Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The "Emergent Church" -- What exactly is it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
    Yeah, that sort of sounds like his views in books like Surprised by Hope. I don't know if I really buy the (non)distinction between conservative and liberal that he's trying to sell.
    I think he makes it quite clear that there is a difference, but his point is that reality is much more complicated than a one-dimensional conservative/liberal or left/right spectrum, not least because such distinctions are always relative and dependent on time and culture.

    He would argue, for example, that concern for the poor was a major concern of Christians in the first century. So does that make his position on that "conservative"?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
      I did not know that. Would you mind expanding on this? I don't find this surprising, but it'd be nice to hear it from the horses mouth.
      The American conservative/liberal splits of the late 20th century do not apply well to other times and places. Here is a book about it by a theologically conservative British evangelical observing the American political divide.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        I think he makes it quite clear that there is a difference, but his point is that reality is much more complicated than a one-dimensional conservative/liberal or left/right spectrum, not least because such distinctions are always relative and dependent on time and culture.

        He would argue, for example, that concern for the poor was a major concern of Christians in the first century. So does that make his position on that "conservative"?
        Hmm, okay. I guess I see the point.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RBerman View Post
          The American conservative/liberal splits of the late 20th century do not apply well to other times and places. Here is a book about it by a theologically conservative British evangelical observing the American political divide.
          Thanks for the book recommend. Checking it out now.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
            Ok, thanks. I don't know too much about Borg outside his affiliation with the Jesus Seminar and some of his work there. I know Crossan considers himself a Catholic, but I don't think he believes in the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, or a literal resurrection. He believes in a metaphorical resurrection. I remember reading an interview with him where he admitted that he doesn't go to mass because he's concerned they wouldn't allow him to receive communion (I think his concern is justified).

            I always considered Wright to be relatively conservative in his scholarship. I mean, he's right in the mainstream, but compared to Crossan, or even EP Sanders, he's probably more right than left. Where Wright seems liberal (compared to many American Christians) is his social and environmental concerns. But, honestly, I never dug too deep into his theological views.
            I agree. Wright believes in a literal resurrection and virgin birth. Borg, Crossan, etc., do not. That’s why people think of Wright as conservative. However in an American context, conservatives believe in inerrancy, and typically support the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon. Wright does not believe in inerrancy. He doesn’t talk much about the classical creeds. He normally uses NT concepts. But he recognize that these are different, and has at least said that Chalcedon isn’t a very accurate reflection of the NT view of Jesus. He does believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation. However he speaks of it in 1st Cent Jewish terms rather than 4th Cent Greek terms. Many conservatives don’t seem to mind that, even though similar ideas from others are often characterized as Nestorian, etc.

            When I think of liberal Christianity, I think people like Spong, Crossan, Shori, and Gene Robinson. People who advocate for homosexual unions and leadership, who have an extremely inclusive view of salvation, disbelief in hell or a belief in universalism, often a denial of the divinity of Christ, the sovereignty of God, and some who are even agnostic or atheist about belief in God. Does the emergent church tend to lean in these directions at times? McLaren and Pagitt seem to bend in this direction, others identified with the emergent church like Mark Driscoll do not. So I think that adds to the confusion about what is and isn't the emergent church. Would someone like Jay Bakker be considered a part of the emergent church?
            Yes, but in the US, “liberal” tends to be used (at least by conservative), for anyone who rejects inerrancy. That includes everything from Wright to Crossan. And remember that a majority of younger Christians (including Catholics and evangelicals) accept homosexuality, so that really can’t be used as a criterion for extreme liberalism. That doesn’t mean that the people you mention are mainstream, but I wouldn’t judge them on that basis alone.

            McLaren quotes Wright a lot. I think just about everything he says can be justified by the scholarship of Wright or someone similar. He is an inclusivist, but that’s common outside the most conservative Protestantism (and even within it if you talk to people). His book on judgement seems to be similar to Wright’s view that the real purpose of judgement is putting things right, but that it’s possible that some people might reject that and end up, not so much being tortured as becoming a former human.I doubt that he differs from Wright on the divinity of Christ.

            Wright tends to focus on the NT. He has plenty to say about the consequences, but in some sense he leaves the impression of being more conservative than he actually is. McLaren is playing out the implications of Wright’s scholarship in ways that look more liberal, but I think in the end they agree.

            McLaren tries to present a balanced version of Christianity. Some emergents seem to me to push God’s acceptance to the point where everything else disappears. We started using some of Rob Bell’s videos with our teens, but I ultimately concluded that they left something out. I don’t get the same impression from McLaren.

            Comment


            • #36
              Wright's next book is likely to challenge the 'conservative' conception of him

              Wright provide a series of case studies which explore how the Bible can be applied to some of the most pressing contemporary issues facing us, including:

              Why it is possible to love the Bible and affirm evolution
              Why women should be allowed to be ordained
              Where Christians today have lost focus, and why it is important for them to engage in politics—and why that involvement benefits everyone
              Why the Christian belief in heaven means we should be at the forefront of the environmental movement
              And much more

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Wright's next book is likely to challenge the 'conservative' conception of him
                None of these sound particularly non-conservative to me. Maybe the evolution one, but plenty of conservative pastors and teachers believe in forms of theistic evolution. Plenty of conservatives are okay with women in leadership roles (especially post-Joyce Meyer), and what do environmental concerns really have to do with conservatism? I don't know, maybe I have a different idea about what's conservative and what's not. I think my conception of Wright would change if he came out and said that he didn't believe in a literal resurrection, or the sovereignty of God, and came out for gay church leadership.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                  None of these sound particularly non-conservative to me. Maybe the evolution one, but plenty of conservative pastors and teachers believe in forms of theistic evolution. Plenty of conservatives are okay with women in leadership roles (especially post-Joyce Meyer), and what do environmental concerns really have to do with conservatism? I don't know, maybe I have a different idea about what's conservative and what's not. I think my conception of Wright would change if he came out and said that he didn't believe in a literal resurrection, or the sovereignty of God, and came out for gay church leadership.
                  Right. The positions listed are all things he is already known to favor, or we could reasonably guess that he would favor. He's made the case for women leaders in a number of places. Only people who believe in inerrancy oppose evolution, and he doesn't. He's known the be liberal politically.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                    None of these sound particularly non-conservative to me.
                    Fair enough. In the culture I'm in, these would be pretty upsetting.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      My church is studying one of Brian McLaren's books: "The Great Spiritual Migration."

                      Both Pastors and all the facilitators of the Bible Study programs loved the book. They loved it so much that more Bible Study sessions were opened, some on Saturday for people who could not attend during the week.

                      In Chapter 1, McLaren uses Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to say that Jesus did not believe in animal sacrifices.

                      McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

                      I would appreciate any comments.

                      Thanks.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                        My church is studying one of Brian McLaren's books: "The Great Spiritual Migration."

                        Both Pastors and all the facilitators of the Bible Study programs loved the book. They loved it so much that more Bible Study sessions were opened, some on Saturday for people who could not attend during the week.

                        In Chapter 1, McLaren uses Jesus' cleansing of the Temple to say that Jesus did not believe in animal sacrifices.

                        McLaren said: “It turns out that Jesus wasn’t the first to dare to question the architecture of appeasement.” McLaren mentions Hosea 6:6 and Isaiah 1 and 2 and Psalm 51, verse 17 as proof.

                        I would appreciate any comments.

                        Thanks.
                        Looks like a textbook case of eisegesis.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Looks like a textbook case of eisegesis.
                          Yes, it does, but Brian McLaren is a Pastor or former Pastor. Surely he would know how what the cited Scriptures meant?

                          “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him.” Proverbs 15:8

                          “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.” Proverbs 21:27

                          Leaving verse 19 out of Psalm 51 did it for me.

                          I can't for the life of me understand why so many people in my church liked this book.

                          It appears McLaren does not believe in blood atonement. I wonder what he thinks the Gospel is?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                            Yes, it does, but Brian McLaren is a Pastor or former Pastor. Surely he would know how what the cited Scriptures meant?

                            “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him.” Proverbs 15:8

                            “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.” Proverbs 21:27

                            Leaving verse 19 out of Psalm 51 did it for me.

                            I can't for the life of me understand why so many people in my church liked this book.

                            It appears McLaren does not believe in blood atonement. I wonder what he thinks the Gospel is?
                            Pastors are, unfortunately, hardly immune to reading into Scripture what they want it to say. It could be that many people like the book because they like what it has to say.
                            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                            sigpic
                            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Pastors are, unfortunately, hardly immune to reading into Scripture what they want it to say. It could be that many people like the book because they like what it has to say.
                              What do you think Jesus meant when He said:

                              Matthew 9: 13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice.

                              Thanks.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Christian3 View Post
                                What do you think Jesus meant when He said:

                                Matthew 9: 13 Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice.

                                Thanks.
                                Here, I think Jesus is referring to the Pharisaic and lawyerly penchant for making "hedge laws" and punishing infraction of those as if one were breaking a Mosaic law (which would require sacrifice for atonement). Instead of legally requiring atonement for every possible infraction, God looks at intent. If the intent was not to break the law, then we should apply mercy instead of requiring sacrifice.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X