Dantuz,

Thanks again for the response. I think that is the first time we have been called a “fundie organization.” Interesting you see us as such.

That is a strong statement to call our waters “enemy.” I would only assume that you deny some of the historic essentials of the Christian faith (salvation by grace, human sinfulness, the resurrection of Christ, or the righteousness of God) in order to see our waters as enemy. If you don’t, I am curious to know why we would be the enemy?

FYI: I would not necessarily put Brian Mclaren in the Hard camp. Maybe the early Brian, but not so much the present Mclaren. My hard camp would include some in the emerging church who are denying essentials of the Christian faith that have historically been found everywhere, of all time, by everyone, as St Augustine would put it. What is called the early regula fide.

You are more than welcome to enter the conversation (or whatever you want to call it) here at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. Our desire is to truly discuss these issues, being sympathetic to the concerns of our culture.

We find our roots in the historic Christian faith in unity in essentials and diversity. in non-essential.

Would you agree? If you are a hard water changer, what so-called “essentials are you ready to say are not really essential?

Blessings!

I would imagine your critique is of a long list of people that feel the water needs to be changed. The most well know are those within the Emergent Conversation like Brian Mclaren but I think there are also many that have been fighting for this change for over a century in the liberal mainline denominations. More recent examples of those are Marcus Borg and Bishop John Shelby Spong. That is a broad spectrum but I think all would consider themselves in your category #4.

Thanks for engaging my comments. I have to admit I stumbled onto this site by accident and didn’t realize how far I had drifted by landing here. I watched a brief video on the home page of “reclaiming the mind” and was excited about what might lie under the covers, but after engaging I realized this was a much more fundamentalist organization. I almost feel like I should apologize for commenting. I didn’t realize I was “in enemy waters”. I use the word “enemy” there in the best possible way and don’t take lightly Jesus’ command to love you.

I do want to say the idea of offering free theological instruction on the internet is a wonderful idea. I agree that the lack of theological education among Christians is a horrible problem. I wish more progressive institutions would follow suite.

Great comments here. Thanks so much. Who are you identifying with the “radicals”? What authors, pastors, and teachers would you think are here along with you?

While I do think my evaluation is correct since most of my information comes through converstaioins, readings, and real personal struggles with the issues, I do understand that there is virtually no way to make absolute categories that all will agree with in regards to emergening and postmodern thought.

Thanks again for a great and well throught out response.

I like so much about your evaluation here. I like that you seem to have chosen option 4. The only problem I have is that you don’t fully understand option 4a (the radical water changers). I think you’ve drawn a line in the sand about what questions with limits to ask and what doctrines are up for debate. Why are you afraid to go there? If your views can’t hold up to questions then is it possible that they hold no truth?

Here are a couple of things you said that misrepresent us (the radical water changers). I can’t speak for all in this camp (the “far left” end) but since this is my view I feel confident I’ll know this view better than you.

1. You say “The radical water changers would have no ties to tradition at all”.

This is a completely wrong perception. I/We value tradition and look to keep any or all ties to it, BUT we are willing to question it and not simply accept it as created by God. Man created the traditions NOT God therefore it needs to be questioned and “purified” (That word is harsh and I only use that it because I don’t want to mix metaphors with your initial post). For example, many may choose to keep all traditions, rituals, etc. but recognize them as man made metaphors for deeper truth and NOT truth itself.

2. You say “The water is purified to the point where all that secure is the fact that God loves all people and will eventually save all somehow (universalism)”.

Again, you’ve misinterpreted the vision of where it will lead. Your critic is very vague and makes no rational argument of how/when/where this happens. Also, you’ve injected the notion that the role of religion is to provide some security of something. Where does this modern notion that the world will calapse without secure and stable guidelines for thought come from? You should expand this because it sounds remarkably like that of fundamentalists that view the Bible and other man made doctrines as divinely created.

Your critique here is off-base because you based it on a false view of where this line of thinking might lead. Then, you rejected it based on that false imagined destination. It is always problematic to try and state the opinion of another person that disagrees with you. You’ve missed the boat here. It is usually best to let the other person (or group) state their own vision. I appreciate your view of your own chosen path, but I disagree with how you