1. An awareness of and attempt to reach those in the changing postmodern culture.
2. An attempt to use technology, i.e., video, slide shows, internet.
3. A broader approach to worship using candles, icons, images, sounds, smells, etc.
4. An inclusive approach to various, sometimes contradictory belief systems.
5. An emphasis on experience and feelings over absolutes.
6. Concentration on relationship building over proclamation of the gospel.
7. Shunning stale traditionalism in worship, church seating, music, etc.
8. A de-emphasis on absolutes and doctrinal creeds
9. A re-evaluation of the place of the Christian church in society.
10. A re-examination of the Bible and its teachings.
11. A re-evaluation of traditionally held doctrines.
12. A re-evaluation of the place of Christianity in the world.
I'm sure there are many more. Do you like some of the things on the list?
Jane Doe said:
This non-distinction is tough to relate to you when you have grown up in a Christian community that loves to dichotomize and separate sacred from secular. I think for the EC, it isn't so much that "they" are non-Christians "out there" and "we" are Christians "in here," but rather we are all in the world together. Furthermore, as I interact with people whom I perhaps may have written off as not-yet-believers, I may find that they are much closer to God than I had thought, perhaps even closer than I am! So as radical as it sounds, many in the EC are not looking to create converts, not trying to get non-Christians to become Christians, but like you said, growing in the knowledge of Jesus Christ as savior. These can be two different things - although it sounds weird at first. A person can grow in the
____________________
John Doe responded:
WHAT? "A person can grow in the
I may sound critical, but how do you interpret Jesus' words - I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) One MUST become a follower of Christ (read - Christian) in order to become a part of the Kingdom.
One point of agreement though - I do think that some may "grow into" Christianity as they are on the journey. They may be a lot deeper than we OR they know. Because we are all made in the image of God, we can see Christ in others. Regardless, we must be clear that the only way is through Christ.
Malcom XYZ says: "but how do you interpret Jesus' words - I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)"
As a way of interpreting this, we might want to ask what it means to come through the father through Jesus? does it mean we have to beat people into submission and say that until they accept our version of reality and yell to the hilltops that they are indeed a Christian? Does it mean they have to consume the symbols of Christ in the Eurcharist? or might it mean that we take seriously Jesus statement that he came so that we could have life and have it more abundantly? There is a way of living implied in Jesus' words and sayings and in what he did. There is an openness there that is far beyond the dogma that we must make card-carrying Christians out of everyone we encounter. If I find someone who has that openness, whether they be Buddhist, Muslim or agnostic, they are coming to the father through Jesus whether they know it or not.
John's gospel was written in the last years of the first century, almost 60 years after Jesus had left us. This was a time when the theology of the early church had changed and become more Christocentric. Jesus might not have even said this and just because John says he did does not mean that he did. Once again, human values and good common sense need to win out over narrow dogmatic (and I am tempted to say Evangelical) interpretations.
____________________________
John Doe says: Wow. I thought I'd met some people who took things out of context, but I guess my circle is pretty small. I'm trying to reply respectfully, but wow... I'm amazed at some of your audacious statements.
""Jesus might not have said this and just because John says he did does not mean that he did." That's a bold statement. Do you think Jesus said anything? How do you choose to pick what you believe He said?"
Do you seriously apply that same philosophy to other historical literature (Plato for example) or is it only to Christianity and the Bible? There are two reputable stances to the dating of the Gospel. One places it pre-fall of
As far as your "openness" theology, the teachings of Buddha,
your philosophy of living out Christ's command to love and live out faith is EXCELLENT. But please don't throw out or water down the things in the Bible that may be more difficult than "being nice." That is not an honest approach to history, scholarship and faith.
With respect, I have yet to beat anyone into submission or force anyone to do anything they do not believe. I know I don't have everything perfect. But I am willing to learn, read, study, listen, etc.
__________________________________
Hi John Doe,
Let me quote you as I respond to your post.
You wrote:
""Jesus might not have said this and just because John says he did does not mean that he did." That's a bold statement. Do you think Jesus said anything? How do you choose to pick what you believe He said?"
We have to ask if it squares with Q or if it is in Q. The highly Christological Gospel of John, which I happen to like but because of John himself rather than the idea that he interviewed Jesus with a mic and a notepad, mostly does not square with Q. Most scholars date it around the turn of the first century. That makes it post fall of
You wrote:
"As far as your "openness" theology, the teachings of Buddha,
I am not sure which dogmatic conclusions you are referring to, but if you mean the notion that there is value in these other traditions and that they deserve our respect, but not blind acceptance, then I suppose it was my darned liberal and pluralistic education that helped me reach that one.
You wrote:
"please don't throw out or water down the things in the Bible that may be more difficult than "being nice." That is not an honest approach to history, scholarship and faith."
I believe that Jesus taught us ultimately to be nice, and that anything less is not worthy of his legacy. There are only two laws after all, one is to love God with all our heart, and the other is to love our neighbor as our selves. Jesus did not know of the other traditions. God has many names now. The Christocentric overlay that developed after the fall of
If you can think of ways that I could be more intellectually and religiously honest, then please let me know what that is. This is serious stuff we are discussing here. And you and I both take it very seriously. Forgive me if I seem gruff. But I have spent 30 years overcoming my Evangelical upbringing and I am not about to give an inch. There is an open and non-dogmatic Christianity our there and worth fighting for. It is also a real Christianity. Not the fake you want to make it out to be.
_______________________________
Hi Malcom XYZ,
Thanks for your reply. This does not appear to be the appropriate place for this type of discussion, but I'm glad you take the time to read and truly think. Tragically, I don't think there is enough of that in our world and many problems would be resolved if people would consider these things with thoughtfulness and grace.
I can't compare anything to "Q" because it has not been found. While I have read information relating to the reasons people think it exists, it has not been found nor do I think it will be because I don't think it exists.
The dating for John has two very excellent groups of scholars who disagree. From my study of Greek (no Aramaic - sorry!), I understand the word in John 5:2 that refers to the pool that "is" there rather than the pool that "was" there. While John's tense may have been off, this seems a more accurate source than Clement (whom many scholars cite).
I too went through a number of years of searching to (successfully) free myself from the teachings of my childhood. Therefore, I researched the teachings and writings of others. Perhaps not as extensively as you, but I have read other perspectives with respect and a willingness to learn. In my travels to Central America and
NOW back to the group - The reason I joined this group was to learn and discuss the emerging perspective on the church and faith. I'm a little shocked you would state that I am propagating a "fake" Christianity.
Again, I'm glad you have taken the time to study, but - to be 100% honest - it appears that you have reached personal conclusions and your heels are dug in.
Therefore, while I love discussing theology, religion and faith, I will respectfully bow out of this one. While I would love to continue, it appears (with complete respect) that you will simply throw out anything I state from Scripture or any source that is not on your "approved" list. The Bible is the foundation of my faith and practice.
May God bless you in your walk.
Pax,
___________________________________
Hi again John Doe,
I too think we are not going to get very much further in this discussion and think we should discontinue it. But let me say that I am glad there are sincere and good-hearted Christians out there who take their faith seriously. I have encountered many many Christians in my years who simply cannot come to terms with the idea that we can be open to other faiths and still be Christian. In my view, and in the view of much of the emergent movement, it is much more important to be talking about the kind of raised consciousness, sensitivity to injustice and God centered-ness that Jesus talked about rather than spending all our time focusing on him as a person. The notion that he was the suffering servant and redeemer of humanity is taken from ideas also found in Isaiah, written hundreds of years before Jesus and interpolated into the tradition by those who experienced God and their ability to be in the world in a new way with the help of Jesus. Scholars in
you also said "I'm a little shocked you would state that I am propagating a "fake" Christianity." But if you look back at what I wrote you will see that I said that you were saying these things of my version of Jesus' message. I would not say this of your version of things. There is a sizable portion of the American electorate who does think the way you do. They are called the religious right. Unfortunately they support war, claim to be pro-life but actually support capital punishment, and are actually responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths (some pro-life stance there folks. Kudos!). They have also completely forgotten about Jesus' teachings on the poor and on wealth. They have also completely forgotten "blessed are the peacemakers" and "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."I am not totally sure you identify with the religious right. But you appear to. If I am wrong about that I am sorry. But that I feel so strongly that this version of Christianity is a betrayal of Jesus' message is the reason I am so adamant about this. This is a forum for emergent Christianity, no the religious right. Surely you see that my point of view is in line with that paradigm and not that of the religious right, the one you appear to be espousing, but correct me if I am wrong on that..
And as for the existence of Q, I defer to the greatest minds in twentieth century European and American scholarship on that. For these minds it exists, and for the hundreds of thousands of students who have studied under them in the colleges and universities outside of conservative seminaries and colleges, it exists as well. God did not call us to leave our intellects at the door of our houses of worship.
Hello again,
First of all, I started a new discussion thread. I'd like to take a step back and cover the "emerging" versus "emergent" definitions. I think they are two different things.
As I see them defined:
Emerging refers to those who would consider themselves to be (to at least a degree of the traditional definition) evangelical Christians. Perhaps "Biblical" Christians would be a better term? They hold to the "essentials" of the Christian faith, but believe there is a stream (you would probably call them the "religious right") that has taken Christianity away from what was intended. I'm in this camp of those who want to live out a Christian faith based on God's Word - not on politics.
Emergent refers to those who would consider themselves to be "open" to various streams of faith and what they have to offer the global religious perspective. While I don't hold any antagonism against emergent individuals, I don't think they should be defined the same way. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I believe you are in this camp.
There is a big difference between the two.
I wouldn't call either "fake." They are two completely different things though in my opinion.
And, last but not least (because I can't seem to stop myself),
- If you are mentioning Simon bar Giora mentioned in Josephus, that is a totally different situation from the historical texts. They were literally digging under the wall to escape. If you are referring to someone else, please let me know.
- Q will continue to be debated by many, many "great minds." While I am obviously not one of those great minds, I respect the opinions of both sides. As one who does try to think sometimes, I would put myself in the camp of those who don't put credence in a document that became "factual" by a process of reverse development. Aristotle's law of contradiction is an interesting contemplation here. Q either exists or it doesn't.
Anyway - Please consider responding to the other discussion thread.
Pax, John Doe
_____________________________
Hi John Doe,
I must confess that a lot of what I know about the EC comes from my reading on the internet. I have ordered MacLaren's first book and books by Stanley Haurwaus, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Since the internet and new media is such a big part of EC, I think having learned of it there and in blogs and continuing to learn of it in these places is not such a bad thing. It may be the best way in fact. It seems to be the case that the terms "emergent" and "emerging" are interchangeable. What I would like to hear a good explanation of is how the use of these terms relates to the phrase "emergent properties" which we often hear bandied about in Systems Theory and Neuroscience. Is this a useful designation, however cool and interesting it may sound? I believe it is, but I am still coming to terms with it. I do think new forms of christian community and evangelizaton are appearing because of the internet, the cutting edge of technology and the way the globe is being brought together by it, represent something very new and exciting. Keep in mind that I am in Saudi Arabia, one of the strictest Muslim countries on earth, as we debate some of the important things happening in the church. That is not a pat on my back but an indication of how the world is changing.
Getting a bit into a response to the content of your last post, and into the question of where the political dimension lies in the EC "conversation", I just clipped this out of the wikipedia entry on EC. I highly encourage folks to do searches in wiki on emerging church, emergent church, emerging christianity and emergent community. Lots of rich stuff here. but basically there is a core, and which is captured in this:
"The emerging church (sometimes referred to as the emergent church movement) is a Christian movement whose participants seek to live their faith in modern society by emulating Jesus Christ irrespective of Christian religious traditions. Proponents of this movement call it a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature as well as its emphasis on interfaith dialogue rather than one-way evangelism. Members of emerging communities may be disillusioned with the organized and institutional church and often support the deconstruction of modern Christian dogma. The movement often favors the use of simple story and narrative, occasionally incorporating mysticism. Members of the emerging movement place high value on good works or social activism, sometimes including missional living or new monasticism; while Evangelicals may emphasize eternal salvation, many in the emerging movement emphasize the here and now and the need to create a kingdom of heaven on Earth."
I do not want to demonize those who feel comfortable with the label evangelical. This is because I feel EC is basically a "conversation" between the left and right sides of the church. Without both talking to one another, we've got nothing. But the EC movement's energy clearly seems to be coming from those on the side opposite the evangelicals and who embrace post modernism and the hodgepodge of ideas connected to it (and entire thread needs to be devoted to that, what we think it is and how it should be seen and treated).
You will note that the view towards other traditions I was espousing is represented in the quote above. I will concede however, that there is only so far we can go with this and still remain Christian. I am a Christian and do not feel that a Buddhist or a Muslim, no matter how many wonderful hours we spend in ecumenical dialog, can just walk in off the street and partake in the Eucharist. There is a long process of commitment that needs to take place before this, let alone a baptism. So you and I are on the same page to an extent. I am just not concerned over whether or not they are going to the of heaven of Jesus, or some vague notion thereof. I have Buddhists in my family and I have felt too powerfully their sacred and have spent too much time in the Muslim world to think they need to embrace Jesus to go to heaven or think this is the right way to approach our shared lives, our shared religious lives, on this planet.
This is an article on the messiah named Simon that has been recently found. It is previously unknown and is not referred to in Josephus. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
what this all means is another story. But i have given my take on it. but I would not suggest that i am the last word here, by any means.
as for the existence of Q. There are major chunks of text in the three synoptic gospels that are so similar it would suggest that the three writers were either showing each other what they wrote and making a conscious effort to be uniform almost to the very word. But the three texts represent different communities and so this seems unlikely. Or, there were circulating oral traditions and sayings of Jesus that predated the three gospels. Mark may have been part of what circulated too. The gospel of Thomas, which is often unfairly called "Gnostic," as if that is the end of the story, is dated very early by some scholars. Thomas should be called Coptic Christian rather than Gnostic in my view so that it is not so easily dismissed. It circulated in a sayings format that bears remarkable resemblance to the core texts that are found in the synoptics. What we think of the theology of Thomas aside, to me it is a bit mystical and fringe too, to me it looks there was a set of oral tradtions, memory and a set of sayings that predated the synoptics. I call this Q until I am swayed in another direction. Feel free to show me where I am wrong.
thanks for this conversation, M XYZ
4 comments:
Well, I don't believe in Q either, altho it was presented to me in seminary as tho it were as close to a certainty as possible...nope, 'taint...it's an interesting idea, but no evidence for its existence has ever appeared....as for the Gospel of John, it is possible that it is in the canonical Scriptures because it has priority, because it presents a Jesus whom the Synoptics did not know, because John was closer to Jesus than they were....the idea that it is merely a late composition, remote from the source, is based on assumptions, not proven facts....the assumption, for instance, that the classy Greek of the Gospel is too good to be written by anyone actually close to a supposedly primitive prophet Jesus (this is academic snobbery, nothing more)...the assumption that the high theology of the Gospel is a late Hellenistic addition to a decidedly unGreek rural Jewish miracle worker....it may be, and probably is, the other way around: that the notion of the undivine preacher and teacher Jesus arose as people became more remote in time and place from the source...
as for the passage in question (No one comes to the Father but by me), Jesus may indeed have said that....we do not know that he did not...if he did, it remains to work out what he meant....other mystics have made similar statements, like the Buddha, who is supposed to have said: Above the heavens and below the earth, I alone am the honored one. There is an experience which leads people to make such remarks....reductionist or historicist statements which attempt to undermine them don't solve the problem of what they are or what they mean...the dogmatic conclusion may point to its real meaning, far better than a flat-out denial that he said any such thing.
OK, fair enough. But even if he did say it, i.e. "no one comes to the father except by me" certainly does not mean that he meant "all Buddhist, Hindus, Muslims and adherents of other paths must convert the Christianity that will emerge 100 years after I am gone." It may well mean, if Jesus did say it, something like "my way (=me)," and "my way of denying what the empire is doing to us, i.e., taking our land, making us bow to their gods and bringing the poor to ruin, may be the only way God wants us to live. We have to keep in mind that the designation Son of God was a political designation also used by Roman emperors. Jesus stood against those who ruled Rome and what they were trying to pass off. For this he was killed. Any anti-imperialist leader, Che Guavara, Ghandi, M.L. King brought a kind of salvation to those who follow him. This is also "a way." This is how I interpret it and find it still be open to other sacred traditions and how to affirm them and mine at the same time.
Whew! You are really impressed by the possible politics behind the statement. What if he didn't mean that either? My kingdom is not of this world, he is supposed to have said. He didn't respond well to the devil's offer of all the kingdoms of the world, either, apparently. What if the statement comes right out of real experiences of Jesus, which he is conveying to us? Behold, I show you a mystery, Paul said. There is more to mystery than mere context. Christianity is, in my 'umble opinion, the outcome in history, the traces, as it were, of Jesus's experiences of God,and of himself as identified with God. We are still working out the consequences of that in relation to the experiences of others who don't call themselves Christian, or feel compelled to. The fact that we haven't worked it out, does not mean that we are wrong to suppose that there is something to work out, or wrong to suppose that there is something to the awareness of Jesus as divine and human, that has much to offer us and the rest of the world.
OK, again good point. But I do not see a necessary contradiction between Paul's and Jesus' statements that suggest the kingdom is a mental place, a new way of being in the world spiritually. I was always impressed by Paul's phrase "be transformed by the revewing of your mind" from the time I was in junior high school. The other day I went and looked at the entire section of text and the first part of it says something to the effect of "the kingdom is not a kingdwom of this world and ...so be transformed by the renewing of your mind and ...find a place where you can know and discern God's will." (I should have looked that up before butchering it). I think these versus are of extreme importance to the Christian life. But I am not sure the libertion theology reading I gave in the last post and the one you are pointing to are in contradiction.
I have some more thoughts about Q too, but we can talk about that later.
happy sky trails!
Post a Comment