(The first part of my thoughts on Spencer's book can be found here)
I simply cannot believe what I am reading.
I've picked up A Heretic's Guide to Eternity again (don't think I'll link to this any more...)
Oh my sweet... It just keeps getting worse.
Spencer!
The second of three sections starts with some reality checks for the church. Okay- I'm always up for a few of those. Kind of a hobby for me, you could say. These "reality checks" are things like "pluralism" and people finding spiritual input from places other than "the Church" like... The Simpsons or films ike What Dreams May Come. Gotcha. This is reality.
But it's in these "reality checks" that I think we start to get a sense not just of where Spencer is coming from, but perhaps why. He makes this jaw-dropping statement: "Today, the church just doesn't have that kind of control. It may still offer catechism classes, 'discipleship' courses, and Christian maturity growth tracks in an effort to exert some control over the spiritual formation of congregants, but the reality..."
Hold up. Say what now?
Did he say "in an effort to exert some control over the spiritual formation of congregants"???
I think he did. Spencer, is that really what you think is happening? Let's leave aside all the obviously abusive situations that we could pull out in an effort to bolster this argument. Are you really suggesting that the average church has as its motivation for discipleship exerting control over people? Was that your motivation as a pastor?
I'll leave this broad-stroke slam against the pastors/elders/ministry leaders who love, care for, sweat for their people and their growth in Christ without further comment, other than to say this: Spencer, this sentence alone tells me worlds more about where you are coming from than it does about the systems you are critiqueing.
Moving on...
Here's a doozy. The third reality check he cites is the impact of individualization. Spencer says, starting with a quote from Robert Bellah "'The symbolization of man's relation to the ultimate condition of his existence is no longer the monopoly of any groups labeled religious... Any obligation of doctrinal orthodoxy has been abandoned by the leading edge of modern culture.' He goes on to say that in the future, individuals will have to work out their own solutions to questions about the sacred."
You know, if I was hearing this kind of stuff from a college freshman on the PSU campus I could take it in stride. It's the kind of thing I expect... But from someone with Spencer's background? From someone who even in this very book has expressed devotion for "the teachings of Jesus"?
Spencer, don't you see that the whole point of Jesus is that we can't work out our own solutions?
I could type and type and type about the mischaracterizations in this book and the tower of cards built on those mischaracterizations.
For example, even Luther gets the treatment... "He may have rejected the 'selling of eternity' via indulgences, challenged the authority of the pope, and argued for new perspectives in the way the Christian church conducted itself, but he remained firmly committed to the medieval idea of how institutions should function. He desired to be a reformer, hoping to return the church to its earlier 'innocent' state rather than looking forward to the future and the potential rebirth of the church.
What's ironic, of course, is that although Luther replaced the selling of indulgences, he went on to invent his own system of economics by which grace could be recieved. Built around his own views on the importance of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed and the Sermon on the Mount, Luther's theory emphasized the internal concept of faith. Catholicism, on the other hand, focused on the issue of externals- good works as evidence of internal faith. Yet both were transactional deals in one form or another."
Ahh... I was wondering who came up with that whole transactional (my sin for Christ's righteousness), based-on-faith "theory"... Good to know it was Luther who made the whole thing up. Here I was thinking it was Paul, in Romans 4...
I feel another one of those headaches coming on here...
In a list of "I'm concerned" statements (a number of which I agree with, by the way), Spencer says "I'm concerned when Christianity is presented as the only way to God." Darn straight! Me too! Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with it. Christ, however, has everything to do with it. Christianity will get you nowhere. Christ, on the other hand, is the only way to God. It would be wonderful to hear Spencer affirm this. If he has, though, I've missed it. Instead, as the book goes on, we get statements that seem increasingly out of left field like "I'm concerned when the church says that a certain person or a particular group of people have no access to the grace of God because of their sexual orientation or becaue they grew up in some other part of the world under the influence of a different view of religion."
Now, raise your hand out there if you believe that anyone's sexual orientation means that someone has no access to the grace of God.
No one?
Spencer, surely you are not equating a belief that same sex eroticism is somehow counter to God's design and desire for sexuality with the idea that someone is beyond the grace of God?? Or the idea that everyone, regardless of where they are born, or into what religisous system of thought (be it Hindu, Muslim or Christian) needs to come to God through relationship with Jesus?
And here's where Spencer loses any credibility with evangelicals, post-evangelicals and all but the most theologically revisionist of us in the emerging church:
"Institutional Christians tend to have a very narrow and literal interpretation of the Bible. Christianity is the only way to reach God, certain Christians argue, because the Bible says so. It tells us that Jesus said, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'... So how do I interpret this particular Scripture? In the next chapter, I'll explore it more fully, but I don't believe it can be used to argue that Christianity is the only true religion. First, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when Jesus spoke these words. Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into any other language can be taken literally anyway... to read this as a literal statement requires that I take the other statements about he makes about himself as literal. For example, Jesus declares that he is the bread and the vine and the Good Shepherd. Does that mean he is literally a loaf or a bread or a plant? Of course not! These are metaphors, clues to somethng about his character and person."
Aye carumba... And the sad part is, this is about as much as Spencer has (thus far, half-way through) engaged any Scripture at all.
Let me say this in wrapping up this installment of "Oh, Spencer"...
If you are going to pay lip service to "the teachings of Jesus" and declare that we should remain "deeply committed to them", then don't go pulling absolute crap like this. To affirm "the teachings of Jesus" out of one side of your mouth and then turn around and out of the other side attempt (poorly attempt, but attempt nonetheless) to pull the rug out from under those teachings which do not sit well within the new theological construct you are manufacturing out of seemingly thin air is poor, poor scholarship, poor argumentative method and shows that you really don't give a damn about "the teachings of Jesus."
Spencer, I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but I can't see this book as anything other than evidence that you have lost the plot. I understand your frustration with "Christianity." Really, I do. I share most of it.
But in attempting to rethink "religion" you have inadvertantly shown Jesus the door as well. I understand you don't think so- but the Jesus who preached love of God and love of neighbor also spoke about belief in Him, about a narrow path to life that few find, and your idea that "we're all in unless we opt out" is not only biblically baseless, but is also quite simply, a lie.
This is a broken world and we are broken people. The good news, though, is that God Himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf.
But telling people that they experience the saving grace of God irrespective of personal faith and trust in God's Savior, in God's provision for forgiveness is a cruel and terrible thing to do.
This book was breaking my heart... now it's just making me angry.
I'll end this by quoting Scot McKnight's words to Spencer:
"Spencer, you’re a good guy. But I have to say this to you: Go back to church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics..."
well, you've ruined this book for me... i was thinking about buying it until i read your two reviews...
i figure if you respond like this, it's likely certain to raise my blood pressure even more.
but now i'm in a conundrum if anyone asks my opinion on the book... i'll just have to say, "well, bob said..."
Posted by: david | October 05, 2006 at 09:09 AM
I've been wading through the same things. Although I want to give Spencer the benefit of the doubt as far as his intentions, I think he will eventually regret his choice of words throughout the book. And I predict that this will become the most divisive work in the Emerging/Emergent movement, forcing people to take sides.
I've always appreciated your thoughts, Bob, trying to endorse an emerging theology while adhering to Scriptural authority. But there always seem to be people like Spencer who want to push unnecessary envelopes in order to get the church to rethink their ways. I'm afraid they're going to force moderates like you out the door.
Posted by: steve carr | October 05, 2006 at 11:11 AM
I wonder how much further emergent publications will go and naturally create more division - it seems that the books are going a little futher bit by bit (or lots and lots) - division between definitions of orthodoxy no doubt...just check TJ's latest post on theoblogy...
Posted by: [email protected] Carmichael | October 05, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Dangit, Bob, yer soundin' upset or something!
I appreciate both of you Oh, Spencer posts; they reflect my own feelings (as do Scot McKnight's) after reading Brother Maynard's copy of the book (long airplane rides to Toronto and back have at least the redeeming quality of providing uninterupted reading time).
Posted by: robbymac | October 05, 2006 at 02:22 PM
Bob,
I hate to say this, but I seem to agree with Spencer on many things more than what you just wrote... I think often pastors mistake "love" with control... or often lose sight that it is the Holy Spirit in control and not themselves.
I have had a few disagreements with the book, yet, I think I would have hours of conversation with Spencer... There are times as I read the book I think he is reading my mind...
Though I have not finished it... but I keep looking for the outlandish that some have said is there...
To me, I see Spencer as showing Jesus is the door... that we need to go through Him... in that we then lose the institutionalization of church and life in the Life of Christ.
Believe me... there is more to church than we have even begun to know... and most of what we know as church is not...
Really I do not grasp what you are getting at in this statement:
"This is a broken world and we are broken people. The good news, though, is that God Himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf.
But telling people that they experience the saving grace of God irrespective of personal faith and trust in God's Savior, in God's provision for forgiveness is a cruel and terrible thing to do."
Doesn't the Bible say that while we were still enemies of God, Jesus died for us? So Grace is ever and always there... for where sin is Grace abounds even more? Grace is not just in the moment of receiving Christ, but in the fact that the God who spoke all things into existence can unspeak all things into non existence... to acknowledge that He is long suffering and merciful...
As far a being literal... I think we need to realize most the time we claim we take the bible literal and really we don't. Be careful to not cast stones... Do you still have two eyes and both hands? Yet, have you looked at a woman lustfully? We tend to pick and choose what we think we want literal and what we do not. I can say that I have both eyes and both hands... I can write it off as a metaphor, or whatever, yet, Jesus said it... and I think he meant it literally... but I think he had another solution... and that was the Cross.
I think the passage was meant a bit tongue in cheek that "no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into any other language can be taken literally anyway..." Have you ever noticed that the same stories in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, often have the same wordings yet not always the same exact quotes? So which one is right? Which of the Gospels is wrong in what they say Jesus actually said?
Are you going to tell me that “The Message” is a literal quote word for word of Jesus actual words? Personally there is much passing for “True Christianity” that is neither true, nor Christian…
Mostly, I think that maybe you put back that can of Driscoll and maybe approach our brother with a bit more Grace…
Blessings,
iggy
Posted by: iggy | October 05, 2006 at 03:30 PM
Iggy- I think you need to read this book more carefully. Spencer is doing more than throwing away the bathwater. He's tossing out the tub, the kitchen sink, the Baby Jesus...
It comes down to this. Is there a single bit of biblical justification for Spencer's key thesis "we're all 'in' unless we opt 'out'"???
Or is exactly the opposite what Scripture presents? We're all of us, lost, apart from faith in the person of and saving work of Christ.
Simple equation- which scenario does the Bible present?
Let's start with Romans 10:8-17 and move on from there...
Posted by: bob | October 05, 2006 at 03:48 PM
That single paragraph was, for me, one of the most painful parts of the whole book. I can't see any difference between what Spencer has said here and saying that the early church made the whole thing up. At this point in the book, I couldn't see why Spencer needs Jesus in his theology at all. Just be nice to everyone, because we don't really know what Jesus was all about anyway, thanks to those pesky translators and the poor journalism of the gospel writers.
Posted by: ScottB | October 05, 2006 at 05:49 PM
Bob,
Spencer and I have talked about his "Opt out" idea. I don't agree with him, though I see where is coming from.
The thing is that that is not the key issue... it is going beyond Religion and it's confines. It is moving beyond "institutions" to a richer and greater view.
I am not saying I agree 100%... then there are few of us who do.
The response was to the paragraph you took... which the main point is really does Christianity save us? Does being a "Christian" save us? If it does what about those who Jesus calls the goats... which He says depart from me? They claim to have done things for Jesus... yet they are cast to hell... They seem to be "Christians"... but they go to hell?
It is Jesus and only Jesus who saves us. It is not what we call ourselves, rather what Jesus calls us... look in Revelations for the white stone with the name Jesus will give us that only He knows.
Spencer has some really controversial things in his book, yet, as with Brian McLaren, I suspect that much is being processed... so if one has all their doctrinal ducks in a row... then cast the stone. I know I don't.
I do see that we are all forgiven... and in that we are all in... Yet without the relationship, we opt out in the case of salvation. So the door is open wide to heaven and we are all in... Unless we say no. Yet, I see many who think they are in and I fear they have opted out for 'religion'.
Again, I think that Spencer is in process... as I was a year ago. In that maybe there is still hope? maybe certain doctrines we hold so dear, really keep people out that Jesus will say, "You gave me a cup of water... enter in my Kingdom." and they will say, "When did I do that?"
It is the wages of sin we must overcome as sin has been conquered at the cross. We need to have Jesus Life to enter in… in that we choose… in or out… even to not choose is to opt out.
Blessings,
iggy
Posted by: iggy | October 05, 2006 at 06:18 PM
I'd love to hear Spencer engage some of these themes in scripture. Then we could at least have something to talk about. As it is, he's just importing twenty-first century pluralism and adorning it with Christian language. I hate to say it that way - but I've read the whole book, and I think it gets worse as it goes along, not better.
Posted by: ScottB | October 05, 2006 at 07:51 PM
The way was narrow... for it was through the Jew... then Paul came and preached to the Gentile which showed the way widened by the Grace of God.
The thing is the Door is Jesus and we are in... in forgiveness. Yet, to not accept into His forgiveness or just sit in that and not enter into relationship, one will often settle for religion over relationship. I think that maybe you need to take a look at the context and who Jesus was talking to when He said the gate was narrow. For the very people he was talking to were very religious and depended on being born into the favor of God… Jesus said this and many other things to set the record straight. It was to burry them… so show they are settling for works of flesh over work of the Spirit… this was the same issue when they denied God as their King and wanted to be like the other nations. It was always tied to settling for second best.
Again, I do not think a Muslim who practices Islam... to the letter will make it into heaven... until he acknowledged forgiveness and seeks the Life of Christ.
Again, I may not agree with Spencer to the "t" yet, I do not see him denying Christ in this book. I do see him attempting to express that we need something more that just religion... we need Christ.
In that maybe he has not finished in his process... and we often talk of the journey... I see him on the path, maybe at times veering a bit this way and that, yet at least to me, I do not see him as needing to be chastised. As far as the "opt out" again I am not totally in agreement with Spencer on that... yet I do see his seed of an idea that he is trying to express.
I do not agree that we are born “in”... Maybe innocent, in which we mess up with the propensity toward sinning. “For all have sinned…”. I do see that the door is now wide open and the “whosoever” can enter heaven… yet will opt out. In this Spencer and I have talk briefly and has said that we may be approaching this from different points, but with the same result.
The Gospel is simply Christ has risen… at least according to Acts 5:42… I agree one needs to come to Jesus for salvation, yet, whether we call him Jesus Y’sua, Joshua, or Jacob… or King of Kings, or the Creator of all things... I think God can sort that all out. Also, I have faith in God that as He sees someone’s heart He will reach them for salvation.
I think that you may be missing the point… You stated Paul’s teachings, “how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?” Yet, how literal do you take that? What if one is deaf? In that I think maybe you are the one throwing out the babe with the bathwater.
Paul preached Jesus… I don’t see Spencer not preaching Jesus… in fact I see him pushing to move from a introverted self absorbed faith and church… to a outward growing church. Maybe Spencer is having trouble trying to express his heart, in that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, I do not want anyone to think this is an argument between Bob and myself. I respect Bob and understand his concerns. He is my brother in Christ. We can disagree... in this I see this "the conversation" in action.
Blessings,
iggy
Posted by: iggy | October 05, 2006 at 08:30 PM
The Gospel according to Acts 5:42 (and elsewhere) is that Jesus is the Christ. This means that he is Lord of the earth, and that no other authority reigns above him. It's actually a full-on challenge to Caesar, whose title was Lord and Savior and in whom the people were supposed to have "faith". So even in that compact statement is sort of an in-your-face challenge to pretenders to the throne, if you will.
I'm quite well aware of the context here. I don't think you're on target at all in your assessment of Jesus' differences with the people of his day. It wasn't about "religion" at all - it was about injustice and their failure to be the light to the nations. What, in your assessment, did Jesus mean when he said that "few" find the narrow way? This has nothing to do with Jew/Gentile distinctions, and everything to do with the people's rejection of Jesus' way.I'm not really sure of your point here, or how it is that I'm throwing any babies anywhere. So, your reading of this text would be, what? That Paul didn't mean it? This doesn't even strike me as a real objection. Anyone can extrapolate that "heard" in this context doesn't have to mean "received in an auditory manner through the ear". "Understood" is a perfectly acceptable synonym here. But you can't make Paul say that it doesn't matter whether or not people ever receive the gospel - there's simply no way to stretch the meaning of this sentence that far. So, if Paul wants people to receive the gospel so that they can believe, what does that do to Spencer's thesis? We still haven't touched on that point, although both Bob and myself have mentioned it.I'm not, at this point, questioning whether Spencer is a follower of Jesus. Yet. But I have to say that this direction of thought is not in a direction that I'm at all comfortable endorsing. And I'd encourage him to pick up his Bible and sit down and read it, in large chunks, starting with the gospels. See if it says what he thinks it says. I think there might be some things in there that would challenge him, if he'd engage them on their own terms.
Posted by: ScottB | October 05, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Well for one thing Scott I was not addressing you... not meaning you are not welcome to join in the conversation. But that is why you seem out from the thread. That is the first part of the context you are missing...
Context is often in layers, and yes you are also right to a degree, yet God had not intended that the sacrificial system be forever, but that the blessings of Abraham be forever. That a people, then a nation would live and be blessed by this covenant. This was not happening because the Jews settled for religion and not being a blessing.
Also my point about Paul's words not being "literal" is that the deaf cannot hear... so how can they be saved? We seem to pick and choose what is literal and what is not. Paul did not ever mean that deaf people would not get saved... at least not to me. We can often without realizing add to scripture. (Though I know of no one who would say Paul meant literal words needing to strike literal ears as more often Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit moving man's hearts and it not being because of persuasive words or arguments.)
My question is this... are those in this thread, Calvinist in persuasion? I can see why it would not sit in your craw... yet that is how Calvinism seems to me. Foreign and strange and very much ripping much especially "Election" out of context.
Blessings,
iggy
Posted by: iggy | October 06, 2006 at 12:47 AM
Posted by: ScottB | October 06, 2006 at 06:09 AM
Scott... you were right, my apologies.
I did respond to one of your posts. Though I thought it was Bob… I think it is that 8pt font he uses…LOL!
It was a bit late when I wrote that last post and re reading it, it can sound a bit crabby… sorry. That was not what I meant. I meant that though I (thought) I was just conversing with Bob, you may be missing some of the exchange as it was mostly addressed to him. Again a misfortunate oversight. It was meant as a “welcome to the conversation” not as a “get lost”.
Yes I have investigated the context concerning the narrow gate... take a look and notice he is addressing Jews. It is a reference to the Law, look at Deuteronomy 30: 11, 19 and notice that Jesus is still teaching the Law as it has not been fulfilled yet. So narrow is the gate… that leads to life. Yet also, he is addressing something deeper as it addresses the Gates of the temple in Ezekiel. As far as the further context, it is to show that the Law is very strict… yet after the cross, the Law is now written on our hearts under the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31) which was set in place at the Lords Supper (Luke 22).
So to take the gate as Jesus saying it was him in this context is not exactly right. Jesus does call Himself the Gate… and that is true. In fact as Jesus states later in Luke that the Jew must make every effort to enter through the narrow gate as when the owner closes the door they will pound on it and plead to be let in… for at that time it will be through Grace (Rom 5:2; Eph 2:8). They pound the door because work will not get them into heaven any more yet forceful men will access the Kingdom by Grace alone.
Again, the whole point on my using Paul’s “faith comes by hearing” is that we can take some things literal… and it is not meant to be…Paul is saying it is by the Spirit we receive… when we preach Jesus has risen. This is the same type of misuse that many use to say Catholic should not call their priests “father”… they rip out of context the real meaning of the passage. Paul states more often it is not by his fine arguments or words that the Gospel is received, but by “the word of God” it is not just in the preaching, but in God opening ears to hear… again, the point I was raising in which we seemed to have gotten very far from was we seem to pick and choose as to what we want to take literal.
I think that in some ways we agree that Spencer is not looking at the text in the traditional sense, yet is it out of context? Of that I am not sure… maybe we need to look at our context closer as I run into many who think they “in context” and are very much out of context. I will add I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian in my view. Both at least to me miss many of the major points and focus on too many minor ones which often results in corruption of the text and readings that give to "doctrine colored glasses" in flavor. Personally I shared to you a fuller context of the passage we were discussing than I have ever heard from any teacher. That is not bragging, rather rather an observation of how shallow we take a text and remain content.
Blessings,
iggy
Posted by: iggy | October 06, 2006 at 07:51 AM
I'm sorry Iggy, but when I read Jesus' words, the argument you put out here just doesn't cohere:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Jesus is giving a command here, not describing a situation He aims to change.
Posted by: bob | October 06, 2006 at 08:05 AM
What is the command? That they accept Jesus as Messiah? That cuts across the story of Jesus needing to die and be risen... It is saying that Jesus was ignoring His own messianic secret so prevelant throughout Mattthew.
I see it is that He the fullfillment of Torah... in essence Jesus is Torah, meaning the Law...In that the Life was in the Law, which as we are now in Christ is written on our hearts and no longer on stone tablets.
The Jewish mind would have heard it that way... just because a Platonian mind may not, does not mean I am wrong. Your view is a narrow view of the salvation story. I am broading it in that Jesus was saying much more than what you may think.
Blessings,
iggy
Posted by: iggy | October 06, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Bob,
I thanks again for taking time with the book. Your passion and devotion to the church is clear. I will give you a call and maybe we can hear each other beyond the font...
Posted by: spencer burke | October 06, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Thanks for the call spencer... I look forward to talking more on Monday!
Posted by: bob | October 06, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Hi Guys,
Great discussion. First, let me say this: I not only like Spencer, I love him as a brother in Christ. Because of this I think I can see beyond the black and white of his published words and know that he is fully devoted to following Jesus. My only problem with the book is that it is a bit too "postmodern" for me. That is, I couldn't see where Spencer and Barry actually proved the point they were trying to make. I mean, it is clear that Spencer is a big believer in Grace. I just think that the opt-in and opt-out language is a little too weak and non-descriptive of an essentially holy and mysterious thing...
Posted by: Charlie Wear | October 06, 2006 at 07:00 PM
Hey Bob
I'm really appreciating your reviews as it's saving me the money of buying the book
I think as well I probably stand between where you and burke are on many issues and can see both your points of view.
While i enjoy many of your comments can i just say that I thought this emerging conversation was a place where we could atleast ask these questions the ones that we've always been told were off limits, and if we can't then surley thats why many people for years have been walking out of our churches.
while i may not agree with everything spencer is saying i totally understand his need to question. I think lot's of people see control as the only way to love a congregation and keep them safe. I think uncounsiously lots of people start to think about opt out instead of opt in, lets be honest how many people argue that an unbaptisted baby will go to hell or that a villager whose never come into contact with christ is going to be condemded.
If all he does with this book is give people permission to ask questions or dissagree then I think thats good
Posted by: Matybigfro | October 11, 2006 at 04:26 AM
I hear what you are saying-
But I do see a difference between creating a place where questions can be asked and wrestled with and actually compromising the Gospel.
And I think that's where Spencer is heading with this book...
And disagreement cuts two ways, too :)
I feel at this point in the emerging church conversation, it's pretty rare for any of us to disagree with any other of us. Which can be both good and bad. We've done a good job of maintaining a friendly dialogue...
The thing is, at a certain point we have to be able to disagree. And I think we have to be able to do it strenuously when it's the Gospel we're talking about. I feel a biblical mandate to get a bit worked up over two issues: the person of Christ, and the Gospel.
I know it's an iffy thing to say, but do those of us in this emerging church thing ever get to say "I don't think that's right"?
I'm looking forward to talking to Spencer by phone next week... He doesn't seem too upset over my articles (though I'm sure he disagrees with me...)
Posted by: bob | October 11, 2006 at 05:58 AM
This is a fear I've had over quite some time about the emergent church. It seems that many in the emergent church that call themselves "post-evangelical" or "missional" are really simply theological descendants of evangelical and (before evangelicalism) conservative Christianity. Then there are people who are not just questioning the traditional church but also the traditional teachings of the church, rather than just points of emphasis. And it seems that some in the emergent church aren't OK with having unity with others who don't define the "gospel" in the way the traditional conservative theology does.
For me the question is not so much "Is Jesus the only way?" as it is "How do people experience Jesus and relationship with Him?" I believe Jesus is the only way and that people do not come to God through anyone but Jesus. But I believe that many, if not most, people who come to Jesus will not have known him by that name. They will have experienced personal relationship with the person of Jesus but, either through lack of knowledge or negative associations of Jesus with religion, not necessarily have experienced it with the name "Jesus" attached to it.
Many Christians have taught "opt-out" or even universal salvation going back much further than modern evangelical thought. They take what might be referred to as more "liberal" theological approaches, although they range from liberal to moderate theologically. As, as someone pointed out already, we all decide what things we take literally in the Bible and how literally.
One of the things that had attracted me to the emergin church is the diversity theologically. Now it seems as if those in the movement are getting ready to split right back into the old categories of evangelical/mainstream or conservative/liberal. There was a time when there was more solidarity among Christians and a tolerance for wide diversity of views within Christianity. Individuals like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton and others spoke a line that simply will not fit into either evangelical or mainline theology. (Lewis believed Christ was a fulfillment of paganism as well as of Judaism, and therefore the old pagan ways led to salvation as well as the mono-thiestic Jewish ways.) But society in general way more accepting of differences in those days. It seems as if industrialism has truly suceeded in fragmenting society. I pray that it doesn't suceed with the emerging church.
Posted by: | October 16, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Oh, BTW, tha last post was mine. I just forgot to fill in the personal info before I posted.
Posted by: Aaron Kelly | October 16, 2006 at 02:08 PM
And Aaron, for many of us, evangelicalism is our ancestry. We're post-evangelical- that is moving out of, but from... still with a debt to- evangelicalism.
The reason I got into this emerging church thing was so I could stop talking about a lot of nonsense and arguing about things that didn't matter and get back to the Gospel.
To the extent that Spencer's book muddies the waters on that very important issue (and it does) it's a step in the wrong direction.
Posted by: bob | October 16, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
this scripture is one I am pursuing atm....
Narrow is what way? That Leadeth to Life! But who are the few that find that narrow way? What requirements will it take to be counted as a sheep (the few) and enter the Kingdom of God ? Who are the "FEW"?
I suspect those that seek His righteousness maybe the few.
I suspect those who mingle works with faith might be part fo the few.
I suspect those that forsake all for the sake of Jesus maybe part of the few.
But really when it comes down to it, what is the answer?
Posted by: Jason | October 16, 2006 at 09:47 PM