Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up - Part 4 - Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers
OK, I lied. Here is another parenthetical post in my emerging series. The five ways in which one can emerge will be coming soon. However, in my defense, I did not know I was lying at the time I made my original commitment—does that count?
Take heart, this post has a LOT more charts and all emergers love charts, right?

Here is the chart once again. Let me explain further what my thoughts are as to evangelicalism vis a vis emerging.
To be emerging does not necessarily have to do with where you land on certain issues. It has to do with your willingness to fly, seriously entertaining anew important and fundamental issues. Not only do you entertain questions (e.g. Why does God allow bad things? Is inerrancy the center of evangelical faith? Do the various traditions—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant—all have valid contributions to make?) but you have the same questions yourself. In some sense it captures the Protestant reformation principle of reformata et semper reformanda (”reformed and always reforming”) better than other traditions who have reformed and then hardened in their categories of thought and practice.
In the end, as an emerger, you may land your plane in the field of traditional Protestantism on a particular issue, but it is your willingness to take off that is key. Are you willing to discuss issues from a fresh perspective? This is a key emerging question.
For example, I am Calvinist, complementarian, and affirm inerrancy. This does not necessarily disqualify me from being ”emerging” simply because I have landed on these issues. It has more to do with the attitude I have with regard to such and how important these issues are in my doctrinal taxonomy. Am I willing to question my assumptions regarding my stance? I hope. Does this mean that I will change with regards to these issues. Not necessarily. I might even become strengthened in them. But the willingness to listen and change, understanding the questions and difficulties involved is the key, not so much where we land. We go where truth takes us, we do not bring truth to our home.
Here is where I would place myself and Dan Wallace on the chart. Again, Dan and I are both complementarian Calvinists who affirm inerrancy. (NOTE: I did not consult Dan on this one!)

Notice that I see myself as well as Dan as more emerging than Mark Driscoll. Why? It does not have to do with where we land theologically, for we line up very much with Driscoll on key issues. It has more to do with how much focus we place on certain issues. How willing are we to entertain alternative ideas and perspectives? The more willing, the more emerging.
Yet at the same time, I am not comfortable with the label as its associations, at least in my circles, are too closely tied with those who are more Emergent. Plus, I, like Roger Olson, believe that the name Evangelical can be saved. Call me idealistic, traditionalistic, or a bleeding heart, but Evangelicalism is not dead yet. (Maybe emergers can save it?
)
It is important to know that there are many who are not even willing to entertain any questions. They are not willing take off, being settled and having their fortress built with walls of traditional confidence and conviction. Right or wrong is not the issue, but a willingness to legitimize the flight. This is the essence of fundamentalism (in the contemporary sense). When fundamentalism begins to emphasize non-essentials as essential, this is where they depart from traditional orthodox Christianity thereby creating their own form of Christianity. That is why there is a unorthodox form of fundamentalism—legalistic fundamentalists.
In a sense, I think that there are aspects of emerging that represent and revive the best of evangelicalism. Sadly, much of this pioneer confidence that marked 20th century evangelicalism as it rose out of the clutches of deteriorating fundamentalism has been lost. Evangelicalism is in danger of becoming the new fundamentalism and in many ways emergers look more evangelical than evangelicals! Does that make sense?Â
Here, sense everyone likes charts so much, let me give you the concentric circle of importance that I teach in my Introduction to Theology course of The Theology Program. I will modify these so that they represent each group: fundamentalists, evangelicals, emergers, and emergents.

The above is the key for the charts below. Notice, the further to the center, the more important the issue or doctrine. Those that are in the center circle are those which the representative tradition believes are essential for one to believe to be saved. Next is the circle of orthodoxy. This represents those issues or doctrines that the representative tradition believes is essential for one to be orthodox, not necessarily salvation. The outer circles represent a depleting belief in importance and emphasis.

Notice the concentration toward the center. Fundamentalists (at least in the contemporary sense of the word) would place just about everything in the center. “If it is in the Bible, it is absolutely essential, and we are certain that we are right!”

Notice that the Evangelical concentric circle is much more balanced, having a definite place for all issues. The center circle would have less representation.

Notice the change. The center circle has little change, evidencing that non-Emergent emergers do have a definite center. As well, there would be fewer items in the “circle of orthodoxy.” Most issues would be pushed to the outside with the result that those toward the center have more emphasis.

Now you can probably see the resulting difference. Those in the Emergent camp seem unwilling to land their plane anywhere near the center. In fact, the most emphasized and essential point may be that one cannot land near the center!
In the end, I want people to notice the difference between emerging and Emergent. I also want to draw attention to the similarities between evangelicalism and emerging.
Of course, not everyone will agree with or like these charts—they are not Gospel—but understand their intent in giving perspective.
Next, I will give the five ways which people can be emerging.
There is still time to enroll. The Theology Program online Summer semester begins June 3. Enroll today.
Support Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up - Part 4 - Comparing Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Emergers
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 1
- From Fundamentalism to Liberal: Spectrum of Thought in the Western Church (Updated)
- Would the Real Emerging Please Stand Up? Part 2 - What is Orthodoxy?
- Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 3 - An Emerging Definition of “Emerging”

Alden on 19 Feb 2008 at 6:24 pm #
As much as I’ve disputed your past chart, I have to say that I love your “circle of importance” diagrams; this presents a better perspective of emerging and emergent than I’ve seen before. I especially love the line, “Those in the Emergent camp seem unwilling to land their plane anywhere.” That’s the best (and most humorous) definition of Emergent that I’ve seen. I definitely need to bookmark this for future reference.
I’m looking forward to your “five ways one can be emerging” post.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 19 Feb 2008 at 6:34 pm #
To be emerging does not necessarily have to do with where you land on certain issues. It has to do with your willingness to fly, seriously entertaining anew important and fundamental issues. …
In the end, you may land your plane in the field of traditional Protestantism on a particular issue, but it is your willingness to take off that is key. Are you willing to discuss issues from a fresh perspective? This is a key emerging question.
Shrug.
My observation, to use your airplane metaphor, is that Emergers don’t want to land the plane at all. They want to have endless, mid-flight re-fuelings in the sky. That way, they can pridefully say that they’re above it all, above the doctrinal quarreling, above the categorical/classification schemes that are just like yours CMP, above the theological disputes, above definitions that divide (after all, Emergers don’t want to be defined!). Emergers fly the Emerging Airline so they can imperiously peer down upon the silly squabbling below.
Why land? Let’s just re-fuel mid-air and keep asking questions and keep the “conversation” going and keep giving ourselves knowing smiles and nods about how wonderful and great and cool we Emergers are for flying the friendly skies with Emerging Airlines.
Your key insight is that the Emergent Airplane does not want to land at all.
Alden on 19 Feb 2008 at 7:42 pm #
Truth Unites/Divides, To give emergers the benefit of the doubt, perhaps at least some of them (perhaps most) simply realize that “For we know in part…” and “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror,” and are willing to accept that maybe the various commonly accepted evangelical theologies aren’t perfect.
Although, I do sense some self-indulgence at times, as you allude to. But then, we’re probably all self indulgent at times.
Jugulum on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:06 pm #
Michael,
Hmm, more food for thought. I’ll have to let it percolate. I’m not quite content to identify “willingness to take off” as making someone emerging. Something about that doesn’t sit quite right with me…
If you’re emerging, that definitely means you’re willing to take off. But does being willing to take off mean that you’re emerging? (In other words, willingness is a necessary condition, but is it sufficient?)
Is there something more? By that definition, every single student of Christianity–every believer who first takes up intellectual responsibility, and tries to figure out whether they should be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Sedevecantist Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, Dispensational, Supralapsarian, or Other–would be “emerging”. Doesn’t that destroy the usefulness/distinctiveness of the term?
What you’ve done is define “emerging” as “open-minded”.
I know that emergers are seeking to be open-minded, but is that enough to say, “This is what the movement means”?
Hmm, here’s a thought. I’ll throw it out there, and see if it sticks. Suppose I’m a student, trying to figure things out. If I’m not emerging, I would go off by myself and study, talk to people on both sides, and try to come to a conclusion. If I am emerging, I might do the same, but would also associate myself with other people who are going through the same journey–plant a church together, create a website (maybe call it “theblob.com”?), start an organization that holds conferences about our exploration of potentialities, etc. (Or I might just do the associating, and not worry so much about the study and coming to a conclusion.)
Yes? No?
C Michael Patton on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:15 pm #
Jug, great comment and question.
“If you’re emerging, that definitely means you’re willing to take off. But does being willing to take off mean that you’re emerging? (In other words, such willingness is a necessary condition to be emerging, but is it sufficient?)”
At this point what I really think it comes down to is whether you are comfortable with the label! Check back in a few years and the “evangelical-emerging” idea (which is simply semper reformanda taken seriously) may be gone, being overshadowed by Emergent. Who knows? But I think it accurately catches the general ethos of what it means to emerge, even if you don’t call yourself such.
C Michael Patton on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:16 pm #
Truth, typical comment that leaves me continually wondering why you spend so much time landing on this blog commenting
Truth Unites... and Divides on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:21 pm #
Alden writes: “To give emergers the benefit of the doubt, perhaps at least some of them (perhaps most) simply realize that “For we know in part…†and “we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror,†and are willing to accept that maybe the various commonly accepted evangelical theologies aren’t perfect.”
If Emergers want the benefit of the doubt, it would be great if they give the benefit of the doubt themselves to others who are not as doubting and as uncertain as they are.
Emergers seem to be prideful in their uncertainty. In fact, I often want to ask: “Are you uncertain that you should be so uncertain? Or rephrased: Are you certain that you should be so uncertain?”
Jesus died on the Cross. Wasn’t uncertain, was He? Many, if not all of the disciples died terrible deaths. They weren’t uncertain, were they? Many early Christians were impaled upon stakes, fed to the lions, and tortured. They weren’t uncertain, were they? Athanasius stood nearly alone against the Arian heresy. He was exiled. He wasn’t irenic. He wasn’t uncertain either, was he? And the history of the Church shows many persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith dying for the certainty of their doctrinal beliefs. These martyrs weren’t uncertain, were they?
There are many persecuted Christians all over the world in Third World Countries. They are beaten, tortured, mocked, scorned, ostracized, and impoverished for believing in Jesus and Biblical Truth. They aren’t uncertain, are they, as they suffer for His Glory?
Now we have the the wonderful Emergent way of life expressing its postmodern ethos. Why lose your life over something you’re uncertain about? Why Stand Firm for the (Uncertain) Faith once delivered to All the Saints?
If the Emergers want to pursue their way, at least let them pursue their path with full knowledge. Let them not claim ignorance.
kolabok21 on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:22 pm #
Being a monk becomes very simple now. You’ve been looking into those Larkin books again:)
Really the charts do help visualize the concept.
C Michael Patton on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:23 pm #
lol Kolabok
C Michael Patton on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:24 pm #
Truth, my whole series on not broadbrushing emergers has not made a dent, has it? What emergers have you read?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 19 Feb 2008 at 8:30 pm #
CMP, iron sharpens iron.
Besides, isn’t one of the major learning points of this series on the Emergers to have “conversations” and to ask “questions” of each other? Plus, we want diversity, plurality, tolerance, and inclusiveness for various points of view, right?
Jugulum on 19 Feb 2008 at 9:00 pm #
CMP said,
“At this point what I really think it comes down to is whether you are comfortable with the label!”
Hmm, you may be right. Try this on for size: “1.) If you’re genuinely willing to seriously entertain anew important and fundamental issues (or if you’re trying to be willing), and if you’re comfortable with the label, then you can probably find a group of other self-professed emergers with whom you’re comfortable.”
That does seem like a good start–that is, a good least-common-denominator for the term. (And a good launching point for discussing both the beneficial tendencies and the rather problematic tendencies among self-professed emergers.) And yet… There’s something more, even at the core of the ethos… OK, try this, too:
“2.) A self-professed emerger is almost invariably going to see such willingness as something new–at least, new in the modern church.”
Yes? No?
Isn’t it pretty much implied in the term? Or something close to it, even if it could be refined a bit?
JoanieD on 19 Feb 2008 at 10:36 pm #
Very cool charts, Michael. It looks like you are coming around to thinking there may be some truth coming from the folks who think you are an emerger, though you don’t like the label. I haven’t read any Pagitt, Jones, and Burke’s writings, but from what I have read of Kimball and MacKnight, I think I am comfortable with them but may not be comfortable with Pagitt, Jones, and Burke, so I may be an Emerger but NOT Emergent.
Where would McManus land on the chart, do you think? I watched/listened to his talk (sermon?) at http://www.mosaic.org/podcast/ called “Intersections: 05 The Billboard, Coming Soon to Judge the World” and was impressed. I don’t think he said anything there that an Evangelist would find fault with, but then, I don’t listen to everything a Christian says in such a close way that I can pick out every bit of non-conforming doctrine. But hey, that’s just me.
Joanie D.
Jason J on 19 Feb 2008 at 11:28 pm #
In the words of Pilate, “What is truth?”
In the words of Christ, I AM the truth.
Of course the Pharisees thought Jesus to be an arrogant blasphemer for His certainty.
The lines that are drawn in Christianity are quite clear to me, but that must be what puts me in the same camp as someone like John MacArthur (fundamentalist/evangelical).
I’ve had to listen to people my entire life explain to me about how there is not really black and white, simply shades of grey. They would explain to me that there are no absolutes in life. Oddly enough they seem ABSOLUTELY sure that absolutes did not exist. Interesting logic.
Most of the time this type comment would come from people who didn’t have a foundation to stand on. They were “blown around by every wind of doctrine”; many of them were non-Christian. I would expect this type of thinking from the secular community but never would I have expected to see this in the church.
Make no mistake about it, the way this generation handles this issue of “emerging/emergent” will define our place in church history. How will we, the church, leave things for future generations? Will we leave them on solid ground or shifting sands?
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:51 am #
Jason,
I’m curious, how would you articulate the role of every believer’s intellectual (and biblical) responsibility to figure out whether they should be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Sedevecantist Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, etc.?
Do you see a difference between that process–a process of humble, prayerful, biblical examination of the fundamental elements of Christianity–and Michael’s discussion of the emerging willingness to seriously entertain anew important and fundamental issues? If so, how would you articulate it?
Is your objection not to the willingness to take off and fly, but to some people’s lack of interest in landing somewhere solid?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 1:56 am #
Jugulum makes some very keen observations:
o I’m not quite content to identify “willingness to take off†as making someone emerging. Something about that doesn’t sit quite right with me…
o But does being willing to take off mean that you’re emerging?
o What you’ve done is define “emerging†as “open-mindedâ€.
o I know that emergers are seeking to be open-minded, but is that enough to say, “This is what the movement means�
Though perhaps not intended, Jugulum’s comments are a very respectful yet serious sledgehammer blow to the foundations of the definitional and visual schema that CMP has created to try and nuance and differentiate fundamentalists, evanglicals, and emergers from each other.
I do agree with Jugulum’s observations that CMP’s “willingness to take off” is just code for “open-mindedness” which in its positive sense should be descriptive of all Christians (or all people for that matter.) That being the case, it defeats the exercise and purpose of CMP’s taxonomic classification.
As a respectful suggestion I propose a different metric or criteria for CMP’s taxonomy of Emergers. This alternate metric would still allow CMP to keep his visual graphics.
This proposed metric for Emergers is the obfuscation of biblical truth/doctrine or the obscuring of biblical truth/doctrine or the assertion of epistemic uncertainty with regards to biblical truth/doctrine.
So if one were to look at CMP’s concentric circles of scatter diagrams for the Emerging and Emergent, we see that they simply differ in DEGREE as to the amount of obfuscation they create with respect to historic orthodox Christian doctrines. As well as the number of historic orthodox doctrines that they will obfuscate.
A poster on a different thread stated succinctly and insightfully: “Since when isn’t obfuscation another form of denial?”
So instead of saying that Emergers differ to the degree that they are “willing to take off”, I think it’s much more helpful to say that Emergers differ to the degree that they are willing to obfuscate on the number of historic Christian doctrines extant.
P.S. And I believe that John MacArthur’s book, “Truth War”, was simply a general polemic against the current growing obfuscation (denial) of historic biblical truth/doctrines that is being done by anyone, but moreso by the liberal mainline theologians, the emerging theologians, and the emergent theologians.
Que Se Pongan de Pie los Emergentes… « sujetosalaRoca on 20 Feb 2008 at 5:16 am #
[...] Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 4. Comparing Fundamentslists, Evangelicals, and Emerger… [...]
JoanieD on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:11 am #
TU&D…you said, “This proposed metric for Emergers is the obfuscation of biblical truth/doctrine or the obscuring of biblical truth/doctrine or the assertion of epistemic uncertainty with regards to biblical truth/doctrine.” I am wondering why it is so concerning to you if people who are emerging believe all the “core” beliefs of Christianity but are willing to live with various understandings about the non-esstentials of what it means to be Christian. I know Michael doesn’t like the label “emerging” and neither do I, but maybe for slightly different reasons. I don’t care so much that I may get lumped in with people that other people don’t like or don’t trust or even that people may misunderstand what I truly believe, but I just think “emerging” is a weird word to describe these people. Unless a person spends time on this and some other blogs, the word “emerging” would mean nothing to them in terms of Christianity. From what I have read or heard about some of these emerging folks (not all of them) a better term may be “Compassionate Christian.” I know, I know, that would describe MANY Christians. I am just saying that it describes these people a lot better than the ambiguous “emerging” label.
Joanie D.
JohnT3 on 20 Feb 2008 at 11:56 am #
Truth
You raise good points, i don’t agree with some of them, but you articulate them well. And take this from someone who sees a lot of himslef in your responses. You mostly (not all the time but mostly) makes statements and points that tend not to start discussion but come across as the end of the discussion.
I am an ardent believer in defending the truth and not to compromise it. I constantly struggle with trying to be gracious with my replies and questions.
CMP
It is my impression that the reason why MacArthur and others broadbrush is the same reason why people have a bad taste in their mouths when you say Evangelical. A very vocal minority that really doesn’t represent everyone else is doing all the talking and publishing.
What needs to happen is that those who claim the title Emerging (And there is nothing wrng with the title or word) need to get to gether and centralize or solidify what it means to be emerging and then get rid of all the charlatons and wolves in sheeps clothing so unity previals.
Then the groups can sit down and discuss the points and the broadbrushing will stop or the painting will become clearer. That way it can be determined if the picture is a masterpiece, comic strip or a doodle.
JohnT3
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:02 pm #
cmp–
admit it. there is no such flesh-and-blood person as truth unites…and divides. so, either:
tu…ad is a woman who wants to comment as a ‘teacher,’ but doesn’t want to get caught in the ephesians 5 dilemma; or
tu…ad is a sock puppet, cmp’s alter ego, designed to make us all eagerly read the next installment of whatever topic you’ve chosen.
either way, tu…ad, don’t ever stop!! when you go out to eat, do you ask for an orthodoxy-for-one near the window?
peace–
scott
p.s. cmp, i’m agnostic about a lot of things, and i relish ‘belonging;’ sometimes my agnosticism leaves me lonesomely thinking i’m the only sane one in the room. meeting the writings of spencer burke at theooze.com has been very interesting, and comforting.
this series is one of your very best. superb postmodern thinking, if i may say so.
scott
Jason Pratt on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:08 pm #
Interesting schemas.
I tend to agree with the dot-spreads per classification, I guess. But then I notice that I don’t fit into any of the classifications.
I would have a very high concentration of dots in the ‘essential for orthodoxy’ circle; maybe double that total of number of dots spread evenly through the three outer circles; and ZERO DOTS in the very center.
(One of the dots in my ‘essential for orthodoxy’ circle would be ‘believe X to be saved == gnostic heresy’. {s})
However, I’m an odd duck out, so my existence doesn’t mess up the generalization, I think.
How would other commenters dot the circles?
JRP
Jason J on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:36 pm #
Jugulum,
The thing I find most objectionalbe is the disregard for those things which are solid in the Christian faith. I do not regard everything to be equally solid. The essentials of the Christian faith are what makes one person Catholic, another Adventist, and still another cultic. What we say about God, Jesus, and the bible become central in this type of discussion if truth is the actual outcome we are looking for. There should be logical link from the foundations of our faith into the issues that are labeled “secondary issues”. The problems arise when we attempt to re-lay the foundation or when we begin to turn foundationals into “secondary issues”.
But who am I to question anything if there isn’t an objective truth and standard by which to measure all supposed truths against? But if truth exists I have not only the right, but the obligation to defend that truth. A Christian must seek the truth and ask the questions. The answer you come to however can not be “I don’t know” or “who can know such things” on the central doctrines of our faith.
The crux of the concern for me is the slippery slope we are on. Today truth is becoming relative in the chruch which is simply reflecting our culture. Will we continue to slide to the point where truth is no longer relevant?
Many in the church are flying and WANT to land on solid ground where many Spirit filled believers have landed before them and proven that the ground is, in fact, solid. However, certainty is out of vogue. Today’s virtue is uncertainty, a psuedo-humility. This is allowing false doctrines to spring up unchecked (e.g. Osteen’s prosperity gospel). The emerging/emergent mind set is what is allowing this to happen. It’s roots are in secular liberalism which is now watering down the church and the truth of the Gospel. They don’t want to be labeled so that they don’t have to be challenged for what they believe.
So as not to build a straw man argument here I’m considering the likes of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell with these comments.
In the words of an un-named theologian: “We are to keep a few things in tension in our faith, but certainly not all things. Probably not even most things.”
Jason J on 20 Feb 2008 at 12:47 pm #
Wouldn’t the term “Compassionate Christian” naturally imply that those Christians, who don’t think the same, are lacking compassion?
—Warning!! GENERAL observation to follow!! Warning!!—
It never ceases to amaze me how even when people claim to not be looking down there nose at others they really are.
This statment is observational only and not in any way intended to be confrontational with anyone personally.
The fine print: (paid for by the irenics for peace commission)
I’m Jason J and I approve this message, lol.
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 2:32 pm #
Jason,
Above, I said that Michael’s definition (involving “willingness to take off”) is a good launching point for discussing both the beneficial tendencies and the rather problematic tendencies among self-professed emergers.
I’d say you did a good job of identifying the problematic tendencies.
TUaD,
I’d say you’re also doing a good job of discussing the problematic tendencies. And as I said above, I’m not sure CMP has quite enumerated the identifying traits of the emerging crowd. But I’m also not convinced your definition (involving willingness to obfuscate, obscure, or speak from resolute epistemic uncertainty) really describes the whole of the emerging crowd. I think his “willingness to take off” is closer.
A couple reasons:
1.) “Willingness to take off” may be grounded in (1) the kind of obfuscation & resolute uncertainty you’re talking about. That’s the dangerous post-modernism, and it’s a lot like hard agnosticism (”You can’t know”.) But it may also simply come from (2) the fact of one’s own personal uncertainty. It may come from a soft agnosticism (”I don’t know”). And such a person may either be actively trying to attain more confidence & certainty, or they may be comfortable in their lack of certainty. Or it may come from (3) a genuinely humble desire to maintain a spirit in which you will be teachable, and correctable. Semper reformanda.
As I said above, that’s basically just describing open-mindedness. And emergers don’t have a corner on open-mindedness. As Michael said, some of what they’re doing is representing the best of evangelicalism–good things that evangelicals in general may also possess. BUT, that leads to my second point.
2.) As Michael said, you’re emerging if you’re comfortable with the label.
It sounds like you’re claiming that all self-professed emergers fall prey to the kind of errors you’re describing. However widespread those errors may be, I’m just not convinced that they truly define the whole crowd.
How many self-professed emergers are there, who use that label simply because they associate it with the kind of good open-mindedness we’re talking about?
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 3:05 pm #
Who said that any doctrine was not fundamentally important to salvation?
Is Christ divided, Paul asked? No one has anything except that which he has received. We can know in part, we can see in a glass darkly. What we see is one hundred percent truth, or we don’t see it, at all. It is not necessary to know everything to know absolutely what we do know. And what we can see, though mirky, is still what is seen.
There is no such thing as non-fundamentals. All doctrine speaks of Christ. The fact that you do not know it as truth, is your blindness, not another’s and you should own it. The point of Paul’s arguments in Corinthians is precisely that you should not go beyond what is written. If you do no know what is written, don’t say you do. Do not speculate, do not contrive, humble yourself and admit your ignorance, was Paul’s teaching to Timothy.
This is the source, Paul said, of divisions, that we claim as truth things which have not been revealed and claim for ourselves some special revelation that is not given to all. Corinthians interestingly calls for the spirit of the prophets to be subject to the prophets. There is no room for private interpretation in Christ. Christ is not divided. No doctrine is to be understood outside of soteriology, period. If it is not about him, it is not truth, for he is the summation of all Truth, for it is he who we have observed full of grace and truth who said, “I am the Way , the Truth and the Life.” If it does not find its beginning and its end in him, it is not the way, it is not the truth, it is not the life; instead, it kills, steals and destroys; it is death, beginning to end.
It is this that really upsets the emergent mind. They want to argue that it is their opion and as such, as valid as any other, but Paul says that is sin; to argue that you have not received, that is, to say that it is not revelation, but your own reasoning, is to make yourself different than all others, to lord yourself over them. To paraphrase: “What makes you different? By doing so you exalt one over against the other.” But, divisionalism, being different, is what the emergents are all about, isn’t it?
Are the teachings on marriage not the same as the revelation of Christ? If they are not, then Paul is not to be trusted, for in yoking, Paul speaks of our salvation. They are one. That we might not fully understand, or are not able to articulate how they are, do not make them any less then what they are. Do you know the body of Christ, that is, his church, his bride? How can ecclessiology not be part of Christ then. And, if of Christ then of his sacrifice. And if that, then of salvation. If you do not understand this it is because you have not learned the elementary teachings of Christ. He himself said, that if you keep his word then you are his disciples. Yet, the emergent wants to divide truth from truth, making some truths fundamental, and others, a matter of liberty. Neither Christ nor any of the writers of the Scripture divvy the Word up. In fact, it is all known as the Word, singular, indivisible. From Genesis to Revelation it is all the revelation of Jesus Christ, and, all necessary for salvation, with stiff warning and penalties for any subtraction or addition.
Name the doctrine, and at the point that it undermines the doctrine of Christ, you will find it in error. Like it or not, whether endings, or beginnings, all is fundamental to the faith.
That is what all emergents, in every generation, from Adam on down, have rejected. Like hyper-hormoned pubescent teens, they actually think that they are a new phenomenon, blinded as they are by their own brilliance; their own sacrifice being better than that which God has appointed.
How would I dot the diagram. Well, first it would be one circle. And I would put the label “Christ” in the center, and all of us dots on the outside looking on in amazement.
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 3:06 pm #
P.S. I should clarify (3). I meant that “willingness to take off” might not be grounded in any kind of uncertainty–not resolute permanent uncertainty, and not present personal uncertainty. Rather, someone who has come to firm, confident conclusion, might still regard themselves as “willing to take off” in the sense of “semper reformanda”, always reforming, always remaining teachable and correctable.
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 3:27 pm #
“hyper-hormoned pubescent teens?”
oh, my.
TT–
your monolithic understanding of ‘the word’ is consistent–for you. it appears you equate ‘unity’ with ‘uniformity.’ if everyone were like you, and had reached the same conclusions as you regarding orthodoxy and ‘the word,’ the world would be a better place. more secure. more orderly. more holy. more–uniform.
but it isn’t, and it never will be.
jesus, by the way, is ‘the word.’ not the text. jesus. the text is one of the ways we experience ‘the word.’
i know, it seems open-minded and, well, hyper-hormoned and pubescent.
jesus is ‘the word.’
peace–
scott
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 3:57 pm #
Well, then, could you explain how you know Jesus is the word, without appealing to the text? And, can you tell me how you experience Jesus, ‘the word’ and it not be revealed by the text?
I do not claim by the way that Jesus is the text, he is the Word. However, the truth that it claims for it self is that it is the self Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Of course your reaction can be expected. The thing that I did not claim either, was that I held all knowledge. I claimed that whatever knowledge we have is revealed, not reasoned, and it is in concert with the text. I said what Paul said, Christ is not divided. Christ said of himself, that he was not divided. What we have, what I have, what you have, is what is revealed. Received is the word Paul used. If it is revealed, to us by another, and it means what he says it means. Therefore, it means the same to you as it means to me, or it means nothing. We might both be wrong in what we believe it to mean, you might be right and I might be wrong, but neither of us can claim to both be right and one or both of us disagree with what the text reveals. If we agree that we do not know, then Paul’s teaching is that we should not go beyond the text and say that we do. There in lies the fundamental error. It is not in knowing what the text says, it is in speculation. If we know what the text says then we have a solid foundation, which Paul says is the one layed by Christ which no othe can lay. If we build upon it with corruptable things and not according to the patter layed which is incoruptable, then we will suffer loss, for it will not stand up under the scrutiny of the day that it is subject to the fires of purification.
It is pretty simple.
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:02 pm #
scott,
The phrase “Word of God” can refer to anything communicated by God. In the text of Scripture, it’s used for both oral and written communication, and possibly for prophetic spirit. And then it was applied to Jesus, in a deep & rich way–he is the ultimate revelation of God. That use doesn’t mean it’s wrong to refer to the Bible as the Word of God.
Correcting Thomas for using “Word of God” that way–or if you didn’t mean to correct, then I’ll say, “speaking as though you think he needs to hear it”–is rather pedantic.
Emerging, Emergent, and Evangelicalism Comparison Chart « Joy in the Journey on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:07 pm #
[...] relate to orthodox Christianity and contemporary evangelicalism. The name of the series is “Will The Real Emerger Please Stand Up?” I haven’t been able to read all of his posts yet, but what I have seen [...]
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:11 pm #
tt–
it’s in the stories.
the stories are about other’s experience of jesus, of god.
your knowledge of the stories may be the texts, but others throughout history, and now, experience god without these texts. many of the hebrew texts weren’t written until 10th c. b.c.e. or so, so prior to that, god was made known in the oral stories.
jesus is, sacramentally, made known in ‘the breaking of the bread.’ that requires no text. it just takes the story of his death and resurrection, and some bread, and some wine.
paul preached to thousands, who became believers, with no text. he used the stories he knew of jesus. jesus was made known in his preaching– and not preaching from a ‘new testament’ text.
don’t get me wrong. the text (hebrew and christian scripture) is a fabulous way to know jesus. it may be the best way to know jesus. but it’s not the only way.
to deify the text, is to make it something it isn’t–’the word.’ it subordinates jesus to the scripture.
to extract, extrapolate, argue, and explain one’s way to orthodox creeds and lists of beliefs, and then to treat them as ‘the word,’ is to subordinate jesus to the orthodoxy.
in my opinion, you deify your texts and creeds. and in my opinion, the body of christ, ‘the word,’ is poorer for it.
jugulum–
good to hear from you again.
pedantic? maybe. just as it’s pedantic to over and over and over again remind everyone of the evils of not keeping a narrow path of orthodoxy (usually orthodoxy as understood by the author of the comment). it is the monolithic, narrow approach to experiencing jesus i’m responding to. it’s deciding that ‘the word’ can only be met in the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text, that i’m responding to. pedantic? maybe. but just as you feel great sorrow when someone doesn’t agree to the importance of your orthodoxy, i feel great sorrow when you put god in a ‘dox.’ it means you will not see value in the jesus-experience of another. and as i said to tt: in my opinion, the body of christ, ‘the word,’ is poorer for it.
peace–
scott
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:20 pm #
Well then, Scott, could you explain how you know Jesus is ‘the word’, without appealing to the text? And, can you tell me how you experience Jesus, ’the word’ and it not be revealed by the text?
I do not claim by the way that Jesus is the text, he is the Word. However, the truth that it claims for itself is that it is the self Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Of course your reaction can be expected. The thing that I did not claim either, was that I held all knowledge. I claimed that whatever knowledge we have is revealed, not reasoned, and it is in concert with the text. I said what Paul said, Christ is not divided. Christ said of himself, that he was not divided. What we have, what I have, what you have, is what is revealed. Received is the word Paul used. If it is revealed to us by another, it means what he says it means. Therefore, it means the same to you as it means to me, or it means nothing. We might both be wrong in what we believe it to mean, you might be right and I might be wrong, but neither of us can claim to both be right and one or both of us disagree with what the text reveals. If we agree that we do not know, then Paul’s teaching is that we should not go beyond the text and say that we do. There in lies the fundamental error. It is not in knowing what the text says, it is in speculation. If we know what the text says then we have a solid foundation, which Paul says is the one layed by Christ which no other can lay. If we build upon it with corruptable things and not according to the pattern layed which is incoruptable, then we will suffer loss, for it will not stand up under the scrutiny of the day that it is subjected to the fires of purification.
It is pretty simple.
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:36 pm #
tt–
if it were ‘pretty simple,’ there wouldn’t be 2000 christian denominations, each claiming that their ‘truth’ was…pretty simple.
scott
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:37 pm #
scott,
Whatever the merits (or demerits) of your objection (about monolithic approaches) may be, my point was that your correction–”jesus, by the way, is ‘the word.’ not the text.” was not accurate. It was just something irrelevant that you tacked on to your actual objection. “The word” can and does apply to both Jesus and to the text inspired by the Spirit to tell us about Jesus. Trying to correcting someone on it is a substanceless way to converse, distracting from any substance in what you actually want to say.
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:39 pm #
jugulum–
actually, it is the substance of what i wanted to say.
i can’t ‘correct’ someone, substanceless, pedantic, or not. all i can do is express my opinion, argue for it as i’m able, and see if it holds any value.
ain’t no ‘correcting’ being done here.
peace–
scott
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:40 pm #
Scott,
So to deify the text is wrong, but to deify the oral tradition and the participatory mass is not…
So, text is written, but text is not oral, or symbolic…
By the way, what source do you have for there not being a written tradition before certain date? An argument from silence is no argument…
Of, course the spoken word came first, ‘In the beginning God said…
Interesting thing though, what he said orally, and what was demonstrated physically was inscripted…
But, after all it is only your opinion, and worthless…
Just as my opinions are…
Then again faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God…
If there is some other way as you said, tell us…
It would then be revealed, and text…
Unless you feel that your private revelation would not help us less spiritual non-gnostics…
But, then that would not be the love of the Scripture which say that you are to share with your neighbor for mutual edification…
Scott…
Speak to us the greater revelation, so that we do not envy you…
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:45 pm #
scott,
No, it is the monolithic, narrow approach to experiencing jesus you’re responding to. it’s deciding that ‘the word’ can only be met in the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text, that you’re responding to.
You’re trying to cram that into a linguistically incorrect statement about what the phrase “word of God” can refer to.
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:46 pm #
tt–
i’m touched that you envy me.
‘text’ is written, that’s the definition of ‘text.’
i never said anything about deifying oral tradition or sacraments. how’d you come to that?
‘faith comes by hearing ‘the word’ of god’ is my point exactly!!
what’s a ‘non-gnostic?’
seriously, tt, what is your experience of jesus like? it is always in the text? is it always rooted in something from the text? what has your most intense experience of god been like?
scott
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:48 pm #
Pretty simple, it is the thousands of divisions that make it complicated.
Let’s see, you are saying that you have a way to know Christ that is not revealed by Scripture and then complain that it is others who make it complicated, when it is you who would rather not stick to the text?
O’boy!
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 4:55 pm #
Scott said- “what has your most intense experience of god been like?”
I love Him because he first loved me. Can’t get any more intense than that. How bout you, gonna tell us how you know him outside the text without appealing to the text?
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 5:00 pm #
tt–
i didn’t complain that it is others who make it complicated; you’ve jumped to a conclusion on my behalf, that is not my own.
quite the contrary; it is complicated, with no complaint from me. it’s just the way it is, and no amount of narrowing and streamlining in belief systems will simplify it in any way that makes the body of christ (you and me) function wholely.
and when did you hear me say i’d rather not stick to the text? another conclusion on my behalf.
and when did you hear me say that i have a way to know christ that is not revelaed by scripture? that’s not what i said at all; you’ve jumped one more time to a conclusion on my behalf that’s not my own.
but i see you’d rather play uproar, now, by you ‘envy’ post.
pity.
seriously, what have your most intense experiences of god been like?
peace–
scott
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 5:01 pm #
tt–
what was your experience like of him loving you? many people never experience that.
scott
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 6:42 pm #
jugulum–
here’s what the online dictionary says about ‘word of god:’
1. a manifestation of the mind and will of God
2. the sacred writings of the Christian religions; “he went to carry the Word to the heathen” [syn: Bible]
3. the message of the Gospel of Christ
i would not argue with your understanding of ‘word of god’ as hebrew and christian texts. you are correct, it is one of the understandings of ‘the word.’ in my hyperbole, i didn’t acknowledge this as so–but it is. (oddly enough, the example cited in the definition 2 need not apply to the text, but rather to ‘the word’– to jesus.)
but i do not agree that the two meanings are congruent. the-word-as-jesus and the-word-as-text are constantly conflated to mean the same thing, and they don’t.
when tt ranted at me a few posts back, he said, ‘then faith comes again by hearing and hear by the word of god.’ i understood him to be saying that that scripture passage was talking about the text. in other words, i feel his ‘default’ is that ‘the word’ means the text. that’s the thinking that i think deifies the text over and above jesus.
i have had four direct experiences of god in my life. none of them involved the text, although i could allude and perhaps elucidate each of them by using scripture passages. my point is, these faith texts are about other people’s experience of god, and about their telling it to others as best they can. it is the experiences of god that come first, not the text.
i would also say that all four of my experiences are not elucidated or alluded to by prescriptive scripture passages, but rather by descriptive scripture passages. and none of them have much to do with salvation.
i may be way off base here, by speaking on behalf of emerging/emergents, but i think many emerging/emergent individuals want, first and foremost, to experience god. orthodoxies are most often counter productive in this regard; most people don’t ‘believe’ many of the dogmas. if they don’t believe, they don’t believe. they can profess belief, in order to be accepted by the community, but that’s not heartfelt belief. to penalize or marginalize or demonize for lack of belief is to (sinfully, in my opinion) expect something that cannot happen outside of experiencing god. to profess belief in a dogma one does not believe in, is frankly dishonest.
my non-stop position, which i’m just not making clear, is if you want emerging/emergents or non-believers to see value in your paradigm, they need to experience god. and they are more likely to experience god in the telling of the descriptive stories, than in the prescriptive dogmas, creeds, orthodox lists, or laws.
tt, you said your experience of god is that he loved you, and you loved him right back. the telling of that story, with or without scripture, will do more to share an experience of god with others than any orthodox list, or any argued conclusion about scripture.
none of my four experiences of god concern salvation. jugulum, you and i have talked about this before. it may be for many emerging/emergents, that the experience of god-in-salvation is not of any value to them. if your only understanding of god’s movement in our lives is through salvation, you may not connect.
you can disparage these folk for not believing as you do. or you can share your experience of god with them, salvific if that’s what it is, something else if it’s something else. and then you meet them where they are, and then teach, using the text.
but share the stories, your own and those in the text, first.
please.
tt, jugulum, it is a great pleasure to think out loud with you.
peace–
scott
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 6:56 pm #
Dear JoanieD,
Do you want me to interact with you? I’m unsure as to whether you’re a fragile sort of person, so I hesitate to respond.
John T3,
Much thanks for your comments.
Jason J.,
Quite excellent posts in #22 and #23. Commend them to all.
Jugulum,
I appreciate your thoughtful observations. I hear ya’, yet I align myself with John MacArthur and other observers of the Emergent Movement who agree that one of the key defining characteristics of the movement is to obfuscate, obscure, and create uncertainty and doubt regarding many historic Christian doctrines that are Bible-based.
Thomas Twitchell,
I’m glad you showed up. You’re a Strong Tower of Faith.
——–
Pastor Dan Phillips wrote the following which runs counter to a central proposition of the postmodern/emergent movement:
The solution, then, is never to know less truth.
The solution is always to know more truth — and to believe the truth we know.
The postmodern/emergent answer seems to be the diametric opposite:
The emergent solution, then, is to know less truth.
The emergent solution is always to know less truth - and to be uncertain about the truth we hold for the time being.
P.S. Let me add the necessary qualifier that NOT all emergents think this way.
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:16 pm #
Scott,
I think you’re basically correct that Thomas was assuming “word of God” means “Bible” in the sentence, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”. That’s not because he’s conflating anything; it’s because that sentence is an allusion to this passage from Romans:
“How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” (Rom. 10:14-17)
Paul is talking about the necessity of preaching–from apostles, from evangelists, from anyone speaking the gospel. For that reason, in that context, in that verse, “word” is referring to revelation about Jesus, not to Jesus himself.
There was no conflation. No deification. Just context, pretty strongly indicating that in Rom. 10:17 it means “words about Christ”.
Note: I said “basically correct”. I doubt Thomas would say that Rom. 10:17 is referring to the Bible specifically–it’s obviously includes oral preaching. (I would say that “word of Christ” there means “any true proclamation of the gospel”.) But he was saying that in modern times, the only sure, inspired source for revelation about Christ is the written words of the apostles and prophets.
You said, “the-word-as-jesus and the-word-as-text are constantly conflated to mean the same thing, and they don’t.”
If I see it happening, I’d be happy to join you in correcting such a bizarre error. But I strongly–strongly–doubt that you have any real justification for believing that people are “constantly conflating” them.
I see “bibliolatry” thrown around as a handy catch-all accusation against theological conservatives who are stressing the importance of the text. (And I’ve heard of some weird fringe groups that might really engage in bibliolatry.) But when you say it’s “constantly” happening, you’re implying that it happens in the broad evangelical community–that people stressing the importance of the text so much that they deify it. And that’s a claim that requires you to back it up pretty strongly, if you want to avoid caricature. (Same thing if you want to apply it to Thomas in particular. You started down that road after his message #25, and I don’t see anything there to justify your perception. I don’t agree with him that “There is no such thing as non-fundamentals”, but that doesn’t mean he’s confusing word-as-Christ and word-as-text.)
JoanieD on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:26 pm #
TU&D, you are welcome to “interact” with me. I can take it. But I do think from reading your other responses to people, I pretty much understand how you would respond to me. You are concerned that these people called emerging or emergent are spreading false doctrines and misleading people.
And again…in case anyone misinterprets…I am not saying emergers are MORE compassionate than other Christians. I am just saying that a term like Compassionate Christian may describe what they are attempting to be better than “emerging.” Emerging, emerger, emergent…it’s just too weird-sounding to me.
Sometimes, for me personally, I am not sure that “arguing” about the meaning of passages in the Bible is productive. I think for people with certain personalities it can actually be fun. But for me, it gets to seem burdensome and makes me just want to go away for a while alone. Or go off and pray. Or go eat some ice cream. Or watch “Survivor.” Something.
Besides, I am never so sure of myself that I really WANT to make sure my “opinion” gets to be the “accepted” one. I am one of those that TU&D says is “uncertain.” But I don’t glory in my uncertainty. There is no glory in being uncertain. I am certain of a few things: God exists; Jesus was/is God incarnate; Jesus still communicates with us by various means; God loves all of us and WANTS to save all of us from evil. “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.”
Joanie D.
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:33 pm #
TUaD,
Thanks. I at least agree that such a tendency is one of the broadly-present pitfalls of the movement. If we meet someone who considers themselves emerging, that would be a problem to look into. We should seek to warn them against the dangers involved.
Incidentally, IIRC, that’s one of the dangers CMP mentioned in the Theology Unplugged broadcasts on the emerging church.
JoanieD on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:45 pm #
Jugulum, what is IIRC? Thanks.
Joanie D.
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:04 pm #
Scott said- “but i see you’d rather play uproar, now, by you ‘envy’ post” But you called me monolithic, a blight on the body of Christ: “you deify your texts and creeds. and in my opinion, the body of christ, ‘the word,’ is poorer for it.” Me, play uproar…yeah I guess, but isn’t that what ‘mergers’ do?
I was playing off of Scripture as was couched in my first response: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” And the loving thing that should be done, if as you said that there is another way to know Christ outside his word, so that it would not breed envy, is to share what you have learned.
you said- ‘text’ is written, that’s the definition of ‘text.’
Yet you said that God can be experienced in oral and sacrmental symbols, in response to my saying that God cannot be experienced outside the text. For, that you accused me of bibliolatry… and I simply make them all text. So what is sauce for the gander…
Text can also mean: a written, typed, or printed version of something such as a speech or a statement. Notice, that to say the text of a speech is to say that it is the speech. And symbolism is just another way of convey a story which is text, which is speech. The distinction you make is empty…
Be honest Scott, you said: “when did you hear me say that i have a way to know christ that is not revelaed by scripture?”
Well, you said this:
“don’t get me wrong. the text (hebrew and christian scripture) is a fabulous way to know jesus. it may be the best way to know jesus. but it’s not the only way.” And so I my plea was that you not cause us to envy, because outside the text there is nothing, either in symbol or in oral communication that can convey any revealed knowledge of God that is not contained in the text. If what you are saying is that the oral or symbolic is not text, well that is all good and fine, you’re simply wrong if it reveals Christ.
“what was your experience like of him loving you”
Which time, being reborn, through the visions, the wow I never saw that before, the warm fuzzies, the intense pain, grief, the humility of sin, tearfulness, laughter, deliverance from drug addiction, divorce, remarriage, my childen’s birth, preaching, teaching, leading worship, studying…? But you know what, they’re all there in Scripture…all the time Scott. It is the love of God which surpasses the understanding, without measure.
I am not a Toronto Blessing kinda guy, though I was once Pentecostal and Charismatic. Still none of what I have experienced, neither in scope or magnitude would be of any worth outside the text of Scripture. For no man can know another man’s pain. Our experiences are our own and the only place they meet is in Scripture.
You seem to base your knowledge of God more upon experience. I do not only base it in the text, or it wouldn’t be mine. I test it as all things against the knowledge of God revealed in his word, however. If I have to depend upon experience, or its intensity, well, right now, this is intense…but I wouldn’t write it as Scripture. My subjective assessment will not do you any good, will it? How could I possibly convey experience as a knowledge of God to you? You have to experience it for yourself. That is what intimacy with Christ is all about. My experience is mine, and you cannot have it. Nor can I have yours. But both of us can know God together, but that only in his word.
As to simplicity, the simplest is the word (I would say text but we’ve seen where that leads). It is the thousands of additions and interpretations that make is complicated, not the word. So contrary to your excoriation (”in my opinion, you deify your texts and creeds. and in my opinion, the body of christ, ‘the word,’ is poorer for it”) I actually work the other way around, testing all things by the word in the spirit. I do not test the word or anything else by my feelings or experiences. But, then, it was me, and not you who was playing uproar…
By non-gnostic, I mean a knowledge that is commonly conveyed, such as by the text so that we all know it for what it says, as opposed to some secret personal revelation not revealed by the text. For, Scripture was not give for any private interpretation, but men of old spoke… Interesting isn’t it that Scripture was spoken before it was writen, but that can’t be right…, because Scripture by definition is written.
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:22 pm #
As Juggulum said, I do not confuse Jesus with the text. The word of God is the revealation of Jesus, not Jesus himself. The truth about him is contained therein. We are warned not to go beyond it. Not to remove the ancient landmarks. It is as Jesus warned us, “When they say here is Christ, or there, do not go after them.” Paul restricts us also for our knowledge of Christand for the peace and unity of the church in saying not to go beyond what is written.
It is not that we do not have a true revelational experience. What would it mean to be born again without such a thing. It is however, knowledge contained only within the certain boundaries of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. The word, is for us a refuge, a rock, a strong tower, to which we can flee from our enemies. And, my worst enemy is myself.
Thanks for the discussion.
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 8:25 pm #
Joanie,
Sorry, ’twas an internet acronym. I try to avoid the less obvious ones, but sometimes I forget.
IIRC=”If I Recall Correctly”.
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 9:41 pm #
jugulum–
what fun!!
when i read the romans 10:14-17, i hear ‘sending’ leads to ‘preaching,’ which leads to ‘hearing,’ which leads to ‘believing.’ i agree with you; this passage is about hearing word-as-words-about-christ. so now we have word-as-jesus, word-as-preaching(I would say tellings stories)-about-jesus, and words-as-text. excellent. a sensible sequence.
i would say your word-as-revelation-about-jesus includes all three: word-as-jesus, word-as-preaching-about-jesus, and word-as-text-about-jesus.
in tt’s post to me, while the passage talked about word-as-words-about-christ, i think he meant words-as-text. it looks like conflation of word-as-text and word-as-preaching to me. still conflation.
you say, and you assume that tt says, ‘the only sure, inspired source of revelation (i now hear: word-as-jesus, word-as-preaching-about-jesus, and word-as-text-about-jesus) is the written words of the apostles and prophets. sorry, i disagree. and i don’t think we will ever change each other’s minds on this. it all goes back to the stories. and the first hand experiences of god/jesus.
as to the conflation issue of the three concepts (thanks for the third!) mentioned above: i will pay close attention to some of the blogs i’ve been on. when i feel it is happening, i will give you better examples. at this point, i’ve shared with you a conclusion that i can’t justify with evidence, because i never collected the conflations; just racked them up in my head. give me a bit of time on this one. i know it happens. i’ll do my best to substantiate with interesting examples.
again, on the deification of scripture: same thing. i’ll share with you the interesting examples i come across, as i collect them. give me a bit of time on this one. i do think i showed conflation on tt’s part in the romans 10 passage–albeit word-as-preaching and word-as-text, not word-as-jesus.
tt–
oh, tt, you’re great.
i love how you change something being ‘the poorer’ (my words) to a blight (your words). being the poorer is like having the flu or a cold; a blight is death by infection, loosing living pieces along the way. such great drama!! i stand by my words: the body of christ is poorer for monolithic creeds and dogmas. no blight. don’t be so hard on yourself!
but you’re still responsible for making it the poorer.
as am i. in different ways.
other topics:
what other ‘mergers’ do you know playing your kind of uproar? as my grama used to say, ‘name two.’
i have never thought of the concept of ‘playing off scripture.’ it sounds postmodern. what do you mean by it when you ‘play off scripture?’
‘…and the loving thing…’ I think I did this in comment #43. but I’ll share more, if you wish, and lovingly, too. what else can I share with you about my experiences of god?
you want oral and sacramental symbols to be included in ‘text,’ so that you are not accused of bibliolatry (great word, by the way, I’ve never heard it before)–sorry, dictionary’s pretty clear on this one. the word ‘text’ comes from the same word as ‘texture’ and ‘textile;’ it’s about the cloth it was written on. text is text, not oral or symbol. you said it yourself: written, typed, or printed. unless you’ve a postmodern streak in you… and on this I must disagree: the text of a speech s not the same as the speech it self. sorry.
you said: ‘outside the text there is nothing.’ text, not oral or symbol. oh, tt, I’m sorry, I disagree with you so much on this. and I don’t think you and I will ever agree. just because it reveals christ does not make it text. that’s the conflation I was talking about with jugular earlier.
my word allotment is up…see next post…
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 9:50 pm #
tt, jugulum–
you said, ‘our experiences are our own and the only place they meet is scripture.’ and you said, ‘both of us can know god together, but that only in his word.‘ sorry, again, i must disagree strongly with you here. it is in the sharing of stories that they meet. scripture may enhance such meeting and understanding, but it is not a necessary component for it to happen at all.
when you test your experiences of god against scripture, you are testing it against the stories told by others of their experiences of god, and testing it against prescriptions written. which do you find your experiences tested against more? the stories, or the lists of do’s and don’t’s?
The text is not as simple as you say. again, I stand by that conclusion on my part. if it were simple, and clear, we would all see the same meaning in it. and we wouldn’t have to spend hours and days and months and years explaining it to each other. and cmp and dan wallace would be out of a job!! and there wouldn’t be 2000 denominations, all claiming the scriptures as their own, and all claiming to be christian.
‘scripture’ wasn’t written before it was spoken. You are having fun here…playing off ‘scripture.’
rather, ‘word-as-jesus’ was spoken before it was written.
or so the story-teller in the first chapter of the gospel of john would have us believe.
there are many points here we will never agree on. i have many interesting things to think about from our wrestle. and even though it may not seem like it, i do have great respect for your faith in the scripture. i, too find these rich in wisdom and experience. thanks tt, jugulum.
i hope there is enough common ground that you consider me part of the body of christ with you, as I do you with me.
peace–
scott
Jugulum on 20 Feb 2008 at 10:00 pm #
scott,
You said, “you say, and you assume that tt says, ‘the only sure, inspired source of revelation (i now hear: word-as-jesus, word-as-preaching-about-jesus, and word-as-text-about-jesus) is the written words of the apostles and prophets. sorry, i disagree. and i don’t think we will ever change each other’s minds on this. it all goes back to the stories. and the first hand experiences of god/jesus.”
It’s likely that we won’t, and regardless, it would be a whole other discussion. Before we let it lie, I’d just like to clarify something. You say, “I disagree,” but I want to make sure we’re using terms the same way. What I meant was something like, “The written words are the only authenticated source that God has breathed out for the purpose of providing the body of Christ with sure, inerrant, authoritative teaching, true in all that it affirms.”
My guess is that you don’t believe there’s another such source, as you implied when you said “I disagree.” I doubt you would say that our personal stories about first-hand experiences with God are supposed to be taken as that kind of source. My guess is that you do not believe that the Bible is such a source. (Correct me if I’m wrong.)
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 10:07 pm #
jugulum–
you are correct.
till next time.
peace–
scott
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Feb 2008 at 10:24 pm #
Scott Gray,
You strongly disagree with TT and Jugulum. You write: “… scripture may enhance such meeting and understanding, but it is not a necessary component for it to happen at all.”
This is not an accurate representation of what they’re saying. (I’m assuming…) They are saying that Scripture validates whether their “experience” is truly from God or not.
They are NOT saying that Scripture was or is a necessary component for an “experience” to occur.
when you test your experiences of god against scripture, you are testing it against the stories told by others of their experiences of god, and testing it against prescriptions written. which do you find your experiences tested against more? the stories, or the lists of do’s and don’t’s?
Here’s another significant gap in your thinking: Scripture is Divinely inspired text. That’s a big miss on your part.
“…you are testing it against the stories told by others of their experiences of god…”
Jugulum and TT are testing their “experiences” against the divinely inspired “experiences” of those authors writing Scripture.
There is a big difference. Do you see it?
Lastly, and very roughly. People usually cite 3 sources for epistemological knowledge and authority:
(1) Experiences, Emotions, Feelings. (Subjective, Even Mystical)
(2) Human Reasoning. Eg. Science, Historical Studies, etc….
(3) 66 Books of the Bible.
What Jugulum and TT are saying is that they subject their “experiences” to Scripture. Scripture is their ultimate authority.
In a way, they are cautioning you not to elevate your subjective experiences above Scripture.
Jugulum, Thomas Twitchell, and I are speaking this truth-in-love. Granted, you may not perceive it as being loving. But as John MacArthur once wrote or said: “Telling another person the truth is the most loving thing one can do.”
P.S. Scott Gray, suppose you have an “experience” that flat-out contradicts the commands or instruction of Scripture. Which will you hold in higher authority: Your experience or Scripture?
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 10:38 pm #
tu…ad–
thanks for responding.
so far, none of my experiences of god flat-out contradict the commands or instruction of scripture.
i understand that scripture is your ultimate authority for epistemological testing. make mine mystical, and reasoning, and scriptural, as you’ve described. add semiotic as well (actually…that might be a subset of mystical, on second thought.)
i appreciate your cautioning me not to elevate my subjective experiences above scripture. caution is usually given to people in danger. what do you feel i am in danger of, here?
i understand that you think scripture is divinely inspired text. so are any wisdom texts that facilitate an experience of god.
i see the ‘big difference’ you want me to see. it is a contrived construct.
peace–
scott
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Feb 2008 at 11:02 pm #
Scott- I was going to ask if you agreed with Paul that we are not to go beyond what is written. But, seeing that his application is only to the divinely inspired texts of Scripture, a.k.a. the Bible, and you disagree that it is the only text (i understand that you think scripture is divinely inspired text. so are any wisdom texts that facilitate an experience of god), it is pointless to continue.
scott gray on 20 Feb 2008 at 11:32 pm #
tt–
sorry you feel that way.
our shared beliefs here are that the hebrew and christian scriptures are inspired. what’s different is that for you it’s only; for me, one of many.
sorry you don’t feel that’s enough to work with.
it has been a great pleasure, tt.
peace–
scott
Reclaiming the Mind Ministries » Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 3 - An Emerging Definition of “Emerging” on 21 Feb 2008 at 12:24 am #
[...] Part 4 SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 3 - An Emerging Definition of “Emerging”", url: “http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/18/an-emerging-definition-of-emerging/” }); [...]
Truth Unites... and Divides on 21 Feb 2008 at 8:20 am #
so far, none of my experiences of god flat-out contradict the commands or instruction of scripture.
Scott Gray, (appropriate last name by the way)
If you re-look at my original question, you’ll see that your response is a non-sequitur.
i understand that scripture is your ultimate authority for epistemological testing. make mine mystical, and reasoning, and scriptural, as you’ve described. add semiotic as well (actually…that might be a subset of mystical, on second thought.)
Thanks for the response. Always good to get clarity on important points of departure.
Also, thanks for your response to Jugulum. He wrote: “The written words are the only authenticated source that God has breathed out for the purpose of providing the body of Christ with sure, inerrant, authoritative teaching, true in all that it affirms. … My guess is that you do not believe that the Bible is such a source.”
You responded: “jugulum – you are correct.”
Thanks for the clarity.
Pax.
P.S. Per CMP’s taxonomy of historic orthodoxy, your view of Scripture would make you heterodox.
But some have pointed out that being heterodox is not necessarily a bad thing.
Take me for example. I’m heterodox from the perspective of the RC’s and EO’s.
scott gray on 21 Feb 2008 at 9:08 am #
tu…ad–
you, too, are correct in your conclusions about me.
peace–
scott
Minnowspeaks on 21 Feb 2008 at 12:57 pm #
WOW! Thanks CMP for hosting the discussion.
Scott–my hat goes off to you for sticking in there.
TT–You sound like you think someone sat down and wrote your translation of the Bible cover to cover while God whispered it in his ear, slapping his hand whenever he forgot to cross a T or dot an I. On the other hand if what you say Paul says about “Not going beyond the text” is accurate then doesn’t that make the whole NT void of value. Surely something that wasn’t even written yet can’t be included in the “scripture” Paul was referencing. Makes one wonder.
Also your use of the Dan Philips quote: “The solution then is never to know less truth. The solution is always to know more truth–and to believe the truth we know.” to try and sink the emergeing ship is pretty silly. How arrogant of you to assume that because some in the emerging Church movement are throwing off some of the baggage the Church has accumulated (doctrinally and in practice) they are seeking less truth.
Thomas Twitchell on 21 Feb 2008 at 2:37 pm #
Minnowspeaks speaks- “Scott–my hat goes off to you for sticking in there”
Sticking in there with what? Scott eliminated any authority or credibility by claiming that there wasn’t any authority that he held to: “i understand that you think scripture is divinely inspired text. so are any wisdom texts that facilitate an experience of god.” Such as the Cabala? Vedas? The Book of the Dead?
As far as I understand it, I hold to plenary inspiration of the Bible (Scripture, Word), whatever. What do you hold to…self impression? What translation? I study a dozen or so… all open to inquiry. How does one test the reliability of “feelings or experiences.” Or, how does one test texts outside of Scripture if they contain error? Unless of course you believe the Bible also contains error, and if that is the case there is no ground for any arguement of textual relevance whatsoever.
Surely Paul was an Apostle, wasn’t he? Nevertheless, to apply your logic, he did write that we should learn from him not to go beyond what is written, which must necessarily include that very statement and all that preceeded it. Even if you reject what comes afterward, he holds you accountable to everything prior. And one of those things is a warning not to add to Scripture; Proverbs 30: 5-6: “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” Which is a repetition of an earlier statement: Deut 4:2: “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” And is what the Word said by the Spirit through John in closing the Revelation: Rev 22:18-19: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” By your logic nothing after the first quote in Deuteronomy is Scripture.
So Paul wasn’t adding nor subtracting from what was written. And, it is not just that what he said is contained in a “translation”, but that it is what Scripture, (capital “s” referring to its Author), has to say about itself. It is not my problem that you do not get it, it is yours. Seeing as how John wrote after Paul, and says the same thing, surely everything before Rev 22:18-19 was included in what Paul was yet to write. Of course you may argue that the book described is the Book of Revelation, but the full title is the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which is the title of the whole of Scripture. It is his autobiography, so to speak. That is because the word is not the product of man, but is the Word of God given through man. Though that itself is not a necessary argument. What is required is what Paul said, to remain within what they had received, and not to go beyond it because it only breeds divisions to do so.
But, thanks for adding your name to the list that Scott desired. His gramma said name two, he’s one and you’re another.
I didn’t quote Dan, though it would be an honor to do so. That was TuaD.
scott gray on 21 Feb 2008 at 3:50 pm #
tt–
never have i had someone argue so convincingly on my behalf by placing such eloquent words in my mouth to reach conclusions i couldn’t possibly hold. thank you for your support!!
minnowspeak, it is a pleasure to be in your company. the original reference was about naming two emergents who play uproar like tt does when arguing. i’m afraid he has you, there. so far, i don’t think i’ve indulged, but i’m willing to change!!
tt, there are so many presuppositions and derivative conclusions in your comment, i don’t know where to start. how would you like me to respond? what would please you the most?
peace–
scott
Jason Pratt on 21 Feb 2008 at 4:01 pm #
Hm! I think I inadvertently kicked off a theological debate yesterday between the emergers and the non-emergers on the meaning of “word of God†and gnosticism. Um, sorry. {s}
Thomas isn’t entirely clear who he is addressing, back (waaaay back now {g}) in post #25, but I suspect it was me, based on how he begins and ends his comment. “Who said that any doctrine was not fundamentally important to salvation?†Most recently, that was me in comment #21. (Note: I am not the same person as Jason J, who appears to be a more regular poster here. That was my first post ever on this board.) And Thomas ends by answering my question about how other commenters would dot the circle–the only commenter who bothered to answer it, in fact.
I will suppose, then, that Thomas was addressing that comment to me (including in his “you†addressing); perhaps conflating me accidentally with Jason J.
I spent all day working up an 8 page reply, but I pretty quickly ran (without knowing it) into the site comment limit; and I’m not sure what to say within that limit. I am certainly not some theologian who puts all religious claims (my own or any others) into the outer few rings; my ‘orthodoxy’ ring is very dense and full. I just don’t put any dots in the “essential for salvation” circle in the center. I adore Christ there instead. {s}
I guess the simplest thing I can say is that I find, including in the scriptures, that God is Who saves me from sin; not the church, not the scriptures, not this or that doctrinal set (nor the Temple, nor the tabernacle, nor the family of Israel, nor keeping the Torah, etc. etc.) I don’t consider any of those other things to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. And while I do read in the Scriptures that God appoints Himself, in Christ, as the sacrifice for our sakes, I have yet to read in the Scriptures that God appoints the Scriptures as the sacrifice for my sake, from Genesis to Revelation or otherwise. {shrug}
Also, I was not aware that ecclesiology is the most basic teaching of Christ. In the Gospels I find that (a.) trusting God (including Himself) and (b.) loving my neighbor are the most basic teachings of Christ. I supposed I missed the other more basic ecclesiology parts in all my years of study, writing a harmonization, etc. {s} A good thing then that my doctrinal belief is not what saves me! {g}
JRP
Thomas Twitchell on 21 Feb 2008 at 4:51 pm #
I feel that it is a false category to subdivide doctrines into necessary and non-necessary, since all doctrine points to Christ as all the word of God does.
It is an assumption of some to think that some can be dispensed of simply because they do not fall into a category of soteriology. I do not claim that we rightly understand all, my only point is that our drift from the core is generally caused by those things we have less understanding of and asserting we do.
It is funny to watch how some take simple statements about the Scripture and make them to mean that I supplant the Christ which they reveal. That is not the case at all. Bizarrly so, because it is upon the questionables that those who find “new approaches” do so.
The question is simply assumed that there are dispensible doctrine. That has not been established. It is established by Scripture though that nothing within it is to be taken away or added to it. If someone can find Scripture that says we can add and subtract at will, have at it…
“I spent all day working up an 8 page reply, but I pretty quickly ran (without knowing it) into the site comment limit; and I’m not sure what to say within that limit. I am certainly not some theologian who puts all religious claims (my own or any others) into the outer few rings; my ‘orthodoxy’ ring is very dense and full. I just don’t put any dots in the “essential for salvation†circle in the center. I adore Christ there instead. ” JRP
And, that is what I said…
Of course, your ecclesiology, nor doctrine, nor anything else is what saves, it is Christ alone. And, in all that I had to say, He is the beginning and the end, so that all our beliefs find their genesis and completion in him the author and perfector of our faith.
Nothing further than that…
Uproar away- scott.
scott gray on 21 Feb 2008 at 5:36 pm #
tt–
so how would you like me to respond? what type of response would please you the most? are you asking me to play uproar?
scott
Minnowspeaks on 21 Feb 2008 at 9:51 pm #
Scott–Glad to make your aquaintance. A little odd to be put in a group with only one other person and I didn’t even know I was emerging from anything other than a truck full of Church hurt. (Just between you and me bet that gives TT the ammunition to simply discount my comments–oh well).
TT–So sorry I credited you with the quotation. The point really wasn’t who actually quoted Mr. Philips. As for the comment re: not adding to…seems that was done to the 10 commandments quite a bit even with the warning not to do so which is what the Deuteronomy passage was referring to. You obviously already realize that the Revelation passage was specifically referencing the revelation given to John.
Jason Pratt–I also was looking for comments by others as to what their circles might look like but by the time I had gotten to the end of the comments I’d sort of forgotten. Thanks for mentioning it again. One dot in the center for me. Jesus/God accomplished all on the cross and through His ressurection. Don’t care a wit about the next circle so don’t have any dots in there. If the third circle was simply “important for a Christian walk/witness” I’d be adding Christ’s big three–Love God, Love neighbor/self and Love you enemy. That would look (in all likelihood) a whole lot like social justice. The rest is up for grabs. Personally–I’ve spoken in tongues, seen miracles, and have been hit (and seen others be hit) by a spiritual presence that I can only discribe as God because it was void of evil. Essential–not at all.
minnowspeaks on 22 Feb 2008 at 3:17 am #
Question: I’ve been accused of uproaring. Is that the same as sarcasm? I personally was not discounting the whole NT I was meaning to suggest that TT’s logic would require the whole NT to be discounted because it was not at the time scripture.
scott gray on 22 Feb 2008 at 7:23 am #
minnowspeaks–
nice to make your aquaintance, too. i often feel i’m in a group of one when i’m chatting with tt, jugulum, and tu…ad. now i feel i’m in a group of two, and it bolsters my confidence. now my strength will be as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure(r).
i have learned many things from tt, tu…ad, and jugulum. we live in a world rich with variety, to include the variety of the various parts of the body of christ. they are good thinkers, just not open to seeing much value in the ideas of emerging thinkers and wrestlers. they present their understandings pretty well, i think, even though i disagree with many (maybe most) of them. they help me to understand how others think, and remind me of the diversity of the members of the body of christ.
sarcasm and uproar are definitely related…
check comments on part five of this series for orthopraxy wars.
peace–
scott
JohnO on 22 Feb 2008 at 2:18 pm #
Scott Gray said:
now I feel I’m in a group of two
At least three, but this one without the confidence or ability to express himself the way you do.
Not to say that I agree entirely, just that I lean more to your line of thought than the others.
John
scott gray on 22 Feb 2008 at 3:55 pm #
johno–
thank you.
scott
Jason Pratt on 23 Feb 2008 at 3:17 pm #
Thomas,
{{I feel that it is a false category to subdivide doctrines into necessary and non-necessary}}
For what it’s worth, in my unposted 8 pages I agree with that, technically. I don’t believe all religious beliefs count as doctrines, though. Consequently, I am not in fact subdividing between doctrines as necessary and non-necessary–for orthodoxy. I am dividing between beliefs that count as orthodox/unorthodox doctrines, and beliefs that are not important in distinguishing orthodoxy (important though they may be for other purposes.)
Nor, incidentally, am I dividing between beliefs (be those beliefs doctrines or otherwise) necessary for salvation, and those which are unnecessary. I group them all outside the center, somewhere. {g} Christ is necessary for salvation; not my beliefs in any primary way. That’s why I located Him in the center, and not a single dot.
{{It is an assumption of some to think that some can be dispensed of simply because they do not fall into a category of soteriology.}}
I had a lot to say about this in those unposted 8 pages, too. The shortest thing I can think of to say, is that not all doctrines are primarily about soteriology. God’s omnipresence, for example, may (I would say does) have important connections to soteriology; but God would be omnipresent, and that would be the correct thing to believe about Him, whether or not there were people needing God’s salvation.
Anyway, I don’t “dispense with†any doctrine, per se, whether they fall into the category of soteriology or not. There they are, in the orthodoxy ring; and lots and lots of them. {s}
What I denied is that any set of doctrines, or doctrinal adherence, is in itself soteriologically effective. Up until I commented, I simply didn’t see anyone else making this observation: there shouldn’t be any dots in the center circle at all. (Yet, I do certainly find a substantial number of people, in my experience, who locate them there.)
{{}}I just don’t put any dots in the “essential for salvation†circle in the center. I adore Christ there instead. JRP{{
And, that is what I said…}}
In which case I profoundly apologize and retract; for I had mistakenly understood you to be putting dots in the center (so to speak) as representing doctrines “essential for salvationâ€. Mea culpa.
I think I got that impression when you answered me, “Who said that any doctrine was not fundamentally important to salvation?†and then went on at some length about the importance of doctrine, ending with “From Genesis to Revelation it is all the revelation of Jesus Christ and all necessary for salvation.â€
It would be easy, then, for me to mistake you as meaning by t