Emergent theology?
Emergent church is indeed a slippery fish! Mark Driscoll is a fundie but some would still class him as emergent church.
The issue at stake is scripture. Ultimately how you come to it or approach it determines your response to it. Many of McClarens opinions are just that; his opinions. And some seem to put as much weight on them as scripture. Big mistake.
It is God's word and I accept that by faith. In doing so I ultimately take it seriously and obey it. If you pick and mix everything is up for grabs. I will discuss and debate the meaning of scripture but if it's veracity is in question we have no common ground.
posted by Paul Reid at 3:10 PM
4 Comments:
I hear what you're saying and agree about the place of the Christian scriptures. But those scriptures have been used and applied in such horrendous ways over time that it would seem reasonable to expect the current generation to be somewhat skeptical about just exactly what God has and hasn't said.
6:18 PM
I must admit that I enjoy emergent theology, or liberalism, or whatever you want to define it as. I accept that people do take a view that ‘It is God's word and I accept that by faith’. However, that defines a certain canon of scripture, a certain methodology of interpreting that scripture etc. The big questions really are; ‘Is it all or nothing. Is it a zero sum game? If it's veracity is in question we have no common ground.’
Have we forgotten? Are we not clear? The core of our life is not a book, or an interpretation, or definition of canon, or our pick of who’s ‘in’ or our group, or who’s ‘not in’ our group.
The core of our life is a man, born in Bethlehem of a virgin, lived in Galilee 2000ish years ago, was crucified, died and raised from the dead. God made man, the creator, beginning and the end of all things, the one & only, saviour, the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Mercy beyond measure, stunning Judgment, unbelievable love, Father to the fatherless, King of all Kings and Lord of all the Governments in the world.
Here’s the kicker. I met him today. Talked to him today. This Jesus is alive and present. Not a theology. Not a theory. Not a debate. Not a book. Not a canon. Not a ‘If it's veracity is in question we have no common ground.’
Our common ground is this, taken from the beginning, ‘Jesus is Lord’. And he is. So our position in our journey of scripture (whatever your current understanding is), life (whatever your current state), theology (there’s so many – pick one why don’t you), love (lots & lots of this) and hope (Oh yes, buckets of hope) is this – there’s a Man in Heaven, who is 100% God, and 100% Man, and he’s on my side, he votes for me, argues in my defence, protects me (irrespective of my position on scripture), and includes me ‘in’.
8:54 PM
DSE, I see your point and would be with you, I don't believe in Jesus any more just because the Bible tells me so. But at the same time, your final paragraph about the man in heaven who is 100% man and God and him being on your side, is ENTIRELY based on your position on scripture as I doubt you'd have arrived at that conclusion if someone besides Jesus hadn't communicated that with you (from Scripture) in some way and at some time.
Like the town folks who told the woman at the well, "we don't believe any more because of your testimony, we believe because we've seen for ourselves...", we all need to move from 2nd hand to first hand testimony but thank God for reliable first hand testimony that gets us started.
10:51 PM
Thanks for the comment Brian. I guess the best reference is from the Nicene Creed (381)
. . .And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
So interestingly the starting position for me here wasn't scripture, although you could argue that the starting point of the authors of the Nicene was scripture.
The defence is currently that it is not necessary to have agreement on the veracity of scripture in order to end up at knowing Jesus. Indeed it is the goal of scripture to take us there.
What also rings true for me (strangely enough) is the wave-particle duality we find in sub-atomic physics. At times it's 100% wave, and at other times 100% particle. I love the sense that the creator stamped a duality on nature flowing from his own nature. Debate for another day. I've also made a comment on another of Pauls blogs that relates to this one.
Merry Christmas everyone!
8:34 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home