Comments on: Rumors and Lies

By: Weekly Meanderings « The Way of a Pilgrim

Weekly Meanderings « The Way of a Pilgrim — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:41:53 +0000

[...] (continue to) learn from Starbucks 7. The postmodern theology of the movie “Wag the Dog” 8. Julie Clawson disagreeing with Chuck Colson 9. David Mamet rethinks the efficacy of liberalism 10. A story of [...]

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:09:04 +0000

Andrew, I apologize for my hasty reply to your first comment. I misunderstood what you meant by “orthodoxy”. I agree with Karl that perhaps the terminology is confusing, and we should come up with better ways of talking about historic teachings of the church. Invoking the word “orthodoxy” downloads too much of the spirit of exclusion and heresy hunts and declarations that someone is not really a Christian if they disagree with your personal beliefs on sexuality. Personally, while I agree that sexuality (including homosexuality) is an important topic, I would not at all say that one’s opinions on it are a measure of whether or not someone is truly a Christian (nor even one’s view of “authority” necessarily – it is quite possible to believe in the authority of the Bible, and also that the Bible makes no authoritative statements about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships – you might disagree but that doesn’t mean the person you disagree with doesn’t believe in biblical authority).

By: Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:51:36 +0000

Andrew – I don’t know the details of your spiritual journey, but please don’t project your issues onto everyone in the emerging church. For some of us our theology developed as we matured (not out of rebellion). It would be a step backwards into immaturity to return to certain structures you seem to promote.

And yes, while I want conversation here I do not tolerate cruel and direct insults so I deleted your last line.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:41:15 +0000

It seems that “emergents” are being contradictory in their critique of my earlier comment- they are in fact trying to divorce orthodoxy from orthopraxy. Surely, emergents wouldn’t be so naive to believe that orthopraxy is divorced from orthodoxy. Regardless of one’s admission, practice clarifies our beliefs. Thus, while there are no precise confessions or creeds regarding Christian understanding of sexuality such as there is regarding Christology, there has been an unqualified, un-institutionalized understanding that Christian sexuality is best defined as heterosexual and monogamous. To clarify: no, I do not see homosexuality as an issue of orthodoxy, but I do see the issue of homosexuality in direct correlation to our understanding of orthodoxy and authority.But then again, what do I know, I am just an oppressive white male enslaved to a modern hereneutical agenda?

By the way, I used to be deeply involved in the “emergent” conversation, and am cognizant of its hermeneutical trajectory. Since then, I have matured and have come to understand that theology and hermeneutics are not issues to be pursued in an attitude of rebellion.

Mike, I wholeheartedly disagree with you.I believe you are being entirely naive by basing your understanding of Christian sexuality by appealing to the absence definitive creeds. Not all issues of orthodoxy and orthopraxy have been channeled through councils, creeds, and confessions. For example, are there any councils or confessions regarding the issue of social justice? No, but at the same time, it is a perceived understanding that Christian discipleship involves the pursuit of biblical justice. Not every issue relating to Christian belief and practice has to be in the form of a confession to be perceived as orthodox.

One last comment, for being an atmosphere conducive to “conversation,” the attitudes demonstrated on this post have been far from anything resonant with following in the way of Jesus (or, to use my overly-modern, 1950 evangelical word….”discipleship.”)

(line deleted by blog owner)

Peace.

By: Mike Clawson

Mike Clawson — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:32:23 +0000

Steve – like my wife, I wonder if you have any clue what you’re talking about. Have you even read anything by emergent authors? Gnosticism? If anything, the emerging church is critiquing the neo-gnosticism of contemporary evangelicalism. For instance, NT Wright’s latest book, Surprised by Hope, which challenges the gnostic-like dualism found in a lot of evangelical eschatology. Or, as another example, Brian McLaren’s latest book, Everything Must Change, which recaptures the historic Christian notion that salvation is both global as well as individual, public as well as personal, and that it isn’t just about, again, a gnostic-like insistence that salvation comes solely through “special”, “personal” knowledge of Jesus apart from our connection to the rest of his world.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:45:13 +0000

Julie,
I would turn that around. What I hear from emergent-ism is that meaning (or tradition or Scripture) is what you need and define it to be. Meaning becomes personal and can’t be dictated by orthodoxy. ‘Post-modernism’ implies something new that has superseded that which came before, but it reads like 1st and 2nd century gnosticism. Despite gnosticsm’s re-emergence (what an appropriate word for the discussion), it’s no more valid today that it was 1800 years ago.

By: Julie Clawson

Julie Clawson — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:03:55 +0000

Therefore, there can be no ultimate, overarching meaning of life in a postmodern view.

Steve – it’s naive statements like this that assure me that most of emergent’s critics have no clue what they are talking about.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:04:03 +0000

Andrew,
Great summary of the divide between emergents and ‘orthodox’ Christianity. The emergent church, if it can be called ‘church’ in a historical context, has more in common with the Unitarian Universalist community which seeks to define the divine in a strictly personal mode, i.e., what works for me doesn’t have to work for you. Therefore, there can be no ultimate, overarching meaning of life in a postmodern view. You can bash Chuck Colson all you want about his style, but it doesn’t invalidate his concerns about emergent-ism.

By: melissa

melissa — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:30:47 +0000

It also seems to me that we need to stop thinking about emergent and institutional churches as polar opposites or as mutually exclusive. There are definitely those who are a part of institutional churches who have distinct emerging tendencies. Unless I’m understanding either church faction incorrectly, it seems that there exists a “sliding scale” of emergent/institutional sympathies and self-definition.

By: linda

linda — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:23:49 +0000

colson’s comment about emergents “rejecting the bible” are just irresponsible imo. all it does is sow dissension. he and others continue to characterize postmodernism as relativism which is inaccurate as well. i continue to hope that those in emerging/emergent and those in the institutional church would cease to generalize about each other and lay down their swords. there are healthy–and unhealthly–fellowships in both. we are called to love our brothers and sisters and be peacemakers–not to stir up dissension.