Post by Soulfyre on Jan 24, 2005 2:24:58 GMT -5
I have had the opportunity to read more concerning "emerging" church, and in doing so, my discomfort level with the "emerging" church has raised rather substantially. While I would agree that the evangelical church, in its more visible sense in the United States, appears to have become far too "enculturated", I think it is a danger to paint with to wide a brush stroke here. There is some difficulty to the argument that over the breadth of church history, much of Christian thought has been far too "Hellenized." In fact, the Orthodox Church, of which the Greek Orthodox are a main component, are not peculiarly Western in their approach to theology, as some have argued. This is a particularly evangelical misunderstanding, which is bred of unfamiliarity with Orthodox thought, confusing it with the development of the Western church. While I believe there is some distinction between Hebrew thought (which in some instances seems more "Oriental") and Greek, or Hellenic, thought, I think that to view these differences as diametrically opposed rather than complementary is to create an unnecessary and harmful imaginary philosophical rift. There is, in fact, far more difference between the development of the Western church and Hebrew thought than there is between Hebrew and "Hellenic" thought.
Much of the "emerging" church phenomenon and their attendant "open source" approach to theology does not seem to recognize that Paul, when speaking to Timothy and Titus, appeared to have a structure of truth--an embodiment of doctrine--that was to be passed on to others. This concept of paradosis, or "tradition," is evident in both Rabbinic Judaism and Orthodox theology. He also had a very clear concept of hierarchy and authority. To reject all understanding of the church as fatally flawed, and to assume that we must radically re-define what is often considered an orthodox understanding of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, of salvation and the Christian life--in fact, to even reject the name "Christian" in terms of some vague understanding of "a seeker of the unfolding truth of God" is unnecessarily arrogant, assuming yet again (as many sects before us have assumed) that all those before us have been in error, and that somehow God is communicating to us the "real" truth that the church has forsaken...that God has called us to "restore" the "church". Many cults have sprung from this assumption that those of us today are a new repository of wisdom. Our submission to the scholastic rationalism of our own society is subtle, but it enables us to assume that we are more advanced in our understanding now, and arrogantly adopt a false humility, rejecting all that the church has taught over the centuries. Even when many talk about returning to a "Hebrew" understanding of God, the Bible, and the church, there is a tendency to assume that no generation before ours, and no church leaders of the past, have struggled with these issues to any degree of success.
Alas, Solomon concluded that there is nothing new under the sun. Hence, to view God's truth as unfolding, rather than our understanding of and experience of God's truth as unfolding, tends to remove any mooring and set us adrift in a sea of mass speculation. And to create our own version of a politically correct Christianity that avoids the term "Christian" to be more "pure" to Hebrew thinking, avoids the use of the term "Old Testament" because to some "old" implies "outmoded" or "no longer applicable", or to toy with the idea that because some messianic understanding among the Jews viewed the Messiah as primarily an "ambassador" of God (rather than as God) that we should immediately reject the notion of the Trinity as "too Greek" is to begin to move back to warmed-over disputes with which the early church struggled, as though those closer in time to the issues could not see them as clearly as we do now. Certainly, this does not seem to be the intent of scripture (Old or New Testament), whose authors, at least to my eyes, strove for clarity of expression.
Now I believe that and understanding of the Old Testament and a corellative understanding of Jewish (or Hebrew) thinking is crucial to an understanding of the New Testament and foundational to our understanding of the church and Christian discipleship. But I think that we also can move dangerously close to the Judaizing that Paul spoke against when he wrote his letter to the believers in Galatia. There is certainly continuity between the Testaments and the people of God, but there is also discontinuity. We should not be arrogant, and despise the olive tree, of which we are but an ingrafted branch from an uncultured plant, but neither should we despise the grace of God, who created a new thing in the church, a mystery only revealed in the New Testament. I hope to discuss this topic further, but I felt compelled, after further investigation, to express my misgivings with the "emergent church", which in many cases is not, in fact, the church, but just a "re-emerging" of the individualism (masked by an "alternative" sense of "community") prevalent in early Christianity that led to many heresies.
Regarding the "emerging church", this designation is used primarily to describe the radical, re-imagining of the church in which much previously held doctrine (including such foundational doctrines as the Trinity) is consciously excluded. Penal substitution is rejected by many. While the Orthodox church avoids the emphasis on penal substitution, preferring instead to see the purpose of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and in his resurrection to be one of restoration and theosis, or "deification" (roughly equivalent to our concept of sanctification), Jesus Christ is still central to the accomplishment of this work. Among the "emerging", however, the very identity of Jesus the Messiah and his work on the cross becomes vague and confused. That we need renewal and revival in the church is beyond doubt. That people should arrogantly divest themselves of all previously held doctrine for a vague "open source" theology in which a disconnected meta-community of online participants of dubious belief and Biblical study, speculate on the meaning of Jesus and the church for a post-modern era. Unlike open source software development, in which those that can, do, and those that can't benefit from those who can, "open source" theological development assigns an equal competency to all participants, and virtually guarantees doctrinal disaster.
Check the following links (for a bit of a fright):
God bless and keep you all,
Matthew (soulfyre)
Much of the "emerging" church phenomenon and their attendant "open source" approach to theology does not seem to recognize that Paul, when speaking to Timothy and Titus, appeared to have a structure of truth--an embodiment of doctrine--that was to be passed on to others. This concept of paradosis, or "tradition," is evident in both Rabbinic Judaism and Orthodox theology. He also had a very clear concept of hierarchy and authority. To reject all understanding of the church as fatally flawed, and to assume that we must radically re-define what is often considered an orthodox understanding of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, of salvation and the Christian life--in fact, to even reject the name "Christian" in terms of some vague understanding of "a seeker of the unfolding truth of God" is unnecessarily arrogant, assuming yet again (as many sects before us have assumed) that all those before us have been in error, and that somehow God is communicating to us the "real" truth that the church has forsaken...that God has called us to "restore" the "church". Many cults have sprung from this assumption that those of us today are a new repository of wisdom. Our submission to the scholastic rationalism of our own society is subtle, but it enables us to assume that we are more advanced in our understanding now, and arrogantly adopt a false humility, rejecting all that the church has taught over the centuries. Even when many talk about returning to a "Hebrew" understanding of God, the Bible, and the church, there is a tendency to assume that no generation before ours, and no church leaders of the past, have struggled with these issues to any degree of success.
Alas, Solomon concluded that there is nothing new under the sun. Hence, to view God's truth as unfolding, rather than our understanding of and experience of God's truth as unfolding, tends to remove any mooring and set us adrift in a sea of mass speculation. And to create our own version of a politically correct Christianity that avoids the term "Christian" to be more "pure" to Hebrew thinking, avoids the use of the term "Old Testament" because to some "old" implies "outmoded" or "no longer applicable", or to toy with the idea that because some messianic understanding among the Jews viewed the Messiah as primarily an "ambassador" of God (rather than as God) that we should immediately reject the notion of the Trinity as "too Greek" is to begin to move back to warmed-over disputes with which the early church struggled, as though those closer in time to the issues could not see them as clearly as we do now. Certainly, this does not seem to be the intent of scripture (Old or New Testament), whose authors, at least to my eyes, strove for clarity of expression.
Now I believe that and understanding of the Old Testament and a corellative understanding of Jewish (or Hebrew) thinking is crucial to an understanding of the New Testament and foundational to our understanding of the church and Christian discipleship. But I think that we also can move dangerously close to the Judaizing that Paul spoke against when he wrote his letter to the believers in Galatia. There is certainly continuity between the Testaments and the people of God, but there is also discontinuity. We should not be arrogant, and despise the olive tree, of which we are but an ingrafted branch from an uncultured plant, but neither should we despise the grace of God, who created a new thing in the church, a mystery only revealed in the New Testament. I hope to discuss this topic further, but I felt compelled, after further investigation, to express my misgivings with the "emergent church", which in many cases is not, in fact, the church, but just a "re-emerging" of the individualism (masked by an "alternative" sense of "community") prevalent in early Christianity that led to many heresies.
Regarding the "emerging church", this designation is used primarily to describe the radical, re-imagining of the church in which much previously held doctrine (including such foundational doctrines as the Trinity) is consciously excluded. Penal substitution is rejected by many. While the Orthodox church avoids the emphasis on penal substitution, preferring instead to see the purpose of the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and in his resurrection to be one of restoration and theosis, or "deification" (roughly equivalent to our concept of sanctification), Jesus Christ is still central to the accomplishment of this work. Among the "emerging", however, the very identity of Jesus the Messiah and his work on the cross becomes vague and confused. That we need renewal and revival in the church is beyond doubt. That people should arrogantly divest themselves of all previously held doctrine for a vague "open source" theology in which a disconnected meta-community of online participants of dubious belief and Biblical study, speculate on the meaning of Jesus and the church for a post-modern era. Unlike open source software development, in which those that can, do, and those that can't benefit from those who can, "open source" theological development assigns an equal competency to all participants, and virtually guarantees doctrinal disaster.
Check the following links (for a bit of a fright):
- Open Source Theology
- "emerging church"
- emergingchurch.info: a touching place for the emerging church
- ikon
- the ooze
- and last, but not least, The N. T. Wright Page: An Unofficial Website Dedicated to the Bishop of Durham
God bless and keep you all,
Matthew (soulfyre)
