I believe this attitude is counter to the original intent of the emerging church but may end up become a defining characteristic.
It has been for a long time.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I believe this attitude is counter to the original intent of the emerging church but may end up become a defining characteristic.
Good response, Gold Dragon. But, I think that you left some stuff about the emerging church unsaid -- i.e., their actual doctrinal stance -- and suggesting that because they are post-modern and cannot be pinned down, while true in a meta-narrative sense, is not at all true when it comes to actual practice determined by a belief system. They hold several values (they would reject the word "truths") in common, and those values set them apart as truly emerging versus emerging in apperance and culture.
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.
No, I'm not just jabbing, and I actually thought about that line several times before I clicked submit just because I KNEW it would come back up.
The truth is, that certain tenets of the emerging church ARE IN FACT aligned with certain tenets of the non-cals on this board, whether they know it or not. THAT is why I said what I said.
Quantum, I know that you do not always agree with my doctrine, but by now you should know that I strive to be as accurate in my descriptions of other's doctrines as I can. I have nothing to fear and so I strive to defeat the strawman argument -- on both sides. Truth is God's and I strive for it, even if that means changing my mind, something that I've done multiple times in my life.
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!
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.
A lot of what Pastors like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are saying is that they are angered at the traditional or orthodox church becuase they see young people turning away from the faith. So they throw out what they deem as antiquated and unnecessary and adopt a relativistic approach so everyone can come to church and not feel offended or pressured. This is why we see a lot of the GLTB crowd coming to them. This is why they throw out hell and heaven and sin as we know it to be defined.
I see it as people who don't like Christians and the church but still want to be on the team, so they make up their own rules, or throw them out to accomodate their flavor. To me it is like immature children playing house or doctor. They want a Jesus that is non-judgmental and a God they don't have to be accountable to, so they rid Christianity of any absoulte truth claims, diminish scripture as man made religion and turn Jesus into a mild mannered sage who wants you to have you best life now. Hey that could be a book title, lol.
Would you say that there is a substantive level after which a doctrine is indeed heretical and not just "another view?"
Roger Oakland seems to be a man who will stand up for truth and expose error, so I don't get your problem with him?
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.
So, you identify with the actual emergent movement?
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'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.
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.
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 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).