Featured Are you Emergent?

It has been for a long time.

 

As I stated above, an actual doctrinal "stance" is something that is counter to the core values of the emerging church and postmodernism.

Sure a person in an emerging church has theological positions at any given time. But those positions are meant to be dynamic and not necessarily authoritative to other people in their church.

So just because Brian McLaren, Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell hold to a certain theological position at any one time does not make it authoritative over them for the rest of their life or anyone else who considers themselves from an emerging church.

This is a position that those of us who like modernistic definitions, systematic theologies and categories are uncomfortable with. However, I think this is also more reflective of the reality of a Christian walk where at one point in life, we believe one thing and later in life, we may believe another. At any given time, we agree or disagree with our pastor's theology.

In a modernistic paradigm, our earlier theology was wrong and our new theology is right. The theology we agree with our pastor is right and the theology we disagree with our pastor is wrong. In a postmodern paradigm, it is not necessarily so important that our theology has changed or that we agree or disagree with our pastor. It just is part of our Christian walk to have these changes and disagreements and they are valuable.

 

I believe they are using the "slippery" defense as a dodge. They well know what they believe and are writing it as we speak, and they are not all that post-modern once seen for what they are. It is difficult to say anything at all while remaining effectively post-modern, which is something that even the post-moderns are starting to realize, and so they make "truth claims" and take stances on narratives that the "prefer" versus others that they do not. Yes, the entire issue is very fluid, but not THAT fluid, lest they have nothing at all to say, and we all know that is not true -- books a-plenty, and when pressed heretical at that!

 

I do believe you and your sincerity. I too have nothing to fear, I have lived long enough so as to not get my knickers in TOO much of a knot over these points of disagreement. I think you know enough of me also to know that most of my "angst" is not with positional differences, but in HOW we disagree with one another. Blessings to you.

 

You may be right about whatever theology you disagree with certain emerging church writers about (likely truth, hell and approach to non-Christians). But your response of throwing out the H bomb and dismissing that person and their associated group is exactly the type of thinking they are disenfranchised with. Instead of heresy, call it strong disagreement in theology. Instead of dismissal of differing views, we can have a conversation about why we believe differently and still be civil if we disagree afterwards.

 

Would you say that there is a substantive level after which a doctrine is indeed heretical and not just "another view?"

 

I understand that very well. So did Schleiermacher, Beecher, Harnack, Fosdick, Bultmann, Tillich, Weatherhead, Hartshorne, Hick, Spong, Borg, and others see the issue. They ALL formulated a new approach to Christianity in response to the fact that SOME were dropping out of the church, and ALL of them derived a new theological standard that looks OH SO familar when compared to the true emergent movement as to be one and the same. Each derived their theology from observation of the human condition instead of the revelation of Scripture, and all are guilty of eventually leading those who followed them to the abyss. So too are the modern formulations of that already old liberal doctrine.

 

I believe there are views that are non-Christian. My list of those types of views that apply are likely much smaller than many on this board. And then there are views that are wrong but are not necessarily non-Christian. Either way, language such as denouncing heresy and refusing to listen and discuss differences is not needed and not well responded to these days.

I have found that civil discussion where one is able listen and respond graciously to opposing views is much more effective at potentially changing minds and hearts that may be open to change.

 

I have no problem admitting that Oakland "seems to be a man who will stand up for truth and expose error" except for his frame of reference in so doing.

He goes off the deep end in his efforts and perpetrates some of the myth and stereotype rampant in the fundamentalistic/legalistic camp that is known as not true in that manner.

I understand why some persons -- perhaps of IFB persuasion (and I'm not trying to start that argument) -- might see eye-to-eye with Oakland, for they essentially hold the same view, but that view is not always consistent with an accurate total picture.

I get cold shivers everytime I see another person whose main goal in life is to "expose" others. I have a REALLY hard time reconciling that sort of ministry with the Scriptures, save for some of the OT prophets, who were expressly called by God -- yes, almost always "kicking and screaming" yet purposed by God"s will. I do NOT see that with people like Oakland. Wonder if he would submit to the test of a false prophet?

 

So, you identify with the actual emergent movement?

 

I'm not sure what I wrote that made you think this but I will respond anyway.

I do not belong to the emergent village network and do not attend a church that considers itself emerging or emergent. But I have read from writers who do including Brian McLaren and I have defended some of his writings in the past on this board. I don't agree with all his points just like I likely don't agree with all the theology of any individual Christian on this planet.

I do agree with many of the core values of the emerging church such as the ones I listed initially of 1) trying to be a Christian in a postmodern world, 2) being missional, 3) appreciating narrative views of testimony and biblical interpretation and 4) enjoying conversation like this one with people I usually disagree with in theology whether they be Christian or non-Christian.

So if that makes me part of the emerging church, then so be it.

 

problem with all of that viewpoint is that the Bible IS an objective viewpoint being given to us to live by...

ITS God talking to us, in the written word...

Those are trying to impose upon the Bible current contemporary meanings/terminology, basically saying that the Bible is a living dynamic message to us from God, that unline Evangelicals like me who see it as being "fixed" and always relevant, theology was fixed and made right for all times...

They see it as becomg a new and fresh word from the Lord, that can be updated to meet 'current needs"

problem is after they 'rework it" little of what God really meant and said left intact!

 

Don't take my question in a perjorative sense. You made some rather radical statments that I responded to with a question about your alliances.

I enjoy many of the same things you suggest above, but also with some stipulations placed on how I identify each of those tenets. For instance, though we do live in a post-modern world, we cannot simply just adopt post-modern views for everything. There IS such a thing as true truth and everyone -- even the most radical post-modernist knows it and uses it. For instance, not a one would expect their banker to adopt a post-modern philosophy where the "reader" deconstructs the numbers of their bank account and reinterprets those numbers according to their own narrative. Nor would they expect their doctor to use a post-modern narrative approach to dispensing medical aid, prescription drugs, etc. That goes on and on and on in life. We cannot absolve ourselves from pursuit of the truth in favor of a meme or a community understanding that is merely relative, though some have actually (stupidly) tried, and of course, failed.

Being missional is as old as the Bible -- yes, even the OT -- and the "missio Dei" is one of the operative prinicples that make for a coherent biblical theology. We can find the rudiments in being missional in the very first pages of Genesis when God fully expected to be in relationship with the entire creation, and even after sin broke that relationship, the covenant promise was to bless the people of the world -- that IS missional. That we forgot that and have had to rediscover it, and that largely due to an overemphasis on a systematic and legalistic view of doctrine instead of a relational and edifying view. God has always been missional and indeed the "Great Commission" given by the Lord is in fact extremely missional when rightly understood in the original, "panta ta ethnae" -- "all the people groups" -- not " all the world" as is so often translated. Jesus exemplified that missional attitude when He traveled to the Greek regions in the Decapolis and preached the gospel, healed, etc.

Conversations? Sure. I hang out here for a reason, even when it is utterly frustrating at times. Love to talk it through and we don't immediately pin PEOPLE as heretical as some might thing. Rather, in keeping with my question above, at some point THOUGHTS OR DOCTRINES can cross the line and become heretical. People can recant and turn from those thoughs once they engage on them and compare them to the Bible, but to adopt the post-modern view in this instance and divorce thoughts and doctrines FROM the only means of knowing true truth -- God' specific revelation -- is to invite heresy in earnest and without remorse. Those that HEAR and SEE the truth as GOD presented it and yet refuse to recant or change their positions, aka, Rob Bell for instance, can then BECOME heretical in and of themselves for both knowing and yet refusing to change.

 

problem with this is that the theology developing out from this group has up until now been poor in regards to the areas of alternate lifestyles/salavation/After life!

They have been seeking to find amediating position for these things, that has resulted in re undertanding hell out of Bible, strong views on Alternate lifestyles being condemned in bilbe, and that jesus may.may not be only way to get saved!

 

I am not offended by being allied with the emerging church. I am probably the poster on this board who most allies with the emerging church. While I am not formally allied to them, I am definitely ideologically allied.

With regard to Rob Bell, I'm not exactly sure why you need to throw the heresy label around like that with him. Sure his book "Love Wins" is open to considering Universalism and he appears to support liberal theologies. You probably need to call me heretic too. I have openly considered concepts on this board such as Karl Rahner's Anonymous Christian and supported many liberal theologies here such as evolutionary creationism and ecumenicalism. I'm also open to discussing alternative views on hell like Brian McLaren's. Areas where Bell and McLaren disagree with me, I just say I think they are wrong or they present weak arguments for their position. What exactly does throwing around the heretic label to people with different theologies achieve other than more unnecessary division in Christ's Church?

 

I'm not just "throwing around" the heresy word. What Bell just publish has been declared heretical by virtually everyone not of the emerging church in the whole world. He goes WAY beyond universalism, which is heretical in and of itself. His views cost him his pastorate. Did you know that?

Just google Rob Bell Heresy and find out how many hits you get on that search. He is not just a garden variety liberal Protestant, though he takes off from where they leave off with his latest libertarian free will expression (that includes the ability to choose or un-choose HELL itself).

 

I was not aware that Bell left Mars Hill. But a quick search of the reasons why show your post to be misrepresenting what happened.

His views may have cost him his pastorate but only in the sense that the success of his book lead Bell to leave the pastorate to move to Los Angeles and focus on writing books, speaking tours and a possible foray into television to reach a wider audience. While he loses respect points from me for leaving his pastorate to pursue these aspects of his career, I think it is reflective of what often happens to popular speakers in our current Christian world and is a decidedly non-postmodern thing to do with the focus less on the local and more on the global.
Christianity Today - Update: Rob Bell to Move to L.A. and Launch a Tour
Mars Hill statement

In terms of his doctrinal position and status as a "heretic", yes many evangelicals have called him that which is par for the course for many in the evangelical community. Sure Bell toys with ideas of Universalism and the concept of hell and questions the traditional evangelical/protestant/Catholic/Orthodox views on those issues. He never comes out and commits to any particular view and even denies he is a Universalist. But from reading reviews from supporters and critics of Bell on the book, I don't think he says anything particularly new on the subject or all that extreme to be honest.

Anyway, I'm sure there are many who disagree with me on that but I may read the book just to see how false all these accusations are, even though the content itself is not so interesting to me. Universalism and questioning the literalness of hell has been around since the early church as fringe views but they are positions that are difficult to support biblically and we will never really know until we die what the answer is. But I understand why we have those questions and they are frequently asked questions by young Christians and non-Christians, often with unsatisfying answers from the traditional perspective.

 

Anything as "slippery" and "undefinable" as the TRUE emergent church movement is dangerous, for it is nothing more than an admission that "THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE" is not any of the above.

Sorry... Post-modernism aside, we CANNOT deconstruct God and come away better for the experience. God predates modernism and will post-date post-modernism, and His truth shall stand. Furthermore, His truth shall be the edict of judgment against those who invent their own versions thereof.

See why I said above that the emerging movement is ALL ABOUT DOCTRINE and not at all about CULTURE?