Things You CAN’T Do When You’re NOT In A Pool
I think this video is hilarious, then again I am just kind of twisted that way. But I would have to agree that there are some things that you can only do in a pool.
I was reading a criticism of the emergent movement the other day; it wasn’t really a fair criticism, though there are a few fair criticisms of the movement to be had. But this was your typical fundamentalist, fear based, sounding criticism that said that the emergent movement and post modern-culture was nothing more than relativism.
That got me thinking, and to me relativism doesn’t sound all that bad. When it comes right down to it truth is often revealed in relative terms. I am not saying that there are no absolutes, but I would say that ironically absolute truth is most completely revealed in the context of the person of Jesus Christ. In addition to this, as disciples of Christ, we best walk in truth in the context of our relationship to Christ. Our faith is relative to the person of Jesus Christ and is absolutely dependent on this context.
Next to Himself, Jesus said that the law was most completely summed up by loving God and loving our neighbor. If anything requires us to discern truth relative to our context it is these two essential commandments.
Following the rest of the law without regard to considering the context of how to best love God and our neighbor in each moment is how the Pharisees got off track. To them, context was not an issue because the law was “absolute”. Jesus would point this out to them in the story of the Good Samaritan when he portrayed the religious leaders ignoring their foreign neighbor in need because of their “absolute” interpretation of the law that called them to be separate from the foreigner (among other things). The truth is Jesus said that the entire law was relative to the simple commands to love God and our neighbors.
The thing many Christians find difficult to do when they are trying to navigate how to make decisions is to say to themselves the simple words, “it depends”. Apparently we can not determine right and wrong purely on a strict religious code or rules, but we may have to ask ourselves what is the best way to proceed relative to how to best love God and our neighbor.
Relativism takes the time to consider context and relationship. Not doing this would be like writing rules for what you can and can not do in a pool and applying them as an absolute that covers every aspect of your life regardless of the context of the pool.
Some things people do out of a misguided view of “absolute truth” has them interacting with the world like the guys in the video who apparently did not know that their behavior only made sense relative to the context of a swimming pool. Many Christians screaming "absolute truth” look just as foolish.
Relativism isn’t all bad, in fact many characteristics of the gospel are built upon it. If we do not pay attention to our context and our relationships and how we are to live the truth relative to people today then we will fail to live out the Kingdom in the here and now. That seems like the truth to me - relatively speaking.
Peace,
James
31 comments:
ok, i'm with you... the video was freakin hilarious. :)
and nice illustration. though is it fair to say there are few fair criticisms? i think few of us are able to handle the criticism well enough.
of course that doesn't change the fact that i agree with you as well.
have a nice day
tuf
I just meant that some criticism of the emergent movement has merit. I just think shouting “relativism” and claiming it as the evil of post modernity isn’t a fair criticism, especially when the greatest absolute revelation of truth was sent to us in the relative form of the person of Jesus Christ. In addition living out love and truth is relative to both our relationship to God and our neighbor.
Thanks for the comment Tuff, I mostly just thought the video was hilarious and wanted to show it. ;) I see you are taking a break from your blog, hope you can hang around here with us some more in the meantime.
Peace
James
James -
Can you explain what you mean when you say that Jesus Christ is a relative form of the absolute truth? I just don't understand what you mean.
- J
I mean that Jesus Christ as God in the flesh is truth expressed relative to his personhood; as God/Man the person of Jesus Christ becomes the context for complete revelation of Truth. Truth is therefore dependent upon the context of the person of Jesus Christ; making Truth itself relative to Christ.
Context is important here; Truth can not be understood in a vacuum. God himself entered into a shared context with us as human beings through the incarnation of Jesus Christ. By saying that “absolute revelation of truth was sent to us in the relative form of the person of Jesus Christ”, I am saying that absolute truth was revealed to us in the particular context of the person of Jesus Christ. Truth therefore takes on a relative form as it relates to Jesus Christ; a person became the complete revelation of Truth.
I am not sure if I am explaining this well or not. I hope so, but if not let me know.
James
james,
i believe you are explaining this thought of yours well enough that i was able to take hold of it a bit and roll around with it. and i affirm that 'absolute truth' far too long has been in the mind of the modern christian, more as something dangling from the sky like an immovable pillar and less as a living, breathing person of Jesus who may have taken a leak behind a tree. that truth, love, hope, etc. were embodied in the person of jesus who in being human, by definition, related and was/is relative. so that, love he showed to an adulteress was relative in style to her needs compared to love he showed peter...whom he often rebuked and once even called satan.
im believing more and more that only a few post-modernists are so far to the extreme that they would say they don't believe in absolute truth. the majority do believe in truth, its just that truth can be so much 'bigger' than us, that they doubt the many claims of modern christians to be able to completely comprehend it and therefore, 'own' it in a sense that no one else can. brian mclaren has been able to put on paper some of my thoughts better than i can, so i'll share what he wrote in The Church on the Other Side.
"...what postmodern people tend to reject is not absolute truth, but absolute knowledge. And to the degree we seek to defend absolute knowledge, we show ourselves to be defenders not of biblical faith (which repeatedly affirms that we "know in part") but of modern rationalism (which displays an overconfidence about its autonomous powers of knowlege that is hard to overexaggerate). Having a universe full of absolute truth but a world full of people incapapble of grasping and conveying it with absolute accuracy is almost -but not exactly- the same as having no absolute truth at all. Failing to see this distinction, many Christians in the current transition zone keep beating the drum of absolute truth, and the harder they beat it, the more primitive and hopelessly modern they seem."
it is in this slight distinction that mclaren's words resonate within me so that all of who i am leeps up and says 'yes! i agree!' we must continue in humility with a less tight grip to what we 'claim' to be truth, and understand that in reality, it is simply our knowledge of the truth...namely jesus. we know him, but we can't completely comprehend him or know all about hiim. humilty.
please afford me to continue on a little more with this thread of relativism. a few pages later in the same chapter, mclaren encourages us to affirm some of the truth that God is trying to convey through the post-modern movement. that is, a LIMITED RELATIVISM:
"I am not recommending that we affirm absolute relativism (which is locically an absurdity), but rather honest, limited relativism. Postmoderns have been reared under the post-Einsteinian, quantum knowlege that even time and space are not absolute. So they are justly skeptical of absolutist claims and understandably sensitive to moral ambiguities, including some found in the Bible. Is it absolutely wrong to kill your own child? (Abraham was commanded to do so.) Is it absolutely wrong to worship in an idol's temple? (Naaman was given permission to do so.) Is it absolutely wrong to visit a prostitute? (Hosea was commanded to do so.) Is it absolutely wrong to have more than one wife? (Many good Bible characters had such.)_ Is it absolutely wrong to have slaves? (Then why does the Bible regulate rather than categorically forbid slavery?) Dare we acknowledge that many moral issues are relative to their situation--under God?"
this last sentence does justice to mr diggs' post i believe. mclaren continues on to suggest that we begin using the term 'universal truth' as opossed to 'absolute truth'. i begin to see myself agreeing with him. im sure many will criticize me for so often quoting a 'borderline heretic' like mclaren. (maybe not on this forum.) my response to this potential criticism is...well, the guy is smarter than me and more articulate than me, and i agree with him on these issues.
merry christmas
brad
Thanks for your comments Brad, and thanks for the excerpt from Mclaren. I certainly agree that relativism has its limitations; particularly when we put ourselves as the center or fulcrum to gage truth. I like the term “universal truth”, this seems to remind us that truth goes far beyond just the individual and resonates in what we all have in common; because of this it allows room to consider our context and relationship to one another.
I agree with Mclaren that people often argue “absolute truth” more like “absolute knowledge”; that is one of the major problems with the term. I agree with you that we need to approach the whole thing with more humility. We also need to be more aware of our own modern context (which is beginning to happen in post modernity) and realize that we often read so much modern thought into scripture that we become defenders of modernity more than scripture. So I agree with Mclaren on this as well and that scripture “repeatedly affirms that we (can only) ‘know in part’”.
Thanks for your thoughts Brad and exploring further some of the concepts I was brought up. I appreciate your insight (as well as Mclaren’s).
James
yeah, i'll be around. i have you on my reader, and 'm still checking it regularly. don' anticipate my break from blogging being real long. its more of a break from writing than reading. :)
have a nice day
tuf
James,
Interesting conversation (great video but don't tell my congregation I said that). I must admit I'm having a whole lot of trouble following the logic. I understand that we cannot arrogantly assume we have all the answers to all the questions, even those regarding what is right and wrong. But looking at Brad's list "is it absolutely wrong to..." I find myself crying out on behalf of the perpetrator, "please hold me accountable!" People caught in the grip of sin are suffering and, though they may not readily admit it, they are looking to be rescued from what they so often vehemently defend as a legitimate activity. I don't think the great leap of post-modernity is to question the legitamacy of what others call sin, but to question the authenticity of the ones who are making the definitions. Its my understanding and experience that post-moderns are saying that we want authenticity in a walk of faith. But having worked with people trapped in prostitution, drug and alcohol addiction, and sexual immorality I found that there are many who would excuse these behaviors and pat these individuals on the back. But those who are caught in these behaviors know they are self-destructive and, again whether they come right out and say it or not, they long for someone to hold them accountable and help them break free.
I am not speaking as an "ivory tower" Christian looking down on others. I have been there myself...drug and alcohol addiction, sexual sin, you name it there was a time I would try it. All the while hurting from the pain of my choices and longing to be free. I'm sorry to drag a issue of reason into the arena of personal experience but I simply cannot get away from the need every human absolutely has to be free of self destructive sin! I do not think it is arrogance that holds people accountable but courageous compassion!
No, we cannot, as Mcleran puts it, "claim to have truth stuffed and mounted on the wall" we need to acknowledge that truth is bigger than our ability to grasp it. But at the same time we cannot allow a 'limited relativism' to prevent us from lovingly guiding others away from self-destructive habits.
Well that's my 2 cents anyway.
God Bless,
JP Vilaire
JP,
Thanks for your comments. Acknowledging and embracing a limited view of relativism in no way threatens the need of accountability; in fact it may make us more accountable.
I find it interesting that you fear that relativism does not hold people accountable for their “self-destructive” habits and sins. The modern paradigm of “absolute truth” expressed through “absolute rules” for right and wrong plays right into a lacking view of “freedom”, “salvation” and the Kingdom. The biggest problem is that this leads us to think in individualistic terms, you yourself spoke of SELF-destructiveness several times.
It is not that sin isn’t self destructive or that you would not acknowledge sin’s destructiveness on others, it is just that when we think of truth as absolute rules regardless of context we begin to see our journey in individualistic ways relative to our view of “absolute truth”. It is ironic to me that many who pound the drum for “absolute truth” fall in to the worst kind of relativism – one that is dependent exclusively on their own understanding. Strictly speaking, relativism is unavoidable, even by those who claim “absolute truth” because no one exists in a vacuum without a context.
When I speak of relativism I am simply acknowledging the reality of relationships between things and their context. The word “relative” is a relational word; it speaks to how one thing relates to another. Yes, a relativism where an individual wants to look at truth as only something that is relative to oneself, and looks at life like it is in a vacuum apart from others, is bent inward on itself. Relativism does not have to be so selfish; we can acknowledge our own context and understand that we intersect also with the context of others.
What I am suggesting is not the kind of relativism where anyone can just make up what is true for themselves. At the same time, as human beings we can only get a glimpse of universal truth in the context of our lives and our relationships. This is why God revealed truth to us in relative terms- in terms that reveal where universal truth intersects with the context of our lives. Love God and love your neighbor; we intersect with God’s universal truth when we acknowledge that right and wrong are relative to how we interact with God and other people.
Acknowledging relativism as a reality in our journey of faith does far more than just helps us “lovingly guiding others away from SELF-destructive habits”; it helps us walk with others in a way that helps keep us all from RELATIONSHIP-destroying habits relative to God and others.
Thanks again for you comments JP. I agree with you that post modern culture is interested in authenticity, but part of authenticity has to do with being true to ourselves and our context. It certainly would be easier if context and the relationship between things were not a factor in discerning truth. Though it is a more difficult journey than just having "absolute truth" and rules where context doesn’t matter, it is an authentic journey that can far better reflect the universal truth of Christ.
James
jp,
totally agreeing with you on the accountability. necessary and vital both for those who aren't actively engaging Jesus in relationship as well those who are actively engaging, trusting, loving Jesus. this becomes a visceral reality for me as i need accountablity as much as anyone i've known.
if i communicated that we shouldn't care enough to help each other grow closer to Jesus, i do apologize (i don't apologize for my horrific grammar). my comment was not intended to set us 'free' to pursue any action, no matter how devisive, we desire. or excuse others at the same time. instead, my hope was that we would begin engaging the person of God when we discuss truth.
i affirm your post and you in this matter completely.
there is also a separate conversation that i believe would benefit us. that is, what are the most effective ways to show people the error of their ways...or...another way to state the conversation is, how can we most effectively lead people to freedom, especially when they act like they don't to be free.
jp, thank you for bringing this into the dialogue. very glad to hear from you.
Create communities (orders?) with an established and known rule of life. Don't force the rule on anyone who doesn't want to subscribe to the rule. Pray that by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit living in and through that community, those watching from the outside can only but want to be a part and to subscribe themselves to that community and rule.
...of course, this may not work too well in large denominations.
F&TC,
- J
i'd also add a dimension of engaging those on the 'outside' of the community/order in true friendship...for the sake of friendship.
James,
Thanks for the laugh and the thoughts. You are right about some of the unfair or misrepresentative criticisms aimed at emerging churches. No doubt we learn a lot about ourselves and our message by our critics, however.
Peace-
Greg
Just a couple thoughts...
Of course, everything is relative to God or Jesus. That is because Jesus is the constant, the absolute, the Truth. That is not the same relativism that is coming out of the post-modern and emergant circles. The relativism that is being posited by them is not based on anything absolute because we are "incapable of grasping and conveying it with absolute accuracy."
What Mclaren said was right (even though it was the exact point he was trying to dispell) when he said "Having a universe full of absolute truth but a world full of people incapapble of grasping and conveying it with absolute accuracy is almost -but not exactly- the same as having no absolute truth at all." True, it isn't exactly the same, but effectively it is. So what's the difference, really?
What I find missing in all of these discussions (and I have been involved with many, even with some of the main figures in this movement) is the Holy Spirit. There is little acknowledgement of the power of the Holy Spirit to inspire the Biblical writers, to preserve God's Word through the ages or to help us in proper interpretation of His Word. It is as if we are here by ourselves and if we were, a dreadful place it certainly would be. But we aren't. At least that is what Scripture tells us. When we start doubting Scripture or the Spirit's power to help us understand it properly, all hope is lost. We are the blind leading the dead.
Even in 1 Corinthians 13 where we are told we know in part, we are repeatedly told things in an absolute way. The knowing in part is at least knowing something absolutely. Emergents will tell us that we can know nothing, even in part. You may not agree with that but I have heard it said, in person, by leaders in this movement. That is not the relativism of which you spoke.
Lastly, Jeremy, what you described sounded suspiciously like descriptions of denominations! And of that i would agree with you 100%. If denominations can get it straight that there are Christians in every denomination but remain strong in the teaching they see in Scripture, then we will have a strong Church Universal. But right now, denominations are failing to teach doctrine to those in their pews (or chairs) and too many of them damn the others to hell for not being of like mind. We must remain firm on the essentials and in the rest live in faith and grace.
Nyk
Nicholas,
I think what is coming out of post modern culture is the realization that one can not know truth “absolutely”; it is a humble recognition of the limitations of our own humanity. This does not mean that we can not interact with and touch truth, and know that we are touching it; it also doesn’t mean that we can’t know and be known by truth incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ. I also would agree with you that we can know and be known by truth through our relationship with God the Holy Spirit. But again knowing truth in this way is not absolute knowing on our end, even if truth itself is absolute on God’s end.
I think the “emergent leaders” you are speaking of agree with this, but as a side note I also think they are not directing what post moderns think as much as they are reflecting it. I agree with McLaren’s statement you quoted (and so do you), that “having a universe full of absolute truth but a world full of people incapable of grasping and conveying it with absolute accuracy is almost -but not exactly- the same as having no absolute truth at all." The difference between not being able to know and understand truth absolutely and without error and not having absolute or universal truth at all is that the first recognizes both that it exists and our human limitations to grasp it at the same time. “Having no absolute truth at all” denies that there is a truth larger than our selves. Believing in either extreme to the exclusion of the other is arrogant. It is both arrogant to think we can have absolute knowledge or to think that there is no truth beyond ourselves.
I think emergent circles (of which I like to think I interact with and am apart of) are wrestling with the tension of these truths. As we wrestle with these concepts we do sometimes run into a problem of semantics; what do we mean by “truth”, “absolute”, and “knowing”. Depending on how someone defined these terms I might agree with them if they said you could or couldn’t know absolute truth.
Nicholas, I do like your reminder to us about 1 Corinthians 13 where we are told we can “know in part”. I think when you say that “knowing in part is at least knowing something absolutely” you mean that you can know something with some degree of confidence. Your understanding of knowing “absolutely” may change the way you view knowing in part. For many modern, western, protestant, evangelicals, knowing absolute truth leaves no room for the “in part” otherwise it would not be absolute. If knowing absolute truth means to you absolute knowledge than either you know it absolutely or you don’t. But if knowing it is more of a relational term, a term that says that you can touch truth and interact with it within your life’s context, then saying that knowing truth “in part” recognizes the limitations of relating and interacting with truth in our human context.
I agree with you that we can “know in part”, we can have confidence that our lives intersect with and interact with the truth of God. We believe in a God that took on an incarnate form in Jesus Christ, and a Spirit form that still lives within us as His body in our human context today. I am confident where I see God and his truth interact and relate to me in my context today; and as part of the human community my understanding increases as I relate to how God interacts with others in their context now and throughout history. That is why I still think that our comprehension of God’s Truth, whether you call it absolute or universal, is relative and all we can really see is how God relates and applies truth to an ever changing human context where people strive to love God and each other.
Yes, I know I spoke of a different kind of relativism. For the most part the term had been used as an “either/or” concept; either truth was absolute or it was relative. Many Christians have not explored the relative aspects of truth because they have incorrectly labeled the entire concept as some kind of evil deception. However, as I pointed out in my original post, I think the way people understand and embrace truth has always been relative and that God understood that we could not comprehend truth outside of our human context. That is why God meets us in our context and we can learn to understand truth relative to the context of a relationship with him and one another.
Thanks for your comments Nicholas, you helped me think through this some more.
Peace,
James
James,
I am glad you recognize that the relativism that you spoke of is not what the leaders in this movement are referring to when they use the term. Though they will try to tell you that they are not promoting relativism. They are, while at the same time telling us that they aren't. I feel that words mean things and that only when we try to redefine words from what they actually mean, do we start getting this confusion of thought.
Now, I only agreed with McClaren to the point where he actually proves what he is trying to dispell. My point was this; if there is an absolute Truth out there somewhere, but we cannot absolutely know it in part or in whole, then it may as well not exist. Effectively, it doesn't matter whether it is there or not. It doesn't help us know how to live. And frankly, it is the largest of injustices if we are to be judged at all by this truth which we can't know. So that leaves us with the necessity that every person is saved, which is not justice at all. It is a complete mess. When I state that we know in part, meaning that at least we know in part absolutely, that is totally different from what the initial writer was stating. He was applying a different meaning to that phrase from what is obviously intended based on context. He wanted us to believe that the Bible itself tells us that we cannot not know truth absolutely. And that is clearly NOT what is said in that passage. It tells us that we CAN know truth absolutely, just not entirely. Those are two completly different statements with huge implications as to how we view Scripture, God and how we live our own lives. Can you see that?
What we have hear is a failure to communicate. Why must those in this movement constantly pour new meanings into words? When I use the word 'absolute', I mean absolute, totally, completely, without a doubt. 'Absolutely' does not mean "with some degree of confidence". That is not even close. That is not what i meant. I meant what I said.
Another issue that i have with this movement is the inventing of straw men. This "Absolute Knowledge" thing is completely contrived in the minds of these people. I have never met Christian who would claim absolute knowledge. If they did, i would claim they were heretics, for only God can lay claim to such a thing. Even if there are some out there who would claim such a thing, it is not anywhere near the majority of Christians and certainly not a teaching of any denomination that i know of. Therefore, to start a movement against something that doesn't even exist is a bit of a waste of time. Unless, there are more nefarious motives. Maybe not intentional, but nefarious nonetheless.
Additionally, your description of God concerned me a bit. But maybe I misundrstood your terminology. You said, "We believe in a God that took on an incarnate form in Jesus Christ, and a Spirit form that still lives within us as His body in our human context today." That isn't what I believe or what the Nazarene Church teaches. We believe that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all eternal, seperate persons yet one God. That isn't what you said. Again, that may be just my reading more into how you phrased it than what you actually meant. So if you can correct me on that, please do.
What you pointed out in your original post regarding things being relative was that everything is relative to GOD. In other words, everything is relative to a constant. The only people who would disagree with you on that is the emergents. You said that many Christians have incorrectly labeled that entire concept as some kind of evil deception, when in reality, i doubt anyone has ever labeled it such. What you stated is the basis of Christianity. God is the source, God is the foundation, God is love. All of those statements mean that everything is relative to God. And God is Truth, and that absolutely. So, again, you see a dispute where there is none. The dispute is with the relativism that is espoused, pushed, and, dare i say, forced down our throats by the emergents. That relativism is that everything is relative to our experience and interpretation. Two things that are not, nor are even claimed to be, a constant or absolute. Experience and interpretation are themselves relative to other things, and so on. These things are of sand. Absolute truth means nothing if it can't be known. It just doesn't. It may as well not exist. And that is how people will live if that is what they believe. As if it doesn't exist.
As an example; we do not know if aliens exist or not. Some think they do and others not. How many people get up each day and arrange their day based on the aliens? How many consider the aliens when they make decisions? How many people make any effort to shape their behaviour based on the existance of aliens? I would say, none. Even those that believe they exist probably don't put much thought into how that affects their daily lives. Why? Because they do not know them. They do not know if they exist nor anything about them if they did. So they live their lives as if they don't exist. Even though they may. That is how people will live in respect to God if they are convinced that they can't know Him or of Him. They will live according to something, but it won't be God. Even if God exists and absolute truth exists, it won't make any difference in the lives of those people.
What you have stated that you believe is not emergent. You say that you believe in God and that everything is relative to Him. And one of the celebrated truths of Christianity has ALWAYS been (from the times of Abraham) that we can KNOW God. How? Through His revelation in the Scripture and through the Holy Spirit who is faithful to reveal the truths in His Word. The emergents do not agree with or teach this. They do not believe Scripture is God's Word. They do not believe that the Holy Spirit has the power to reveal truth to us with any accuracy. I have heard it stated as much in person, from a respected leader in this movement. I would encourage you to prayerfully consider these things. This isn't a trivial discussion on how we "do church" in this century. It is a discussion of eternal life and death. It is of paramount importance.
Thank you for your thoughtful and kind repsonse. Please, do not take anything i have said as being mean-spirited. I am simply passionate about this and may have not tempered my passion as much as I needed to. Forgive me for that.
Nicholas Edinger
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
Nicholas,
Don’t worry, I know that you are not being mean spirited; I can understand and relate to your passion.
In my last response I tried to point out that to some degree that we have a semantics problem when we talk about relativism. I also can understand how the evolving meaning of a word can lead to some confusion. However, this seems to be the pattern of words and language through out time; the meanings of words change some over generations as context changes. Modern Greek is much different than ancient Greek, and such changes happened slowly over time. Just compare some words in a dictionary today with a dictionary from 1940 and you will see how meanings of words sometimes change and evolve.
So perhaps as “emergents” wrestle with this evolving changing word “relativism” and how we might apply it to our changing context, it may seem to you that “they are promoting relativism” even if they “say they are not”. When they say they are not, I believe that them that they are not talking about the kind of relativism that says that everything is relative exclusively to each individual. Just like I did, they are using the term in a new way because they are acknowledging some relative aspects to our ability to comprehend and perceive truth.
Again, I suggested that our problem is partly because of the various ways we can define the words, “relative”, “absolute” and “knowledge”. You say we can know truth “absolutely”, just not “entirely”. Interestingly enough when I check the synonyms of each of these words I find that “totally” and “completely” are listed as the top two synonyms for both “absolutely” and “entirely”. Many people speak about knowing absolute truth as knowing truth “completely” or “entirely”; this comes across like saying you have absolute, complete, and entire, knowledge – So this position is not a staw man position but one that many evangelicals, particularly fundamentalist, hold.
It also interesting that you want to direct us to the “context of the passage” in regards to 1 Corinthians 13 and then say that the passage was talking about scripture when it was referring to “knowing”. The passage was not talking about scripture but love; it is famous for speaking about love. In the context of love, between the statements “Love never fails” in verse 8 and “the greatest of these is love” in verse 13 we have this statement: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Statements like “face to face” and even to “know fully” and to be “fully known” do not refer as much to information as much as it does a relationship in the context of love. I know truth because I know Christ in a loving relationship. As a limited human being I will never be able to describe the unlimited wonder of this God that I know, but the coolest part is that because it is a relationship “knowing” each other flows both ways and I am already “fully known” by God.
This leads me to another semantics problem, which is how we differ on the way we define the word “know” in the context of knowing the truth. You said, “it is the largest of injustices if we are to be judged at all by this truth which we can't know. So that leaves us with the necessity that every person is saved, which is not justice at all. It is a complete mess.” This comes across to me like knowing is reduced to just conditional knowledge and that “salvation” is knowing the right propositional information.
When I was talking about “knowing truth” I was not just talking about the “right information” but the fact that Truth itself is revealed most completely to us in the person of Jesus Christ more so than anything else. To know truth and to be known by it is to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. I will not deny an informational aspect, and I am sure you will not deny a relational one; but I believe that knowing the Truth is primarily about relationship with Jesus Christ. I am judged relative to that relationship not on whatever information I may or may not have.
So I would agree with you when you say, “What we have here is a failure to communicate”; which again speaks to how limited human language is. I hear your concerns about “emergents” who “do not believe Scripture is God's Word.” But I think you should listen more closely to what many of them may mean; you still may not agree with them but you may not think they are quite the heretics you think they are now. Again, depending how you might define some of these words I might agree with what you say these emergent leaders are saying. It is not that Scripture isn’t inspired or it isn’t God’s recorded revelation of his interaction with human beings through time; but written revelation is limited by the natural limitations of human language. Jesus said he did not come to remove the law (which was the written code in scripture) but to complete it. This implies that the written code is not complete and that complete truth is embodied only in the person of Jesus Christ. Scripture gives us a solid picture of who God is but Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. I have to agree with the Gospel of John on this one, that Jesus Christ is ultimately the Word. You said the “Holy Spirit is faithful to reveal the truths in His Word (meaning Scripture)”, I say the Holy Spirit is faithful to reveal the truth of Christ, who is God’s Word. Certainly I also believe the Spirit uses the divinely inspired work of Scripture to reveal the Word (which is Christ). Scripture is God’s revelation that points us to the Word that is Jesus Christ.
While I am speaking of misunderstandings, apparently I said something that lead you to believe that I don’t think that “the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all eternal, separate persons yet one God”. I do believe this, and I do not deny the mystery of the trinity by saying that I “believe in a God that took on an incarnate form in Jesus Christ, and a Spirit form that still lives within us as His body in our human context today."
Finely, I need to point out that the emergent movement is made up of a diverse group of people with a wide range of ideas. While there is enough in common to identify it as a single movement, not everything is embraced by everybody. The emergent movement is not a movement where you have a few leaders telling everyone else what to believe, it is an ongoing conversation that travels along many strands. The movement does seem to have many prominent voices, but like I said before I think they reflect the movement more than directing it. Also, I don’t know what “emergent leader” you are referring to when you say that you are hearing things directly from them (it doesn’t even matter) but most of the leaders, including guys like Mclaren and Sweet, would admit that they do not have the final word on what “emergent”, “emerging”, or what post modernity is. There wouldn’t be much “dialogue” if that were the case”.
Nicholas, you encouraged me “to prayerfully consider these things”, and now I ask you to do the same. What many of us caught in this time of transition we call post modernity are finding out is that what the modern church often defends as gospel is less about the gospel and more about defending modern and western paradigms. It is not that the emergent church is trying to change what historical Christians have always believed, actually it is the opposite desire to reconnect with historical Christianity that motivates many of us. It is not that the western/modern church had it all wrong or strayed away; it is just that the western/ modern world looked at the gospel through its own unique lens. Emergent’s are trying to look at the same truth you are, but from a different lens and perspective. Be patient, we don’t have it all figured out any more than anyone else. In the meantime, listen carefully – beyond just the words. Join the conversation, and believe God is at work in all of us, particularly as we walk the journey of pursuing Christ. I thank you for the conversation and would welcome continued dialogue in the future.
Peace,
James
James,
Thank you for your well thought out response. I am not going to comment on every detail of what you said because this is getting very long, which is fine but some of these could be addressed more specifically in a future blog post.
I understand the transition of terms over time. But what I see is that you define a term such as 'relative' in a way that is not necessarily tranditional, different from what I would define it as, and yet, both of our definitions are different than what the most noteworthy proponants (i will use that instead of leader, because you are right to point out the multi-faceted nature of this movement. and of course, even the 'noteworthy proponants' that I heard speak and hold discussions made the point that they do not speak for the movement, and how could they? If they did it would be very hypocritical) would define it. And THAT is my underlying concern with/for you. In all the other issues we have discussed, this may have gotten lost in the digits. The things you espouse are not the things of the greater emergent movement. And I just think that rather than associating with a movement that CLEARLY includes heretics, you should simply take these ideas (many of which I do not have a problem with) and promote them in your own way.
Here is what I fear: The extreme parts of this movement will tend to be louder than the conservative (I realize you might cringe at that word, sorry) portions and thereby keep the church as a whole from benefiting from what people like yourself have to offer. Those of us who are more traditional and orthodox in our beliefs will throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. I am not that way. I like to KNOW things, therefore I will investigate even the most inane of claims. But MOST are not like me and will not sift through what someone like you has to say because of your affiliation with this movement. If emergent has not yet become a dirty world in the church, it will. There will be a huge culture war in this country soon. Churches will split, some may be extinguished and others rendered pointless. However, if people like yourself and others that I have read on the Nazarene Emergent sites could push on with these same ideas without attaching to the broader movement, many positive things could happen. Does that make sense?
I would still disagree with you on the 'knowing in part'passage but I think we may have reached an empass there so I will move on.
I do agree with you that "knowing" in an intellectual sense is different than "knowing" in a relational sense. And, yes, to a degree, knowing relationally is more important than intellectually. Since Salvation is through a relationship with Jesus Christ not the knowledge of Him. No arguments there at all. However, there are places in Scripture which specifically speak of knowing intellectually. What the emergent movement is doing (NOT you) is eradicating the knowing intellectually, thus leaving us only to our relationship. You advocate both but I encourage you to not lift one over the other. If there is a balance I think you have a good understanding.
As far as the Trinity goes; I suspected that i was reading into what you wrote something you hadn't intended but i wanted verbal confirmation of that. I think using the word 'form' when describing the Trinity leads to an idea of God, first being the Father, then the Son, and now the Holy Spirit. Some churches teach that but that isn't Scriptural. And you expressed that so no need to go further with that.
Lastly, I see a distinct dslike for anything "Western". I hear that over and over again. Another place I hear that is in liberalism in the political realm. I hear it in the Enviromental movement, in the feminist movement, in the anti-war movement, in the anti-capitalist movement, in the Socialist movement and in the Communist movement. The leading edge of the emergent movement is part and parcel of these liberal movements and the language used reflects this. I think there is a guilt being wrought within many people in this country who are fed up with the materialism that was supposed to be our pinnacle and was found to be wanting. The church has been infested with materialism as well. But, I think they go to an extreme when they begin to raise up the West as the prime evil to be eradicated. The problems in the West get trumpeted over and over again while the success of the West is coveted and despised at the same time and the good of the West is nearly wholly ignored. A recent study of people who give to charities and missions and who volunteer time to the same revealed that at times 2 to 3 to even 5 times as much was given by conservative (mostly evangelical Christian) people while the smallest percentage was that of liberals and atheists. Westerners give multitudes more than any other part of the world and we volunteer far more often than anyone else in the world. Yet the west never gets recognition of this. There is no need to shift from a Western perspective in regards to theology. There are things that need to change, there are things that need to be reigned in, and there are things to be refocused but leaving a western mindset is paramount to political, societal and spiritual suicide. The western mindset has produced the best country in the history of the world, the best system of government in the history of the world, the best justice system in the history of the world (except the times of the Judges in Israel but that is Zionist and Theocratic talk so I will no longer mention it, sorry to have mentioned it in the first place), the best economic system in the history of the world and the most religious freedom of any country in the history of the world. So, just because it is not the best it could be (it could be better in more ways than can be counted) is no reason to discard it out of hand. That simply doesn't make sense. We do not need to change the "western" lens but simply refocus it. Make it better. I have no argument with you that it needs to be different and better but to be done away with would be foolish in my opinion. (That was not a Spirit-inspired comment, just so you know. lol.)
Thanks again for a great conversation and i hope you will at least glance at my blog. I welcome insight and direction since I admit that i only 'know in part'. Have a great day!!
Nicholas Edinger
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
Nicholas,
Just a really quick observation. BTW: I did check out your blog, thanks for taging us and me personally. Looking forward to your insights.
You said:
What the emergent movement is doing (NOT you) is eradicating the knowing intellectually, thus leaving us only to our relationship. You advocate both but I encourage you to not lift one over the other. If there is a balance I think you have a good understanding.
By intellectual do you mean 'reason.' If you mean intelectual (not reason) I'm of the opinion that evangelicals in general are resposible for the sift throughout the 20th century (referencing Mark Noll, "Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.") Most emerging church folk I know are more commited to a faith that is more intelectually rigorous than evangelicalism by in large. But also I would note the way worship and disciplship has changed more broadly during the age of the, so called 'Church Growth' movement as a tacit move away from knowing intellectually. Unless you are a reformed evangelical you probably haven't spent much time thinking about knowledge of God that come intellectually. It's all about me and Jesus religion. I just wouldn't want to pit intellectualy knowledge up againt relational knowledge as mutually exclusive (I know you're not doing this)--or reason and relationality.
Anyway, my thoughts for what it's worth.
Peace,
Brian
Nicholas,
Thanks for your reply, it is nice that we have actually come to some kind of conclusion on several of our discussion threads. I do appreciate your concern over whether our voice on this blog will be heard over what may be written off as “heretical” because of our association with the word “emergent.” I also appreciate that you take the time to listen and explore and do not want to “throw out baby with the bathwater”. I know many people do.
I do not think that the emergent movement has quite that bad of a reputation; unless you are listening to fundamentalist circles in which we are the devil incarnate. I also think that we probably represent the broader more typical sentiments of the movement; we do possibly have more of a Wesleyan slant on it, but I think this is very compatible with emergent thinking. I participate in various emergent conversations and cohorts and I find a lot of affinity with those who consider themselves emergent or post modern even when there is great diversity of opinion.
For those whom “emergent” has or will become a “dirty word”, I suspect words like “post modern” and “relative” are already considered “dirty”. I find it difficult to tie my hands when trying to reach the world I live in because of those who overreact to these things out of fear and who fail to listen. I can only spend so much time with people who want to attack us and label us without listening in the name of religion. At the same time (to my surprise) the emergent movement is gaining some acceptance in the mainstream church. The Church of the Nazarene is a good example of this, and people are listening and dialogue is taking place on many levels. NTS hosted an “emergent conversation” last October and in February M7 will have several sessions that cover post modern, emergent, missional issues. Is there complete acceptance? No, but there is real honest openness and conversation that gives me hope.
Finally, I want to clarify on my feelings about being “western”. I do not want to villainize the word but recognize that being western gives us a particular lens that we read Christianity through, that (like all lenses) colors the way we look at our faith. You say, “There is no need to shift from a Western perspective in regards to theology.” I think there is a huge need to shift from a Western perspective in regards to theology because God is not Western. Scripture wasn’t written in the modern western world, but we are often guilty of reading in our modern/western context into scripture and into Christianity where it does not exist.
My point is not that “western” or “modern” is bad, but that it exist and we need to be aware of how that may influence our views as disciples in the world today. We certainly need to apply our faith to our western context as we interact with western people, but not exclusively western because we live in and are called to reach a much larger world.
I do have a problem with raising western culture up as something superior over other cultures. Yes the western world offers much, but like every culture, it also has an equal amount of drawbacks. I will pass on arguing here how we may be best and worst is various areas. It does concern me that you would say that “leaving a western mindset is … spiritual suicide.” Where does that leave the spiritual potential for other cultures as we take the gospel into the world? Must we make other cultures western before we make them disciples of Christ? This has been the sin of western/modern missionaries over the last few centuries. We often have taught people in other cultures more about being western than we have about being Christian.
The problem comes when we can no longer see the difference between the two. This problem isn’t new. Christian Jews in the early church had a hard time separating out what was Christian from what was just culturally Hebrew. The Church a century or so later had trouble separating out Roman (or whatever you call what was left of the Roman culture after Constantine) interest from Christian ones as well.
You mention a lot of different groups that are showing some backlash against western ideology. I think it would be a mistake to villainize these things when we should instead speak the message of hope of the gospel to them. Often Christians in our country don’t because we are to busy defending our modern, western, conservative ideologies to explore where our faith in Christ might actually intersect these things. I have to ask myself, what affects my view on things like the environment, war, capitalism, women, and social issues more? Is it my commitment to Christ or my western mindset? We should not assume, even if our faith intersects with a lot of western virtues, that Christianity and western mean the same thing; especially because Christianity speaks to and intersects with values from many cultures and ideologies. The gospel and the message of Christ is cross cultural.
We started this post talking about relativism. I pointed out that relativism isn’t bad; it just depends on what we are relative to. I suggested that as disciples of Christ we know best how to live the truth relative to loving Christ and our neighbors. We both agreed that truth can not be accurately discerned relative to just ourselves. We also may miss out applying the truth of the gospel if we make it more relative to ourselves in our westerness (or any culture exclusively)than to God and our neighbors worldwide.
Thanks again for your comments, I am sure what I said could lead to a whole other conversation. If you would like to pursue these things further I would suggest we take it up as a new topic. I am sure the topic will come up here- it does from time to time, or you could start one on your blog. Either way I will be checking your blog out, and I look forward to getting to know your better.
James
James,
Thanks. I will make this last one short as possible. I think that there are many things that I have, not an argument with you, but with the broader emergent movement and I was mainly concerned with incompatability of your stated beleifs and others in this movement. There are things on which we are just going to have to agree to disagree and i am fine with that because they are not things that are essential to the Christian faith, simply things that I feel enhance the possibility to live out the Christian Faith to it's full. But that has not much to do with Salvation of the soul.
I am concerned with this movement because (amongst other things) it tends to accuse any opposition to it as being not thought through or "fundementally rigid" or "too orthodox." If a person like myself doesn't come to the same conclusion as they do, I am the one who is wrong. I have NEVER heard anyone from this movement claim they were wrong about something after a discussion. And it is funny to me because the underlying theme in this movement is that each person needs to think this through for themselves and what they believe will be entirely based upon their own experiences, personality, emotions and feelings, yet, if a person (like myself) does that and comes to a different conclusion than they do, I am accused of not thinking it through and not breaking from the bonds of orthodoxy enough. The only outcome that they will accept as authentic, is one that coincides with theirs. Now you have not done that yet, partly I think because we agree on many things but when you say things like "I find it difficult to tie my hands when trying to reach the world I live in because of those who overreact to these things out of fear and who fail to listen. I can only spend so much time with people who want to attack us and label us without listening in the name of religion." you are beginning to lean that way. As if the only people who could dissagree with this movement are people who are fundies, who are gripped with fear, and who refuse to listen. I fall into none of those catagories yet i do not agree with where this movement is going. I think that there are not many who are in opposition to this yet because most have not heard of it. But that will change within the next year and I almost dread the outcome. It won't be a bunch of people that won't listen that will oppose this, it will be people who hold to Scripture as authority and to the Holy Spirit for guidence and who will not tolerate heresy, whereas many in this movement do.
I also want to make one distinction. When I say spiritual suicide, i do not mean personally. Certainly your argument would be valid if I had meant that. What I meant was as a nation. The western mindset allows for true religious freedom, where every other system in the world infringes upon that freedom to some degree. So the more we shift from a western mindset, the more we must replace it with something else, and everything else has proven to be more restrictive to our religious freedom. That is why I say don't shift from the western mindset but rather refocus that lens to what Christianity should be. Eliminate what is wrong with the western mindset (and again there is much) and build on what we have right. Does that make sense? Do you see the difference? You asked what you should base your views on several societal issues upon, a Western mindset or Christ. I say that you shouldn't have to choose. They should be the same. THEY ARE NOT. But they should be. That is why I argue to change the western mindset to reflect Christ rather than discard it because it fails to compare at the moment. It is closer than anything in the world right now and it allows the freedom to its adherants to change it unlike many systems.
Parts of the Western church have gone the way of materialism which we would both consider a bad byproduct of westernism, while some have adopted a more European mindset which has stripped the church of anything foundational or orthodox and who comes to save the day? The Africans! The Africans turn out to hold to a more solid form of Christianity than either of the two church types here! So do we shed our western mindset and adopt an African one? No. But we accept the leadership of these people and change what is wrong here and build on what is right. I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater even though the discussion is painful and difficult, yet I get a sense (not necessarily from you) that the western 'baby' has already been tossed by many of these people. And that would be detrimental because, though we have wandered a very long way away, western ideals were based on Scripture, based on Christianity, and no other current system can say that. So let's work together to strip away all the filth we have collected over the past several hundred years and get back to a foundation on Christ instead of doing away with the whole thing and replacing it with what?
Lastly, to end on a positive note, I totally agree with you that we should NEVER lift our western mindset above Christ. You are 100% correct (even though you may not believe that to be possible! ;) - just a joke!). And I also agree that we have tried to preach and teach westernism often more than Christianity around the world. To devastating effects I might add. So let's start changing hearts to accept how Christianity can be lived out in different cultures and how it can better better lived WITHIN our own. This is something that we can work together on, which would be nice.
Have a super day, follow the Holy Spirit in everything.
Nicholas
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
Brian,
LOL, sometimes I feel like Manuel on Fawlty Towers when enterig into these discussions! "It is hard for me." is often his response when Basil tries to communicate with him in English. So I begin with saying..."it is hard for me."
I can't comment on your multiple definitions of "intellectual". All I can do is try to explain what i meant. When I was talking about knowing intellectually in that statement, I was referring to this idea that we cannot know Truth because we will always distort it with our own perspective, experiences, feeling and emotions. Again, I do not think that James was proposing that idea but others I have talked to do. This entire conversation was simply me trying to make sure that James understood that even though he is using emergent terminology, the definitions that he poured into these terms were not the same as what I have heard many others in this movement use. We have talked about many other issues beyond that. One of them is this idea that there is no way to ever know the Truth. I disagree with that idea because of the power of the Holy Spirit to reveal Truth to us BEYOND simply the idea of a relationship with Christ, Christ being Truth and the Word. If we cannot KNOW (have certainty of) the Truth then we are left only with the things I mentioned and I was remiss to leave out reason. We are to use our reason to evaluate these issues. No argument there. That is certainly Scriptural (in fact i made that very point somewhere up above in all those words). But we are never supposed to rely on reason foundationally. We must rely on the Holy Spirit. And He is what I see as being left out of the equation that the emergents postulate.
Boy, I hope I cleared that up a bit. Thanks for checking out my blog and PLEASE feel free to leave comments. Discussion forces me to think through these things and search out Scripture and listen more closely to the Spirit and therefore grow spiritually. I hope it can do the same for you.
Nicholas
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
Nicholas,
I certainly do not agree with you in regards to the virtue of marrying Christianity to Western culture so that they will become one in the same. At the same time as a Western person I certainly am for trying to become more like Christ in my context. I don’t think we are going to agree on this, but this should not prevent us from further dialogue and from walking along side one another.
I am surprised however that you would accuse me of leaning into some type of intolerance over differing opinions because of my statement: “I find it difficult to tie my hands when trying to reach the world I live in because of those who overreact to these things out of fear and who fail to listen. I can only spend so much time with people who want to attack us and label us without listening in the name of religion.” I am surprised because the context of my statement was in direct response to your concern for me over those who would not listen and would just judge me by association. You previously said, “Those of us who are more traditional and orthodox in our beliefs will throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. I am not that way. I like to KNOW things, therefore I will investigate even the most inane of claims. But MOST are not like me and will not sift through what someone like you has to say because of your affiliation with this movement.”
I was not making a statement saying that those who disagree with me are ignorant individuals who do not know how to listen; I was responding to the people YOU said would not take the time to listen. My only point was not to accuse anyone of anything but to say that if people are not going to listen, and are going to jump to conclusions based on fear, than I can not waste a lot of time on trying to overcome that.
You do not agree with the emergent movement or myself about the movement, and I have entered into dialogue with you where we both have had a fair conversation that put listening skills and grace for each other into practice. Yet, you keep saying that “emergents” are intolerant of other people’s views when myself and others on this blog have demonstrated only kindness and a willingness to dialogue and listen to others.
At the same time you are quick to say that we are either heretical or flirting with a heretical movement. While you may not agree with all we have to say, nothing we have said here can even remotely be considered heretical. You may be uncomfortable with the view that emphasizes Christ as the Word more so than scripture that myself and many emergents hold. But this does not quantify as heresy. You may not agree with variety of other Christian opinions about the degree of accuracy scripture has to reveal “truth” in various areas. Even the Church of the Nazarene, a largely theologically conservative denomination does not go so far as to say scripture is “inerrant”; I suppose that there are some that may consider this a heresy. Believing or acknowledging a degree of relativism in the way we can know and understand truth is also not a heresy and neither is a differing view on how the Holy Spirit reveals truth to us. I have never heard an emergent say the Holy Spirit can not or does not reveal truth- only question what is meant by truth and take a position that the Holy Spirit may reveal how we can walk in relation to Truth/Christ more so than just provide “right information.” But again, this is not heresy.
The reality is that there is no such thing as an emergent statement of beliefs that you can point to and say is heretical because the movement is more about how we think more than what we think. There is a wide variety of Christian traditions and orthodoxy represented in the emergent movement. It is a trans-denominational movement that unifies Christian traditions and breaks down denominational walls more than it sets up the barriers that you say it does. Most emergent’s I know focus on the essentials that can found in the ancient Christian creeds and are committed to living missional lives serving Jesus Christ.
Nicholas, I hope you will continue to dialogue with us and others that identify in someway with the emergent church so that you may come to see us as genuine disciples of Christ that are seeking and following the same God that you are.
James
James,
OK, I wasn't going to comment anymore but there are a couple things i need to clear up here so that you and others on this blog don't walk away from a fairly good conversation with the wrong impression.
First, I may have misunderstood your point when you talked about having your hands tied because I didn't tie it to the comment that i made that you said it was in response to. (Sorry, that is not a good sentence but I can't think of another way to write it) So I apologize for that. It still is a wise thing to do to consider the best way to get the most people to listen to you and if that means cutting some ties with people that you don't even agree with in the first place, that might be a good route. Just a suggestion. (actually, the entire point of this whole conversation)
Secondly, somewhere you must have completely misunderstood me, though I did my best to make my points clearly. I NEVER even suggested that anything you or the others on this board have ever said were heretical. That is my point. YOU are offering up things that could bring positive change if presented correctly. HOWEVER, what I have said is that there are people in this movement that you are claiming to be a part of that are pushing heretical ideas, especially those in the EC, the Campolos and MacLaren and others that I have heard personally. You are correct that there is no statement of beliefs so therefore, the people with the loudest voices decide on what the movement gets judged on. These people have a huge voice. THEY are the ones who will get the attention and whose ideas will cause the storm I have mentioned and my fear is that you and the others here will be caught up in that because of association. And then all that people like you could have brought to the table will be lost. You guys have the influence to promote and achieve change without the need of connecting with this larger group.
I would hate for you guys (and gals?) to leave this conversation thinking that I am accusing you of heresy. I have not. I don't believe that you have anything to do with heresy outside of not standing up against it within the movement that you associate yourselves with. If more of those of you who do not agree with some of the heresy that is out there would make statements against it, it would bring much more credibility to this movement. But what i see (and this is the flirting with heresy part) happening is that when a heretical teaching is pointed out, the people in this movement will tend to attack (attack might be a strong word, please do not take offense from it) the messenger rather than condemning the heresy. This gives people a certain impression that whether intended or not, and whether true or not, isn't good.
I just want to be able to hold hands with you guys and move this church to a better place but I can't hold hands with someone who is holding hands with a heretic. And there are many like me. I hope you and the others here can see that I am NOT accusing you of anything other than strange bedfellows.
As for the Holy Spirit. The problem is that I almost never hear Him mentioned in the discussion. NEVER have I heard anyone in this movement place Him within the list of how we interpret Scripture or know Truth. Not once. You are right, I haven't heard the opposite either but what i take away from those statements is that if He is not important enough to mention then maybe there isn't the belief that He can. I just am trying to insert Him into the conversation as I see the Holy Spirit being completely ignored. I personally suspect it is because it is more difficult to make an argument that we cannot know Truth when we admit the Holy Spirit has a part in revealing it. Because to suggest such would be to limit significantly the power of the Holy Spirit. Again, this is not YOU as much as others who are more prominent in this movement.
Lastly, the Nazarene Church does teach the inerrancy of Scripture. Below is the official statement from the Church; (emphasis added)
IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.
(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
Thank you to all of you here for being very gracious. I hope I have been as well.
Nicholas
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
You didn’t bold all the relevant information.
IV. The Holy Scriptures
4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.
(Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
The church of the Nazarene believes scripture is “divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation.” This is a clarification saying that Scripture speaks truth related to “Salvation” and our relationship though God through Christ.
This recognizes that scripture is true in regards to this relationship. Many Christian denominations take the position that the Bible is inerrant in all matters and is true about all things and not just in regards to “all things necessary to our salvation”. I only point this out because there are varying degrees at which many Christians view the extent of what scripture can reveal as truth.
As for our strange emergent bedfellows; I would not consider Mclaren a heretic, even in the areas I may disagree with him with. I have heard Sweet speak to a group of Nazarenes this past year and have had conversation with him and I would not consider him a heretic either. One of my favorite books is Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and I don’t consider him a heretic either. I could name more authors and voices that I have or others here have affinity with, and I don’t believe any of us would consider them heretics either even if we don’t agree with everything they might say.
The problem is many of us agree with these voices on many levels so it is hard for me to separate ourselves out and see the difference between calling them heretical and us. It is especially difficult because you seem to want to paint the movement with one broad brush and fail to point out how the movement is heretical beyond just saying you don’t agree with how they perceive the concept of truth and what someone can and can not know.
You said that you “NEVER even suggested that anything you or the others on this board have ever said were heretical.” Yet in regards to Brian Hull and his “emergent views” you said in a response to another post, “It troubles me knowing that a person with this thought process is in charge of NYC.” While you did not call him a heretic your reply there certainly expressed that you consider his “thought process” as part of the problem that frustrated you and that we needed to get back to “Holy Spirit and Holiness and not towards mere social activism and relationships for the sake of relationships.”
I wonder at what point you will consider any of us a heretic. If I don’t take all scripture literally where I believe it was not intended to be taken as such am I a heretic? If I tell you that I believe the creation story in Genesis is truth conveyed through symbolic language and that I believe in evolution, will you consider me a heretic? If I believe that just to assent to the “right intellectual beliefs” to make sure you go to heaven when you die is reducing the gospel message to a propositional faith and instead I emphasize the Kingdom here on earth and our call to love and serve others, having a heart for social justice, am I a heretic?
You said you want to hold hands with us, and I would welcome that. But you identify yourself as an “enemy of emergent” on your blog; a group of people as you say we are also holding hands with. You do not have to agree with us, we don’t even agree with each other on this blog about everything. I have enjoyed our conversations, and I hope they continue. I would love to meet you and have drink together and talk even further. But it is hard to have a conversation when you feel the other person is looking for a reason to call you a heretic and calls what we identify with his “enemy”.
No matter what we will not consider you an enemy, we hope to be a bridge instead. I do appreciate how you have thoughtfully written and replied about many things. I do believe you and see that you “listen” and you like to “find things out” for yourself. That is why I am replying the way I am; I am just putting all the cards out on the table. I don’t want to surprise you later if I turn out to be more “emergent” than you thought I was. I believe that you have interacted with us with a pure heart and the kindest intent; I hope you will receive what I am saying in the same manner.
Peace,
James
I am in a bit of a struggle with creating the "enemy fo emergent" logo but I had a hard time thinking of another word that was opposite of "friend". It seemed everyone who was emergent or keen on emergent had the "friend of emergent" logo but there was nothing to denote a person who didn't consider himself a friend like me. Enemy is a little strong but Christ never told us to not have enemies, just to love them. So that is what I am trying to do. If you have any ideas let me know. I will continue to try to think of something less harsh. In the meantime you will just have to chuckle at my complete lack of originality and count it up to desperation. lol.
This list below is just what I have read and heard personally over the past 6 months. It would take endless hours to try to hut down every quote, etc. and you are just as capable of finding these things as I am so I will leave that to you if you so desire.
Bell does not believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God
McLaren does not either
Burke denies the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, His redemptive work on the cross and promotes a salvation by faith IN a saving grace that is given to every person whether they believe it or not.
Others that I have heard or read:
All people HAVE ALREADY been saved through the blood.
Denying the doctrine of Original Sin
Salvation by works (i.e. "practice the same values and principles for which Jesus lived...)
And you can be a Buddhist or Hindu and be saved as long as you live like Christ
This is just what I have read recently.
I again stand by my statement that I have never called anyone here a heretic because I have not heard any of you say anything that would suggest such (though your comments about evolution are certainly concerning. I have a post about that on my blog) You can't point out my concern about Brian as the same as calling you or him a heretic. If I thought as much I would cancel all my registrations and demand my money back. But as it were, I am simply concerned that while I am trying to get my students to accept the Bible as the authority in their lives, I am now sending them on a trip where they possibly will be pushed in a different direction. That is my concern.
The Gospel as clearly described in the Scripture is about Salvation not about having a heart for loving others. Having a heart for loving others should be the natural byproduct of our salvation. If it is not, I question the authenticity of the salvation. This is where the emergent movement can help the church as a whole the most. How do we make the heart of Christ our heart and live out genuine love for others including our enemies? Wow, we need help in that area, especially in America where we are often either arrogant or apathetic.
Just this conversation that we have been having and one other I am involved with has made me seriously look at my own life. I sat down and watched a show I would have never watched before called "Surviving Hunger". It was about people in Ethiopia who were basically living off of weeds and grass. It was apalling. It made me consider all the waste in the area of food that I dismiss as ok since I have plenty. I am trying to figure out how I can change in light of this show. If you get a chance to see it, please do, it will change your life (maybe you have already made that change so...). If I can get my hands on a copy I will be showing it to my youth group. They need a slap in the face of reality.
Lastly, I haven't painted the entire emergent movement with the broad brush of heretical. I have taken pains to let you unerstand that I understand the nature of this movement and the reality of many different points of view embodied within this movement. I do not think the "movement" is heretical, I think there are some prominent voices in it and the EV that are. And they hurt the rest of you. And they hurt the rest of us by drowning out the good things you are saying to us. I must remain an enemy or adversary of emergent until those within it take a stand against heresy and reaffirm the essentials of the Christian Faith. Then I will proudly place a "friend of emergent" logo on my blog (as if that is such a coveted thing! LOL). If it were not for you guys checking it out it would be dead as a doornail. (I never have understood that figure of speach)
OK, I must go but if you will be at NYC, I would love to hook up. Let me know.
God bless.
Nicholas
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
ps by the way, that Silva guy at apprising.org is an idiot. His posts are completely unhelpful. He only accuses and call names and never backs up a point. It is FRUSTRATING!! I think I am going to make an "enemy of silva" logo too. Would that be mean-spirited? : )
Nicholas ,
I actually like your “enemy of emergent” logo, it has some satire elements and a way to communicate with where you stand that I can respect. It just made me a bit unclear of your intentions in your dialogue with us. You certainly have not shown yourself to be hostile to your enemies, at least not to the emergent elements you have found on this blog. I appreciate that.
As for your list of heretical elements from various points of the emergent movement, I can accept what you are saying on each to varying degrees. I do think some of these statement need to be clarified, but I do not want to (or have the time right at this moment) to become an apologist for any of these individuals. I do know that emergent conversation can sometimes lead into a dialogue about things like universalism or a struggle to embrace the mystery of the Trinity. None of these are “official emergent positions” but a willingness to deconstruct our modern paradigms has caused us to revisit some ancient conversations again as we seek to get our heads around and perhaps reconstruct again what we deconstructed.
The tensions of truths found in Christian creeds, doctrines, and scripture are far more complex than many of our modern models can express. Most of our modern paradigms actually remove the tension of some of these things in an effort to explain it (sometimes explaining the tension with another truth, or the divine mystery of it, away). I like looking at these in the context of a conversation because if you have a well represented dialogue you can step back and see these tensions at work on each other.
In the context of the larger dialogue among the church about all of these things I think in some ways we have recaptured the tension and divine mystery of some of these concepts. Like I said things like “universalism” is not an “emergent position” because the purpose of the movement is not to take a position or to replace orthodoxy. But, the purpose is to have dialogue and look at things from all angles and perspectives again. I believe I hear you calling us to “take a stand” against heresy and I certainly think that to whole hardily embrace things like “universalism” or to absolutely deny the Trinity that this also causes us to loose the divine tensions of truth of our faith and explain them away. We combat heresy by seeking to keep the tension in our dialogue. For every voice you hear asking if, “God’s grace is so great that it automatically covers everyone?” you hear another voice say, “What if someone does not want that grace; can they resist it?” This is tension. We want to be part of the emergent conversation and part of keeping the tension of our divine Christian truths intact.
We are not wrestling with anything new to the Christian experience as the body has always had to wrestle with these mysteries throughout church history. Modern ways of doing this was to create a system. There are various forms and takes on systematic theology that have emerged out of our modern Church history. Systems are not wrong, they are models that allow us to put handles on truth, describe it, and figure out how things relate to each other. But systems and models have limitations as well, if we forget that they are not truth but only represent truth then we will turn our systems in to prescriptions and formulas and ask them to answer questions they were not designed to answer. While I think modern systems have made a contribution to the Christian faith that will last, post moderns, acknowledging the weakness of those systems desire to look at truth in the context of narrative and dialogue. Scripture has elements of all of these things as God has truly given us a cross cultural revelation for all time.
A few responses back when talking about “western /modern lenses” I was referring partly to the fact that if the modern lens is systematic it is going to pick up the systematic elements of scripture and church history more so then other elements (sometimes even read into scripture systems where they do not exist.) A shifting cultural context is a gift, because post modern culture is recapturing the exploration of truth through narrative, story, and dialogue that have always been a part of scripture and church history. I don’t think that one way at looking at things is better than the other; I think we need both. But dialogue is the context for pursuing and trying to corporately understand truth as post moderns.
I say all of this to explain that in the context of truth conveyed through narrative and dialogue we are battling all kinds of heresy; heresy in all directions that deny one truth or the other (usually because it is trying to put one truth above the other and cancel out the tension and mystery of it). Universalism and denying the mystery of the Trinity removes the tension of truth and is a heresy, but so does an individualistic gospel message based only on intellectual assent to the “right belief” for the sake of only personal eternal security. So, I think we are doing exactly what you are calling us to do in regards to heresy in our post modern context.
As for Mclaren, Burk, Bell or whoever, we see all of these in the context of the conversation and we wouldn’t think any of them as individuals speak definitively about anything, nor do I believe they want us to. But they all bring, along with many many others right down to grassroots conversations, things to the table that help keep our divine Christian truths in tension in the context of the larger conversation. Let me also say that Church history, tradition, and orthodoxy go a long way in contributing to the larger conversation that helps to keep our understanding of truth in tension (that’s so very Wesleyan of me). I am sure you will be pleased to hear that I also believe the scriptures are given to us as a divinely inspired filter that along with the guiding power and involvement of the Holy Spirit guides the body of Christ as we walk in the truth of Christ together. ;)
Finally, let me say that I am pleased that conversations like these (though probably not this one specifically) have helped inspire you to consider even more the people like the ones starving in Ethiopia. If the body of Christ can not be moved with compassion to love and rescue hurting people I wonder if we really know what “salvation” really means. I think as western post modern people we are all doing what you experienced and are asking ourselves what we can do in light of becoming more aware of people hurting around us as God makes us more aware of His love for all of us.
Nicholas, thanks for sticking around and working through what is sometimes awkward and uncomfortable conversations for the sake of trying to really listen and understand where each other are coming from. I believe I got to know you a bit better each time we correspond and I can see the love and passion for Christ in your life.
Peace brother,
James
Ps: I'll check out the post on your blog you referred to and reply to it when I get a chance.
James,
Thanks! And don't forget about NYC.
Nicholas
http://theblackhorseinn.blogspot.com
http://forum.webhostlist.de/forum/members/newviagra.html
[b]VIAGRA online BESTELLEN VIAGRA REZEPTFREI BESTELLEN[/b]
lhttp://www.ile-maurice.com/forum/members/newviagra.html
[b]VIAGRA online kaufen VIAGRA REZEPTFREI BESTELLEN[/b]
VIAGRA BESTELLEN eur 0.85 Pro Pille >> Klicken Sie Hier << BESTELLEN BILLIG VIAGRA CIALIS VIAGRA im internet kaufen ONLINE VIAGRA KAUF
http://www.flooringchat.com/member.php?u=19861
[b]VIAGRA Oesterreich VIAGRA BILLIG PREISVERGLECH[/b]
[url=http://www.getsomeskillz.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=13]VIAGRA Nederland[/url] - VIAGRA Germany
[b]VIAGRA® kaufen VIAGRA BESTELLEN PREISVERGLECH[/b]
[b]erection VIAGRA VIAGRA REZEPTFREI BESTELLEN[/b]
[url=http://cafesuoimo.com/member.php?u=8]VIAGRA ohne rezept[/url] - VIAGRA Austria
[b]VIAGRA online kaufen VIAGRA BESTELLEN BILLIG[/b]
[b]VIAGRA bestellen BILLIG VIAGRA BESTELLEN[/b]
[b]VIAGRA fuer frau VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BESTELLEN[/b]
http://www.getsomeskillz.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=13
[b]VIAGRA fuer frau VIAGRA BESTELLEN[/b]
VIAGRA BESTELLEN eur 0.85 Pro Pille >> Klicken Sie Hier << BESTELLEN BILLIG VIAGRA CIALIS FREE VIAGRA BILLIG VIAGRA KAUFEN
http://cafesuoimo.com/member.php?u=8
[b]VIAGRA prices VIAGRA REZEPTFREI[/b]
[url=http://www.barroco.comyr.com/member.php?u=3]VIAGRA rezeptfrei[/url] - VIAGRA Austria
[b]FREE VIAGRA VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BESTELLEN[/b]
[b]VIAGRA Kaufen PREISVERGLECH VIAGRA REZEPTFREI[/b]
[url=http://www.noise-unltd.com/member.php?u=2 ]VIAGRA online kaufen[/url] - VIAGRA fuer frau
[b]VIAGRA Oesterreich VIAGRA BILLIG PREISVERGLECH BESTELLEN[/b]
[b]VIAGRA fuer frau REZEPTFREI VIAGRA[/b]
http://www.djmal.net/thaspot/members/viagrakaufend
[b]VIAGRA Austria VIAGRA BESTELLEN PREISVERGLECH[/b]
http://www.serataanime.it/forum2/member.php?u=336
[b]VIAGRA information REZEPTFREI VIAGRA[/b]
VIAGRA BESTELLEN eur 0.85 Pro Pille >> Klicken Sie Hier << BESTELLEN BILLIG VIAGRA CIALIS VIAGRA Austria VIAGRA BESTELLEN
http://www.barroco.comyr.com/member.php?u=3
[b]VIAGRA preis BILLIG VIAGRA BESTELLEN[/b]
[url=http://www.einvestorhelp.com/member.php?u=37776]VIAGRA[/url] - VIAGRA Oesterreich
[b]VIAGRA bestellen BESTELLEN BILLIG VIAGRA[/b]
[b]VIAGRA information VIAGRA BESTELLEN PREISVERGLECH[/b]
[url=http://www.zonatuning.com/members/viagrakaufend]VIAGRA alternatives[/url] - VIAGRA
[b]VIAGRA fuer frau VIAGRA BESTELLEN PREISVERGLECH[/b]
[b]VIAGRA Apotheke VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH REZEPTFREI[/b]
[b]VIAGRA® kaufen
VIAGRA Deutschland
VIAGRA online kaufen
VIAGRA on line
VIAGRA alternativ
VIAGRA rezeptfrei
VIAGRA Kaufen
VIAGRA Apotheke[/b]
Post a Comment