained this before, but since these threads disappear pretty quickly into the netherworld of cyberspace, let me try again.
An emergent is a stunted tree that grows beneath the canopy of a rain forest. Normally it just sits there and does nothing. However, when one or more of the large trees is destroyed, the emergents are ready to spring up and take their place.
The central belief of the emergent church, as I understand it, is that Christianity is in more trouble than most people realize. That is because there is a major shift in worldviews going on, with the assumptions of Western modernity increasingly being called into question in our multicultural, global society.
The central message of the emergent church is that this shift is not a bad thing, since the basic tenets of modernity were never particularly friendly to religion in the first place. Thus, the new worldview provides fertile soil.
However, as is the case whenever soil is fertile, all kinds of poisonous things can grow up as well. Thus, there is a strong need to establish an emergent form of Christianity that will be poised to grow up in the new environment. Even if it were possible, firming up the details of what that Christianity will look like is less important, at this point, that seeing its necessity and preparing for the coming shift.
And, of course, if all of this turns out to be completely wrong-headed, the emergent church will remain an emergent: invisible, largely useless, and still ready.
Hope that gets the gist of it.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 8, 2008 12:49 PM
An "emerging church" is any church that makes a concerted effort to reach the post-modern world. It would be fair to say that, for example, Greg Boyd and Marc Driscoll are emerging.
The emergent church is a church movement that would describe itself as "emerging". Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell and The Campolos are part of the emergent church movement.
IMO, the former is a necessary response to the way the world communicates, and may well signal a regeneration of the church itself. The latter has staked very liberal theological grounding (e.g. denying the existence of hell, a very low view of the Pauline texts), and has a more narrow following.
Much of the confusion comes from the fact that a lot of churches who might consider themselves "emerging" have renounced the teachings of the emergent church. Driscoll is a prime example of this. Further muddying the waters is the emergent church's rejection of labels, which makes distinctions very difficult to discern.
I am inclined to think that the emerging discussion will continue, but that the emergent church is more of a fad.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 1:55 PM
Kevin, I think Tony Campolo, at least, would be very surprised to learn that he denies the existence of hell and has a very low view of the Pauline texts.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 8, 2008 2:15 PM
Tony might believe in a hell (Bart does not) but certainly seems to hold a low view of the words of Paul, based on his writings here. He has stated that when they conflict with the words of Jesus, that he gives the "red letters" more weight.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 2:23 PM
And yet Tony C. has adhered strongly to Paul's comments on sexuality. That doesn't sound like a low view to me. I do understand your point, but I think it does a disservice to the complexity even of the smaller, "emergent" group you discuss above to imply that there are only two ways to look at, e.g., Paul: high and (very) low. Tony's view is clearly in-between but on the high side.
In any case, my comments above, although they use the word "emergent" in its actual meaning, were meant to apply to the broader, "emerging" movement you describe.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 8, 2008 2:31 PM
Another nonymous and Kevin,
Thanks for providing some insight.
Eric
Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2008 2:33 PM
If the Emergent Church is looking back to ancient Christian practices, then why not join the older confessions (Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, etc)?
Posted by: aaron | May 8, 2008 3:05 PM
"And yet Tony C. has adhered strongly to Paul's comments on sexuality."
Tony is not the only member of the emergent church.
"In any case, my comments above, although they use the word "emergent" in its actual meaning, were meant to apply to the broader, "emerging" movement you describe."
I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 8, 2008 3:32 PM
[Further muddying the waters is the emergent church's rejection of labels, which makes distinctions very difficult to discern.]
Yes, kevin s, it is awful when we can't conveniently maintain control by being able to label everyone precisely. I think Jesus was doing exactly this when he contrasted the presumed bad tax-collector with the good pharisee; and also the good priest and levite with the bad Samaritan.
Yet, Rose Marie Berger has done an appalling thing by embracing numerous labels.
[We are evangelical in our roots and ecumenical in our expression—drawing on the best of Christian practices that are held denominationally. For example, when we are operating at our best, we try to take scripture as seriously as Protestants, understand communion as deeply as Catholics, rely on the Spirit as passionately as Pentecostals, preach a prophetic word of good news as zealously as evangelicals, and live a contemplative life rooted in the ever-present Imago Dei as humbly as Orthodox.]
Of yet another label,
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | May 8, 2008 3:59 PM
The extent to which "following" Jesus requires believing "the right things" about Jesus is a complex issue for which no easy answer exists.
Kevin S. seems to believe that because Tony Campolo calls himself a "red letter" Christian, he therefore must think that the words of Christ in the gospels carries more weight than the words of Paul. While I don't think that's entirely the case with Campolo, Kevin's concern is not without merit. To what extent the teachings of Jesus are to be understood in the light of Paul's letters, and to what extent Paul needs to be understood in light of the recorded sayings of Jesus is a legitimate question and one for which there is no simple answer.
On the "Evangelical Manifesto" thread we can read comments from a poster identified as ed cyzewski about the Episcopal situation as discussed by Os Guinness and Rev. Yates in a Wash. Post article. Cyzewski agrees with Yates and Guinness that many elements within the Episcopal Church have abandoned the faith because they deny basic Christian doctrines like the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Crucifixion. To whatever extent that is true within the Episcopal Church, it's hard for me to imagine how anyone who denies these basic tenets of Christianity could in any authentic way be "following Jesus." My mind just doesn't fathom it.
But on the other hand, I'm more than aware of some individual congregations that put such a premium on "believing the right things" that I have to wonder whether they too are "following Jesus" in spirit and truth or whether they're just following their self-imposed doctrinal convictions. I try not to judge in these matters, but some of the people I know who live in these traditions are themselves very judgmental.
The "emerging movement" in all its guises could be pointing us to the importance of practice ("orthopraxy" and not just "orthodoxy")--of really trying to follow Jesus rather than just believing the correct things. I know that some of these ancient practices are finding a home in my own denomination. I think that's a good thing.
But doctrine is also important. Our spiritual ancestors from the early Christian centuries argued strenuously over many doctrinal issues and forged "orthodox" belief in the furnace of these debates. It's difficult to ignore the importance and value of this history.
As in many things, balance is probably the goal here. But finding that balance, and knowing when the line has been crossed in either direction, may not be very easy. The bottom line for me is that both believing and following are important.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 8, 2008 7:50 PM
Nice article. It shows that the emerging church is bigger than just the "emergent movement." Emerging Christianity is an acknowledgement that God is bigger than our theology, bigger than our denominational traditions, that God is still at work in our lives and history today. There are important things to learn here for all Christians. I think it was Brian McLaren who said that the emerging movement is causing evangelicals to learn more about social justice and mainline Christians to learn more about miracles. It's a healthy thing for both liberal and conservative Christians to be asking questions about their faith traditions in this time of rapid change. I don't believe God is through with the church yet.
Posted by: AMG | May 9, 2008 8:20 AM
Don: I like the way you describe the tension between holding right doctrine and being overly dogmatic.
I think prayer is one key. Belonging to a strong community of believers who can rein in excess tendencies is another.
Posted by: carl copas | May 9, 2008 10:48 AM
Thanks, Carl. I especially agree about belonging to a strong community.
BTW, did you ever get my email re. Niebuhr?
D
Posted by: Don | May 9, 2008 11:04 AM
"Yes, kevin s, it is awful when we can't conveniently maintain control by being able to label everyone precisely. "
It isn't about good or bad, but simply saying what you mean. Confusion, though, is bad, and it is good to know what one means.
"Kevin S. seems to believe that because Tony Campolo calls himself a "red letter" Christian, he therefore must think that the words of Christ in the gospels carries more weight than the words of Paul."
I thought that he literally said so in one of the comments sections back in October. Perhaps I am remembering wrong.
It is a liberal position to belief that there is a need to prioritize either. The conservative position is that we should understand them both to be true, and therefore reconcile the passages.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 9, 2008 4:26 PM
Don,
I just responded by email. Had forgotten to check my yahoo email inbox for several days--thanks for reminder.
Posted by: carl copas | May 9, 2008 4:32 PM
Kevin, I didn't know I was making a conservative-liberal distinction, so I wonder why some of us seem to have a need to see it that way. For my part, I don't think there's any conflict between the words of Jesus and the writings of Paul, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand each one's teachings in light of the other's. You are the one using the word "prioritize"; I didn't use it.
After all, how did Paul understand following Jesus?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 9, 2008 8:21 PM
Very good article, and interesting posts. I believe Phyllis Tickle is correct in what she is observing and discerning within the Body of Christ. There has been a grass roots movement developing across the denomination spectrum that has been increasingly appreciating the truth in each of our brothers and sisters, bringing unity rather than division.
Some people have sounded concerned because this movement can't be pigeon-holed and neatly labeled. At least one person was "appalled" that Berger used the names, the "labels", of different denominations and traditions as she discussed how the "Great Emergence" was recognizing and celebrating God's truths within them all, rather than searching intently for differences. The quoted paragraph deserves to be read again, but this time, include the following paragraph. They go hand in hand.
"We are evangelical in our roots and ecumenical in our expression—drawing on the best of Christian practices that are held denominationally. For example, when we are operating at our best, we try to take scripture as seriously as Protestants, understand communion as deeply as Catholics, rely on the Spirit as passionately as Pentecostals, preach a prophetic word of good news as zealously as evangelicals, and live a contemplative life rooted in the ever-present Imago Dei as humbly as Orthodox."
"As a cluster of Christians, we strive to practice "open-source" spiritual leadership, or "priesthood of all believers," or authority rooted in gifts of the Spirit. Additionally, we understand following Jesus as a "way of life"—the Tao of Jesus, the Jesus Road. This "way of life" leads us also to take the doctrinal teachings of the church very seriously -- because we've lived them, not (necessarily) because we signed a contractual arrangement or took a loyalty oath with the church."
That last sentence sums up a big attraction for some of us. Orthodoxy is important, especially when it is generous, but the call to good orthopraxy speaks to me of what Jesus has called us to do.
Posted by: janible | May 10, 2008 12:41 AM
"Kevin, I didn't know I was making a conservative-liberal distinction, so I wonder why some of us seem to have a need to see it that way."
I don't "need" to see it any particular way. I'm just commenting on a general trend.
"You are the one using the word "prioritize"; I didn't use it."
Right. I wasn't using it to describe your position.
"Some people have sounded concerned because this movement can't be pigeon-holed and neatly labeled."
This isn't accurate. What I said was that the emphasis on eschewing labels makes it very difficult to ascertain what the emergent movement is, and how it is separate from the emerging movement.
"Orthodoxy is important, especially when it is generous, but the call to good orthopraxy speaks to me of what Jesus has called us to do."
Jesus calls us to both. The problem is that what Brian McLaren calls a generous orthodoxy is often not orthodoxy at all, or at least a reasonable case can be made that this is so. Instead of contending with these crticisms, emergents accuse their critics of trying to pigeon-hole them.
That isn't healthy. It is reasonable to offer critique of a Christian movement, and for that movement to respond to the critique in an intellectually honest way.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 10, 2008 11:34 AM
I understand your concerns, Kevin, and completely agree that Jesus calls us to both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It is interesting, though, that most of His criticism seemed to be directed at people who had perfected their form of orthodoxy, but had lost sight of living what they preached.
As far as pigeon-holing people, it sounds like I misunderstood you, and completely agree that using that phrase shouldn't be used as a way to close down discussion. Perhaps, though, the problem is that one aspect of the "emerging" Christianity seems to be a consensus to move beyond looking for differences of dogmas/doctrines, and instead agree that we can worship in unity, above and beyond a specific list of doctrines or perceived categories.
Someone said that instead of using terms like "emerging", why don't people simply became members of older traditions, such as the Coptics. This would work if someone agreed with every doctrine/dogma/practice of that particular branch. On the other hand, some are drawn to certain practices and beliefs of several different traditions. The emerging concept allows them to incorporate diverse parts into their own personal spiritual journey.
I do think it is important for all of us to be able to explain and affirm what we believe to be true. It shouldn't be a matter of "anything goes". But instead of saying we can't worship with others unless they are in total agreement with every one of the points on our official and unofficial doctrinal statements, we keep discussion open, and pray that the Holy Spirit will clarify things for each one of us. And you are absolutely right that eschewing labels makes this whole process much more difficult, because it does indeed require much more prayer and discernment on the part of each individual.
Your point about the eventual outcome of the "emergent" movement, as opposed to the "emerging" movement, may very well prove to be true. Time will tell, but regardless of what we call it, I suspect that what is stirring in many people, from many different traditions and denominations, is going to continue to transform people, and how they respond to each other.
I have attended a two day seminar with Greg Boyd and have read four of his books. I have read three of Tony Campolo's books, including the excellent one he co-authored with Mary Albert Darling. (I'll have to go back to find the articles he has written here, though.) I've also read three of Brian McLaren's books. As an evangelical charismatic who totally agrees with the Apostles Creed, there are some things I would disagree with at times, but I would feel completely comfortable to join with them in worship and communion with our Lord. And for me, I guess that sums up the "emerging" church - a body of believers, followers of the way of Jesus Christ, who are more focussed on their journey with Him than they are with whether their comrades agree with exact definitions, forms of baptism, dance or don't dance, elect or free will or somewhere inbetween, and on, and on.
Posted by: Janible | May 11, 2008 12:10 AM
Interesting this "conflict" between Jesus and Paul. I have the feeling if you were to ask Paul whose words should hold more weight, he would say Jesus'. I'm not saying Paul's words are not important, but rather that they should be seen in the light of Jesus' words. And I doubt Paul would disagree with that interpretation.
Posted by: squeaky | May 11, 2008 12:53 PM
"Interesting this "conflict" between Jesus and Paul. I have the feeling if you were to ask Paul whose words should hold more weight, he would say Jesus'."
I don't think he would accept the premise of the question, which is that he was wrong about something that Jesus was right about.
"And for me, I guess that sums up the "emerging" church - a body of believers, followers of the way of Jesus Christ, who are more focussed on their journey with Him than they are with whether their comrades agree with exact definitions, forms of baptism, dance or don't dance, elect or free will or somewhere inbetween, and on, and on.
"
But what if the "and on, and on" is whether there is a heaven or hell? What if it is the question of how one can be saved? What if it is the question of whether a pastor may continue to lead a church having divorced his wife?
Eventually, essential doctrines of the Christian faith get tossed under the tires of the Don't Sweat the Small Stuff Express.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 11, 2008 9:20 PM
"I don't think he would accept the premise of the question, which is that he was wrong about something that Jesus was right about. "
Exactly
The question might confuse Paul because, undoubtedly, he probably thought he was being perfectly clear. His response would not be to elevate his words over Jesus', but to clarify what he said and how it agrees with Jesus' words.
I think it is reasonable to assume they are in agreement with each other. If we see interpretations of Paul and Jesus' words that don't agree, then the correct recourse is not to value one's words over the other, but to re-examine the interpretation that sets their words at odds. I don't understand the apparent conflict.
Kevin--please note I'm not directing these or the following comments towards you specifically. I'm expressing my general confusion about this conflict, and then commenting on why I think it might exist. My comments are not a response to yours.
In some ways the conflict seems to speak to this general attitude that many have to some degree that if we don't immediately understand a portion of the Bible, the Bible must be wrong or must contradict itself.
Strange how we don't treat Shakespeare or other complex forms of literature in that way. We instead tend towards saying, "I don't get it. It is beyond my comprehension." As opposed to saying "I don't get it. It must be wrong," which is how many people (especially skeptics, I have noticed) tend to treat the Bible.
Posted by: squeaky | May 12, 2008 12:06 AM
"Eventually, essential doctrines of the Christian faith get tossed under the tires of the Don't Sweat the Small Stuff Express. "
Is that what's happening, though? Who has made the claims that the doctrines of hell and salvation are not true?
Posted by: squeaky | May 12, 2008 12:19 AM
To quote Samir Selmanovic a former Seventh Day Adventist pastor now turned emergent church leader, Director of Faith House Manhattan, and author of An Emergent Manifesto of Hope;
"The emerging church movement has come to believe that the ultimate context of the spiritual aspirations of a follower of Jesus Christ is not Christianity but rather the kingdom of God.... to believe that God is limited to it [Christianity] would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign. Soren Kierkegaard argued that the moment one decides to become a Christian, one is liable to idolatry."
Selmanovic will be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Envision 08 Conference next month along with Jim Wallis, Kay warren, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne and others. If one is interested in learning more about the intimate details of the doctrinal beliefs of those that are leading the "emergent church movement" I would think this conference would be a must show event.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 12, 2008 10:30 AM
Correction of facts: Selmanovic was a contributor, not the author or co-author of The Emergent Manifesto of Hope. Too many manifestos to keep up with I guess... The co-authors listed on the cover are Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 12, 2008 10:45 AM
"I'm expressing my general confusion about this conflict, and then commenting on why I think it might exist."
I think, frankly, it exists because Paul says some things that don't gel with a particular worldview. Since he isn't Jesus, there is an avenue to suggest that perhaps he was in error. Call it the theology of self-assurance.
"Strange how we don't treat Shakespeare or other complex forms of literature in that way. "
Is it strange? The Bible articulates exactly why this is so. Our flesh is not fighting our urge to understand Shakespeare.
"Is that what's happening, though? Who has made the claims that the doctrines of hell and salvation are not true? "
Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Bart Campolo have all made this claim. Initially, this was expressed as a question of whether we ought to emphasize the heaven/hell distinction as an expression of the Christian faith.
It would be fair to say that the emerging movement embraced this view, rejecting the modernity of this sort of yes/no proposition. The growth of reformed theology stems from rejecting a religion that centers around getting someone to say a single prayer.
But the emergent church, as they often seem to do, has now codified the opposing paradigm. That is frustrating to me, and detracts from the power of the emerging movement, which, frankly, would do well to adopt a different name to avoid the association.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 12, 2008 10:53 AM
Selmanovic makes my point for me.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 12, 2008 10:58 AM
"Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and Bart Campolo have all made this claim."
Brian McLaren has done no such thing (I don't know about the other two). He has suggested that salvation has been twisted into such an exclusively personal, me-related concept that its original, Biblical meaning has been nearly lost. He has also affirmed (not denied) that hell has a purpose, which once again has been twisted by the exclusively personal doctrine of salvation in a way that is un-Biblical. You are free to disagree with these positions, Kevin, but as someone who is so concerned with intellectual honesty, please don't misrepresent them.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 12, 2008 11:36 AM
As I had been reading yesterday's responses, I found myself wondering how much potential confusion is built into conversations that use words like "salvation" and "hell", but don't stop to define what these mean for each person. Squeaky's thoughts about the words of Jesus and Paul may even be valid for us as Christians as we try to understand each other. Squeaky said, "If we see interpretations of Paul and Jesus' words that don't agree, then the correct recourse is not to value one's words over the other, but to re-examine the interpretation that sets their words at odds."
With "salvation", beyond the issues of being saved by grace alone and how much this is reflected in our "fruit", whether it's elect only or arminian free-will, does the other person have a different or expanded definition of that concept? Is "hell" a literal lake of fire with teeth gnashing in anguish, or the unbelievable anguish of being completely without God? Perhaps someone has rejected the literal word and definition but has accepted a comparable concept with a different name.
All that being said, I think Kevin is right to be concerned. In the exuberance of a "new" movement, people need to be careful of what is thrown out. And there really is a danger when we stop using discernment and simply say that whatever anyone else believes must be completely true, too. Just as God's Truth can be found throughout the world, there are also many lies and deceptions floating around. In our zeal to be open and accepting, we don't want to end up with buckets of mud instead of gold nuggets!
It's interesting that Phyllis Tickle differentiates between "emerging" and "emergent", though she points out that the emergent church could be a legitemate form of what God is doing, just as Protestantism was, in the time of Reformation. Perhaps, though, Kevin is right, and we need to find a different term for "emerging", to help distinguish between the two.
Posted by: janible | May 12, 2008 11:40 AM
kevin s: "Selmanovic makes my point for me."
Interesting, because I don't understand what Selmanovic is saying (aside, I think, from the quote from Kierkegaard, whom i only understand about half the time).
Posted by: carl copas | May 12, 2008 12:00 PM
"Selmanovic makes my point for me."
Actually, I don't think he does. He makes a distinction between "Christianity" and "Kingdom of God." Jesus never used the term "Christian" but he did refer to the "Kingdom of God" on numerous occasions.
I do think Selmanovic goes way too far when he states that those who would become Christians are guilty of idolatry. Nevertheless, he is trying to say that the Kingdom of God is a far greater concept than Christianity itself. I can't say I disagree, especially since I have no doubt that the Kingdom of God is far greater than any of us would ever hope or imagine.
The take on McLaren's writing that Another nonymous states is what I also gathered from him. I don't see him negating basic Christian principals, but reexamining them and our emphasis on some while neglecting other aspects of the Kingdom of God. In a sense, I think he makes the argument that becoming a Christian is not all about escaping Hell, and since we have seen some very shallow, short-lived conversions resulting from the latter view of Christianity, there is reason to be concerned about using the Hell-fire mode of evangelism. Far better to invite people into the salvation and work of God's Kingdom than to coerce them with fear of fire and brimstone.
Posted by: squeaky | May 12, 2008 12:45 PM
Janible, well said, and not just because you agree with me.
"Brian McLaren has done no such thing (I don't know about the other two). "
McLaren on the doctrine of hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk
In it he says that the doctrine of hell implies that God is incapable of forgiving lest other people be sent to hell. What do you make of his words?
"Jesus never used the term "Christian" but he did refer to the "Kingdom of God" on numerous occasions."
He said he was THE way, THE truth, and THE life. To note that he didn't use the term "Christian" seems an argument of semantics to me.
"I do think Selmanovic goes way too far when he states that those who would become Christians are guilty of idolatry."
To say that he goes too far is to pretend that he is moving in the right direction to begin with.
"Nevertheless, he is trying to say that the Kingdom of God is a far greater concept than Christianity itself. "
But Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus died for our sins. If he is simply saying that our human understanding of Christ is insufficient to explain God, then this is incontrovertible. But to say that God created ALL religion (as Selmanovic does) to honor him is false.
"I don't see him negating basic Christian principals, but reexamining them and our emphasis on some while neglecting other aspects of the Kingdom of God."
That's how I received him through "A New Kind of Christian", but he has taken my benefit of the doubt and trashed it, frankly.
Incidentally, how can you embrace salvation without knowing you are condemned?
Posted by: kevin s. | May 12, 2008 5:44 PM
"But to say that God created ALL religion (as Selmanovic does)"
Where does he say that? I don't read than anywhere in the quote we are discussing
Posted by: squeaky | May 12, 2008 7:38 PM
kevin s: "McLaren on the doctrine of hell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk
In it he says that the doctrine of hell implies that God is incapable of forgiving lest other people be sent to hell. What do you make of his words?"
kevin s: I just listened 3 times to the recording you link to on YouTube. First, McLaren refers to "the traditional understanding of hell," then he mentions "the doctrine of hell." Then the interviewer, whoever he is, references "a traditional view of hell," then "the traditional view of hell."
What the ____ are they talking about exactly? A traditional conservative evangelical view of hell? The traditional Catholic view? the orthodox mainline Protestant doctrine? There's no way to tell without more context. All we have here is 2.5 minutes plucked out of some interview. I don't see how you expect to make any kind of point with such a flimsy piece of "evidence."
Maybe Brian will clarify things with a post here on Sojo.
Posted by: carl copas | May 12, 2008 7:49 PM
Kevin -
McLaren is rejecting the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, which, whether you like it or not, is only one version of the meaning of Christ's mission that has developed within orthodox Christianity - and far from the oldest or most widely accepted one. Brian and I prefer "Christus Victor," which says that Jesus triumphed over evil in the only way possible, by the ultimate act of non-violent resistance.
Why was this necessary? Because otherwise, we would all be living in hell - the absence of full communion with God - with no evident way out. To me, that is more than motivation enough to embrace salvation.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 12, 2008 8:01 PM
anthoer nonymous, i appreciate your comments. this is a rich, long & DIVERSE tradition that we are but stewards of, & there is a large segment of the church that didn't swallow anselm's substitutionary atonement a thousand years ago. & there are others today who, call them emerging, emergent, heretical, whatever you want to call us, who recognize that we live in a post-enlightenment world & that our sacred texts were written in a pre-enlightenment world, & that factuality was not the point of the story, nor is their deep truth confined to such a small concept as factuality. we also recognize the context in which 90% of the bible was written - by a persecuted people & that that has significance for our place of power & privilege today. we also know that terms like "prince of peace," "son of god," & "true god of true god," were all used as terms for caesar augustus during jesus' lifetime & that to say these things about jesus was radically subversive theologically & politically to the core. we recognize that the gospels were written from roughly 40-70 years after jesus died & that each gospel writer has some truly beautiful things to say about jesus, both the jesus of history (who is significantly in the gospels) as well as the jesus of the developing tradition that his followers continued to experience as a reality, however that happened (& still happens). we seek to embrace other ways of knowing that enlightenment has given us, while holding fiercely to our belief that there is much more to this life than enlightenment allows for. we also seek to reach back deep into our tradition to recover the richness of concepts that have been distorted or limited. & we see god & jesus in those sheep not of our flock, including in the loving witness of the enduring world's religions.
i don't speak for the people named above, but i do think there is a significant population of christians who identify with this, or are like where i once was - disgruntled & to the point of disbelief before i was found again.
Posted by: nad2 | May 13, 2008 1:13 AM
"Where does he say that? I don't read than anywhere in the quote we are discussing"
He says it in his book and elsewhere. His theory is that God is experienced by all religions, and that Christianity is not the sole conduit of God's grace, which can also be found in all of the world's other religions. This is blasphemy.
"McLaren is rejecting the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, which, whether you like it or not, is only one version of the meaning of Christ's mission that has developed within orthodox Christianity"
The Christus victor model does not reject the concept of hell, as McLaren does. Your interpretation of the model is far from orthodox, essentially reducing Christ's death to a symptom of man's violent nature.
You have to reject passages of scripture outright in order to support this view, beginning with Christ's own words about being the way, the truth and the life, and extending through Paul's words about having our sin washed away by Christ's blood.
Additionally, you have to infuse the scriptures with ideas that aren't even there. The notion that Christ died to model non-violent resistance is debatable, that this was the ONLY reason he died is a fiction.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 13, 2008 11:49 AM
"You have to reject passages of scripture outright in order to support this view, beginning with Christ's own words about being the way, the truth and the life, and extending through Paul's words about having our sin washed away by Christ's blood."
Why? I am not at all rejecting the atonement as the central doctrine of Christianity.
"Additionally, you have to infuse the scriptures with ideas that aren't even there."
Such as the concept that a wrathful God will send billions of people to a burning hell simply for not believing in him?
"The notion that Christ died to model non-violent resistance is debatable,"
I'm glad you admit that. If something is debatable, then it's plausible enough to argue with.
"that this was the ONLY reason he died is a fiction."
I never suggested otherwise. I am with nad2 in the suggestion that God is always bigger than any box we can try to fit him in. I am not rejecting the doctrine of the atonement, which is indeed central to Christian belief. However, even the strongest proponents of penal substitutionary atonement, a particular subset of atonement theology - e.g. John Stott - recognize that if taken with rigid literalism, the doctrine is distasteful in the extreme.
I sense from your earlier posts (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't share that distaste, and I'm trying to tease out a sense of why. What kind of God would willingly condemn half of humanity to eternal torment simply because they never heard of Jesus? If that's not more blasphemous than the suggestion that somebody who doesn't acknowledge Jesus as Lord but who lives a life manifesting the grace of God as revealed in Jesus (without, perhaps, even having heard of him) is going to hell, then I no longer know the God that you're invoking. It's certainly not the God I meet in the Bible, in my daily prayer life, in church, or anywhere else.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 13, 2008 12:21 PM
"Why? I am not at all rejecting the atonement as the central doctrine of Christianity."
No, but you are rejecting Christianity as the path to atonement, or at least McLaren is, and you seem to agree with him.
"Such as the concept that a wrathful God will send billions of people to a burning hell simply for not believing in him?"
This is in the Bible, whether or not you would like it to be true. I'm sorry it offends your sensibilities, but a movement that rejects this truth is not Chrisitianity, and does not represent the future of the religion.
"I never suggested otherwise. I am with nad2 in the suggestion that God is always bigger than any box we can try to fit him in. "
And we're back to the labels thing. To suggest that what scripture says about God is accurate is not putting God in a box.
"recognize that if taken with rigid literalism, the doctrine is distasteful in the extreme. "
Then don't take it with rigid literalism. But the notion that Christ died for our sins, and that we must repent of that sin and receive his grace is central to Christianity. To say that this is not so doesn't square with the Bible.
" What kind of God would willingly condemn half of humanity to eternal torment simply because they never heard of Jesus?"
What kind of people would reject God's perfect law in order to embrace the pleasures of this world? It's an equal and opposite reaction.
If you don't believe it fine. If you want to be part of the emergent church, fine. But let's not pretend that Christianity doesn't teach that there is a hell.
"If that's not more blasphemous than the suggestion that somebody who doesn't acknowledge Jesus as Lord but who lives a life manifesting the grace of God as revealed in Jesus (without, perhaps, even having heard of him) is going to hell, then I no longer know the God that you're invoking."
What you have described is a God of works. Show me where the Bible says that such a life is possible without Jesus. You are inventing a religion whole-cloth.
"It's certainly not the God I meet in the Bible, in my daily prayer life, in church, or anywhere else."
Okay.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 13, 2008 1:19 PM
But the notion that Christ died for our sins, and that we must repent of that sin and receive his grace is central to Christianity.
Kevin, I think you're creating a disagreement where none really exists. Another nonymous isn't rejecting the belief that Christ died for our sins; he's rejecting a particular interpretation of that belief. He is not sure about specific idea that Christ died to appease the wrath of an angry God. Do the Scriptures specifically state that this is the only way to understand Christ's atonement?
I don't know a lot about doctrines of the atonement, so I want to learn more. Maybe you can give us some passages that support this view (chapter and verse). If the Christian church has historically held other viewpoints besides this "penal subtstitutionary atonement" view, then other interpretations of these passages exist. Perhaps we can seek them out and all learn some thing. But to continue grandstanding and finding fault like this won't teach any of us anything.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 13, 2008 1:36 PM
"he's rejecting a particular interpretation of that belief. "
He is rejecting the fact that we must repent of our sins and accept his grace in order to be saved. That, or he is suggesting that there is nothing from which to be saved.
"He is not sure about specific idea that Christ died to appease the wrath of an angry God. "
That isn't what he said. He suggested that the wrathful God does not exist in the first place.
"Maybe you can give us some passages that support this view"
In Romans 5, Paul says we have peace with God through Jesus Christ, not anyone else (verse 1). He also says that we have access to his grace through same (verse 2). He says that God has poured love into our hearts by the holy spirit (verse 4).
Paul says that God died for us (verse 8), and that we are saved from God's wrath through Christ (verse 9).
In Romans 6, he explains that we were baptized into Christ, indicating that he is speaking to Christians, and that we (meaning Christians) will be united into his resurrection.
As I said, all of this is a bit "literalist" for the emergent church, which is where the low view of Paul (conveniently) comes in.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 13, 2008 2:04 PM
He is rejecting the fact that we must repent of our sins and accept his grace in order to be saved. That, or he is suggesting that there is nothing from which to be saved.
Another nonymous, are you rejecting that we have to repent of our sins and accept Christ's grace in order to be saved?
Kevin, where does Another say he rejects this doctrine? And where does he say that the "wrathful God" does not exist?
Posted by: Don | May 13, 2008 2:09 PM
don, i have written recently on these subjects on the evangelical manifesto comments, starting with the one from about 12:05 this morning. depending on what you mean by "repent" & "saved," the 'emergents' & i may or may not ascribe to that, which gets back to the fact that we are all going through an exercise of interpretation. even the literalists are doing it, that is simply one interpretation, a literalistic interpretation, of the scriptures. i try to interpret them in a way that is honest, takes into account storytelling & theological concepts from the period, has deep appreciation for metaphor as one of the best ways we can try to speak of the ineffable, accounts for history, & is in line with the concept of and my experience with a god of immeasurable love. i wholeheartedly affirm the concepts of salvation and repentance, but probably not in the way they are at present commonly understood. peace brother,
Posted by: nad2 | May 13, 2008 3:14 PM
"Another nonymous, are you rejecting that we have to repent of our sins and accept Christ's grace in order to be saved?"
No. It's happened to me, and I believe I am practicing the same religion that Kevin believes he is. However, I believe it is possible to repent and accept Christ's grace without ever having heard of him.
"What kind of people would reject God's perfect law in order to embrace the pleasures of this world? It's an equal and opposite reaction."
Sure, and that only proves my point. There are plenty of people who have never heard of Jesus Christ and yet do not embrace the pleasures of this world in deliberate contradiction of God's law. According to your reasoning, this should not be possible.
"This is in the Bible, whether or not you would like it to be true."
Where? Believe it or not, I've read the whole thing. I also do not have a "low" view of Paul, as we discussed it earlier in this thread. Indeed, the way I read the Bible is with utter determination to be able to take everything in it seriously. Thus, according to your definition above, I am as conservative as they come.
Yes, Kevin, I agree with Don that you're trying to create disagreement where none actually exists. The things that we do disagree on are not irreconcilable, unless you're determined to make them so.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 13, 2008 3:29 PM
BTW, Kevin, I definitely do believe in hell. I spent several years of my life there, and it's as real to me as anything.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 13, 2008 3:44 PM
" And where does he say that the "wrathful God" does not exist?"
He says this:
"Such as the concept that a wrathful God will send billions of people to a burning hell simply for not believing in him?"
In response to my statement regarding the need to add to the scripture in order to justify the emergent perspective.
"However, I believe it is possible to repent and accept Christ's grace without ever having heard of him."
Okay, and what if you do not repent. Do you believe that those who do not repent go to hell? Yes or no?
"There are plenty of people who have never heard of Jesus Christ and yet do not embrace the pleasures of this world in deliberate contradiction of God's law. According to your reasoning, this should not be possible."
According to the scriptures this should not be possible. Everyone embraces the pleasures of this world. Only through Christ is it possible to be made right with God.
If you want to argue that it is possible for the heart to encounter Christ without having heard of him, then you are changing the subject, to some degree.
But if you want to argue, as Selmanovic does, that God can be appropriately worshipped through other religions, then you are merely advocating universalism. That is the problem with the direction the emergent church is going.
"Where?"
The parable of the sower indicates what will happen to those who refuse to accept Christ.
"Yes, Kevin, I agree with Don that you're trying to create disagreement where none actually exists. "
I was drawing a distinction between the emergent and emerging churches, and you interjected your own beliefs. As such, I am trying to take what you say at face value, but whereas I have reams of text detailing what emergents believe, I have very little information about what you believe.
If we don't disagree, we don't disagree, but my comments regarding the emergent church still stand.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 13, 2008 4:07 PM
Kevin, I've laid out a great deal of what I believe in my posts on this blog, and you seem to have read most of them, based on how often you respond.
I am not a universalist. I do believe that Christians can learn from virtually every other religion in the world, precisely because Christianity incorporates the truth in the most complete and satisfactory way. Universalists believe that every religion contains some, but not all, of the truth.
I believe that people who do not repent are already in hell. (As Mefistophilis says in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus: "Why, this is hell, nor am I out of it.") Whether and when they will get out is not my call, nor is what will happen to them after they die. C. S. Lewis suggested that those in hell are free to leave and go to heaven, but do not want to do so, and this makes as much sense to me as anything.
I believe that in order to read the Parable of the Sower as meaning that God will burn those who do not accept him in hell forever, you have to have made up your mind beforehand that that's what it means.
I also believe that everything I just said is completely consistent with the most orthodox Christianity, and that's where we may have to agree to disagree. The one thing that I request you not do is try to pull rank. I've been a Christian for a long time.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 13, 2008 4:36 PM
"Universalists believe that every religion contains some, but not all, of the truth."
Then you disagree with emergents.
"I believe that people who do not repent are already in hell. "
Then we disagree on the nature of hell. Where do you get this from scripture?
"I believe that in order to read the Parable of the Sower as meaning that God will burn those who do not accept him in hell forever, you have to have made up your mind beforehand that that's what it means."
And I disagree. I am citing scripture, you are citing C.S. Lewis. Lewis was great, but he was an author, not the Messiah.
"The one thing that I request you not do is try to pull rank. I've been a Christian for a long time."
I don't know where this is coming from. I was discussing emergent theology, which you seemed to be defending, and somehow this became about your personal faith, which is apparently distinct from the emergent movement.
Posted by: kevin s. | May 13, 2008 5:18 PM
""Universalists believe that every religion contains some, but not all, of the truth."
Then you disagree with emergents."
I'm not so sure about that. If you are implying that most emergents believe all religions are equal before God, I know that's not true, and it will take more than a two-minute video clip taken out of context to convince me otherwise.
""I believe that people who do not repent are already in hell. "
Then we disagree on the nature of hell. Where do you get this from scripture?"
The same places you do. I'm not being smug; I read the same Bible, and it's all over the place. It's the idea that these passages refer to an extra-terrestrial place of torment after death that has to be read into the texts.
"I was discussing emergent theology, which you seemed to be defending, and somehow this became about your personal faith, which is apparently distinct from the emergent movement."
You seem to want to make it about my personal faith. I was trying to show that emergent theology is consistent with Christian orthodoxy.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 13, 2008 5:36 PM
The two places that refer to a place of torment that I can think of offhand are the lake of fire in Revelation and th story of the rich man and Lazarus. Of course, Jesus also refers to Gehenna, the Jerusalem garbage dump and talks about a place where there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth." The latter two seem to be metaphorical (especially the story of the rich man in torment, though it's possible to take them literally, I suppose. The lake of fire is found in a book full of imagery as well.
Yes, it's possible that origin of the common image of hell has more to do with Dante than the Bible itself. It seems that the Biblical view is more in line with being cast outside God's presence than being in an actual, physical location. The torments come from a realization that God has totally abandoned the one in that place.
But I'm no theologian. It seems that there should be room in the Christian church for more than one view.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | May 13, 2008 6:19 PM
kevin s, please don't think that everyone is trying to gang up on you. This is a good, vigorous discussion; the issues involved are the biggest ones humans face, so of course people have strongly expressed opinions.
Kevin, do you believe that people who never had the good fortune to hear the gospel are automatically consigned to an eternal hell? If so, why? Based on the passages from Romans that you cited?
Posted by: carl copas | May 13, 2008 7:18 PM
"Yes, it's possible that origin of the common image of hell has more to do with Dante than the Bible itself."
Even Dante, though, was writing a Commedia, which presents a prototypical midlife crisis, beginning with a descent into hell and continuing with a slow and painful ascent to the beatific vision. There's something very modern about this, if we can only get past our preconceptions about what it means.
Posted by: Another nonymous | May 13, 2008 11:40 PM
I see we've moved to the discussion of hell. After a period of great soul-searching asking many hard questions of my pastor, including the one Another asked about those who have never heard of Christ, I have learned I don't know much about hell. The wonderful thing about my pastor is he allowed me to ask very difficult questions that bordered on blasphemy without revealing any sense of judgement in his responses. That gave me the freedom to really delve into my doubts. It is a lesson we should all take, especially when the questions people ask seem to threaten our dearly held beliefs.
One of the points I learned in my searching of this question is about the concept of eternal fire/eternal judgement, etc. The fire may be eternal, but that doesn't mean the suffering is. It just means the fire wholly consumes what is thrown into it. A stick thrown into a fire does not burn all night. Once it is gone, it is gone. Meanwhile, the fire might burn all night long.
There is a very strong Scriptural argument that though hell exists, it is not a place of eternal torment for those who go there. Rather, the person ceases to exist.
The fundamental question is, if God destroys all that is evil, how can hell exist for eternity? How is His victory over sin and death a true victory if there is some corner in the universe where hell still exists? For more info on this, see Fudge's "The Fire that Consumes." Or just google away.
Posted by: squeaky | May 14, 2008 1:51 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?