Can I get a little open conversation in here?

Probably the longest blog of mine to date.

As I stumble along through my faith journey, finding myself more and more drawn into some sort of “emergent” thought pattern, I balance everything I find against the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. (Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason) Yep, that is certainly a human way of looking at things; open to interpretation, open to error, and also open to leading by the Holy Spirit.

To say that one is part of the Emergent conversation is indicative of a number of things. One, one is entering into a gray area of belief sets. So many different questions arise over what does “emergent” mean. What is one “emerging” from? What is one “emerging” to? And the absolute worst question is “What are the articles of faith of the Emergent movement?” The “authorities” in what is considered to be the public face of the Emergent movement are extremely hesitant to lay down a checklist of “we believe this” because it’s not about laying out a new orthodoxy, or even correcting an existing orthodoxy. It’s about conversing about what is already orthodox, and embracing it in a 21st century context.

The greater modern Christian community has some concerns when the words “Emergent Church” are uttered, mostly because they believe (or say they do) that people in the emergent conversation are avoiding the Truth. So, what does that mean? Simple. I perceive that those who are most heavily against the conversation are of the opinion that orthodoxy (right-thinking) is already nailed, and that the Truth is already known. Therefore, anyone who questions anything is immediately labeled a heretic.

(For an interesting read, hit Ken Silva’s blog at http://www.apprising.org/. Just a few examples of those who are being labeled heretical……Rick Warren…..Brian McLaren…..T.D. Jakes…..Joel Olsteen…..Dan Kimball…..Tony Jones….The entire Roman Catholic Church….Erwin McManus….Rob Bell….Doug Pagitt….and the list goes on. Sad thing, really, I used to respect Ken Silva, from my activities with Promise Keepers. Unfortunately, I can’t say that I do anymore. HOWEVER, I do read his blog as a counterpoint to other things that I read. So, there is some element of respect that remains.)

I am actively in conversations with people from all different lines of faith…..Nazarene, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Christian (Stone-Campbell, but non-denominational) as well as some that are recognized as “leaders” in the movement that is the Emergent conversation - not claiming affiliation with any particular denomination. And I love my conversations. I cherish my conversations. These are my friends, they are intelligent, they are spiritual, they are religious, and they are journeying on the road of faith just like I am.

Dan Kimball, an author, pastor, and recognized name in Emerging church circles wrote this on his blog in December of last year in response to an open letter sent out by a well known radio personality (who he doesn’t name):
“All the emerging churches I know believe in the inspiration of the Bible, the Trinity, the atonement, the bodily resurrection, and salvation in Jesus alone. You go on their web sites and you quite often see the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed listed. So to say emerging churches don't have doctrines is very incorrect. There may be an isolated few that don't, but the majority do. Put this to the test and go look on some emerging church web sites, and you will easily see why he is wrong with this. In my experience I don't know of any emerging church who does not believe that God has revealed truth for us to know. I don't know of any emerging church who doesn't teach doctrines in their church. The stereotype that most emerging churches do not believe in truth, or that emerging churches don't hold any doctrinal positions is plainly a myth and an urban legend.”
http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2006/12/saddened_by_joh.html

So, earlier, I mentioned that there is a belief that Truth (with a capital T) is already known. Some would say this is absolute truth. I honestly can’t argue with that. However, if you ask Christians what absolute truth is, you will often get different answers, with scripture to back it up. For instance, some believe that the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. Some believe that the sacrament baptism is a means of salvation. Some believe that during the sacrament of the Eucharist, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Some believe that there are two different crisis times in one’s life, one when they recognize their need for Christ and begin on a path to holiness, only to then have a second crisis at which they truly become holy and unable to sin. Some believe you just have to believe in Christ to be saved. Some believe there are other things you need to do as well. Some believe you are justified through faith, others believe it is through works.

On Friday, July 13th, 2007, Tony Jones, the director of Emergent Village (http://www.emergentvillage.com/) was on the Al Mohler radio show. Mohler is a well known Southern Baptist radio show host. I have never listened to his show, and downloaded this one off the internet. Mohler wasn’t even hosting, it was Russell Moore who had the reins. When asked about the “Emergent” movement’s view on orthodoxy, truth, and reformative thought, Jones mentioned that 50 years ago the Southern Baptist convention believed that interracial marriage was sinful, but then on Wednesday, July 11th, Mohler had said on his show that it was now recognized as being “fine” because all people are created equal, etc., etc. Well, Moore went nuts on this one. Jones’ point was that Biblical interpretation and practice evolves over time as the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. He was not condemning the Southern Baptist Convention. He was simply making a point. Unfortunately, he did it in a way that was questionably inflammatory. **GRIN**

So, is there absolute truth? ABSOLUTELY!!! And I don’t just say that to be funny. As Kimball mentions in his post I linked above, most churches that claim to be emergent have articles of faith showing beliefs mostly in the Apostles and Nicean creeds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed respectively.) Even the creation, justification, ratification and context of these well known creeds have subjectively been altered by different groups at different times!!!! But, I think the point still holds true. There is truth that cannot be denied.

I won’t try and get into everything I believe here, simply because I don’t have the time. However, key elements:
- Christ (son of God, existence outside of time – not a created being, fully human, fully divine, died physically, rose again physically, and so on.)
- All mankind are sinners in need of a savior
- Jesus is the only way to God
- Truth is existent throughout God’s creation and should point us to Him. (Yep, science Rocks)
- God gives us grace (unmerited favor) and it is something we have to accept. It is freely given, but must be a willful acceptance on our part.
- Jesus will return
- There will be judgment, and that judgment will lead either to eternal separation (Hell) or eternal communion (Heaven) with God.
- There can be no relativism (what’s true for me is also true for you, and vice-versa)

Okay, I can’t write anymore right now. I’ve already got a headache.

I’ll boil it down…

This is supposed to be a conversation. Both sides need to be open to the other. Both sides need to be able to discuss. What we have now is not a conversation, but a group of people asking questions and giving a viewpoint, and a group of people saying, “You’re wrong”. I see more love and unity coming from the Emergent conversation than I do in the mainstream church. Maybe it’s just me. I want to talk…CONVERSE WITH ME!!!!

[yes, I edited this to correct it....see the comments and you'll understand. BWS 7/18/07]

Brad