10 thoughts on “Emergent Meets Reformed”

1. I’m responding to this post and to previous related posts in one fell swoop. I plan for it to be my last big post, so please forgive me in advance for the length.

   First off, I don’t yet consider myself “emergent”, though I’m definitely missional and perhaps “emerging”. Anyway, labels (per Kierkegaard) tend to negate the actual people behind them. I’m definitely a follower of Jesus and one who desires the expansion of the Kingdom of God. I believe that the good – heck, the BEST – news of all is the availability of the kingdom of God (one of the many things the atonement accomplished and/or set in motion).

   But one thing I’m struck with is that the emerging church is actually trying to understand “the other side”, trying to cultivate a conversation with them, engaging them in discourse that could ultimately rescue these “victims of war” with love and compassion (not condescension and pity). This seeking to understand is newer for me, because I was raised in the fundamentalist and reformed traditions, and the only books we’d read about the other side were ones published by our own side (such as “Why We’re Not Emerging” or “The Other Side of Rome” or all those Da Vinci Code debunker books – you know the type). Either that, or we’d read books by the “other side” so we could highlight everything that we thought was wrong and use it against them (instead of trying to understand their perspective).

   Rather than engaging the other side by reading, listening, conversing, we felt safe and protected because we had some guy on our side telling us why we were right and everyone else was wrong. Now, I don’t care how “humble” the author or his minions seem to be or profess to be, this approach is in fact highly arrogant and presumptuous. I have been this way in the past and I repent of it.
   Refusing to engage also smacks of fear (a spirit that God has not given… so who gave it?). It’s a scary thing to possibly not have all the answers, to discover that there are other points of view out there that might also be true, that there just might be other facets to the diamond of truth than the one I’ve been so engrossed in all these years.

   I was trained that all scripture had potentially multiple interpretations – historical, practical, prophetic – and that even some of the prophetic passages could have multiple meanings and fulfillments (full or partial), all of which are TRUE. And I have found that the infinite God I serve is so wise and powerful that in one event he can be working out a multitude of his own purposes – facets, if you will, of the glorious epic that is his creation. So why should it be so surprising that there are other facets to truth that are not as incompatible as we finite folk think? Things that seem contradictory in two dimensions can be simultaneously true in three dimensions (see Rob Bell’s “marker trick” in the video “Everything Is Spiritual” – even all you reformed folk would find this DVD engaging and helpful).

   BTW, quips like “Rob Bell bases his hermeneutic off the rabbis who killed Jesus” might make a good sound bite or a cute bumper sticker, but it’s lousy, inflammatory, illogic.

   First of all, no man took his life from him – he laid it down. So there’s no sense in saying that the rabbis killed him or the Romans killed him or that we killed him.

   Secondly, if these rabbis are his contemporaries, they’re certainly in a better position to tell us what certain terms like “binding”, “loosing”, and “yoke” meant to that culture than some scholar a millennium or so later reading in different language and a foreign culture. Even if some sources were 200 years after the time of Christ, they’re still a millennium more recent than most resources recommended today.

   Thirdly, if you don’t thoughtfully consider the Jewish perspective and cultural meta-narrative, you’ll have missed much of the cultural context of Jesus’ teachings and the early church (that for decades “only” had the Old Testament…and it was ENOUGH for them).

   I’m tired of the self-assured, dogmatic, arrogant spirit on this blog site. I love my buddy Paul and look forward to continued fellowship and dialogue with him, but I’m finding these postings to be very unhelpful. So I’ve said my peace, and I bid you all adieu. Feel free to email me if you wish to carry on any edifying correspondence.

2. Don,
   Go back to the benedict article, I finally replied to your rebuttle of me

3. Iggy,
   I highly suggest you read the book “Why We Are Not Emergent”. In it they debunk many emergent myths, such as the one that inerrancy came out of the reformation. For example, take St. Basil from the 4th century, while in a dispute he stated:

   “It remains for me to trace the origin of the word ‘with’, to explain what force it has, and to shew that it is in harmony with Scripture. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth”

   The simple fact is that Jesus on many occasions rebuked the Pharisees for mishandling the Word of God and quoted authoritatively as his standard many times, especially when refuting the lies of the Devil. Furthermore Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16,

   “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”

   I guess my problem with the whole emergent movement is the hypsocrisy… Claiming that uncertaintly is a sign of humility, whereas certainty shows arrogance. However, as finite beings we would never be able to comprehend the Infinite God, unless he represented himself finitely. If you claim to believe in Jesus, and are questioning certain doctrines off of His standard, then you are accepting a finite yet perfect revelation of God (although I think you have misunderstood Jesus). In the same way, throughout the Bible God reveals himself to man, and such revelations can be systematized if we believe they all come from one unchanging God. It seems that your concept of the authority of scripture is derived from yourself, because if the scriptures are not perfect then that places your mind (which somehow judged them inadequite in the first place) above them.

   Also, if you read the Gospels and the rest of God’s revelation, Jesus will judge sinners and had some very harsh words for those who were in error in his day.

   You said:
   ‘Here’s an idea, what if Jesus truly looks at the heart and sees a nonchristian in India, who “Loves the Lord(what they know as Lord) with all their heart soul mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves, without ever hearing the name of Jesus???(as pixelmaster stated) Who are we to tell the Lord that they are not allowed in heaven?’

   The problem with this is that you have an incorrect view of human anthropology.
   10as it is written,
   “(A)THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
   11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
   THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
   12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
   THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
   THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” Romans 3:10-12

   Furthermore concerning a rudimentary knowledge of God, read Romans 1:18-23
   18For (AJ)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (AK)suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
   19because (AL)that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

   For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

   See so all people inherently know God because they are in His image, in the same way that if you have eyes you will automatically see. However, due to sin people supress the knowledge they have about God which leads to idolatry, which many times resembles the worship of the true God, because that very sense of religion and worship comes from the true God himself. However, this is not way earns anything before God… Christianity is a religion of grace, we all inherently hate and resist God, and it is only when God overcomes our fallen wills through regeneration (read Pauls post on monergism) that we will honestly seek salvation in HIM alone.

4. Iggy,

   Those are pretty strong and interesting questions. I am not sure if I am in your camp entirely when I say that we can embrace uncertainty. However, you bring up some points that I think few Christians realize, we get our doctrines from ones interpretation of scripture. This idea was largely derived from the reformation and the individual’s ability to finally study scripture for themselves. I think we often times discount how much man gets in the way with God is actually doing in the earth. Let take the issue of women, because of a few verses in scripture about women being silent and being a helpmate to the man, certain (large) denominations have run with this and basically made women second class citizens. They don’t recognize that Jesus and Paul were very much feminists. They exalted women much higher than what was custom for the 1st century. That is just one example of many of how our doctrines get in the way. Man’s views are projected on God and often time we call it a different denomination.
   I like what the emergent’s have to say about reimagining God, the Church and everything else that man has done to muddy up the waters of the God that cares about all humanity and loves everyone, yes, even those nasty Muslims that want to take over the world.

5. Just to lighten things up a bit…while reading these posts, I got this picture…kind of like in the insurance commercial…Jack Baur is standing on this big red spot saying…”That spot where Emergent meets Reformed..I’m there.” *: ) A really conflicted made up person.

6. My comment is very close to Pixelmaster’s, is it OK to embrace christianity and still embrace uncertainty? I respect the scriptures as authoritative and very meaningful to my life and conduct. However, I don;t claim that it is perfect, this idea of perfection and inerrency was derived out of the reformation. To many christians discard that, many doctrines have come out of and ever since the reformation. Doctrines, to me, are man’s way of trying to figure out God. People love to have all the answers,especially when it comes to an entity that we can’t touch, feel, or see, yet is vital to maintain our worldview. I think it is hard for christians to realize that the words and actions of Jesus can transend to many faiths, we always want him as ours. Why is it that we hold that Christianity is the ONLY faith that can get to heaven? Jesus said it right, no man comes to the father……..What if Jesus is not as judgemental as we are? What if the fomula is not as well packaged as man has made it. Here’s an idea, what if Jesus truly looks at the heart and sees a nonchristian in India, who “Loves the Lord(what they know as Lord) with all their heart soul mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves, without ever hearing the name of Jesus???(as pixelmaster stated) Who are we to tell the Lord that they are not allowed in heaven?
   I realize that my comments strike the core of orthodoxy and I am not saying I believe it. I like to ask a lot of questions. However, I think God might,just might be more merciful than we make him to be.

7. I am just beginning to get a glimpse of what the Emerging Church is. I read a little bit about it, and discussed with some others that know a little about this phenomenon, and read this article, so I have a long way to go. I believe that this phenomenon is a reaction to the state of the western church today. We (the church) seem always to be behind the times. When we begin to catch up with the times, there is something new. There are valid things that proponents of Emerging/Emergent Church advocate, such as trying to contextualize the Gospel message to subcultures. They “think outside the box” so that people that either see traditional church as a foreign concept or would not otherwise go to church can be reached. But do we really need to sacrifice the Gospel message as it has been understood? Do we really need to reject that Biblical history is the meta-narrative that remains unchanged? We don’t need to be sure of everything in life, but I would think the evidence is pretty good that the veracity of the Biblical text’s main message is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (humankind), for there will be a day when he will return not on a donkey, but on a white horse.

   Good conversation above. Can we love a Muslim person without agreeing with him or her? The Bible and Islam are not compatible, with the exception that they both serve a God that is the Creator of all (i.e. not pantheistic). Their teachings are different at every other point… they both cannot be right at the same time. Take for example, Jesus’ resurrection versus Jesus’ direct translation to heaven. And there a lot more points than that.

   Doctrines do often make people Pharisaical, and unfortunately I have had my moments too. I wonder if we can come to the point where we can hold to correct Biblical interpretation and not use it as a weapon to knock other people down.

   Lastly, I find it interesting that younger generations are turning to Calvinism. Who would have guessed that the younger generation, which seems to be more postmodern/relative truth oriented would also endorse Calvin’s TULIP.

   Thanks for reading.

8. It does apply, so does the rest, I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. However, using the K.I.S.S. method and listening to Jesus words to the fulfillment of the commandments I tend to apply that first and foremost. It hard to take Jesus’s words in those commandments, out of context. Not only that but I would have a hard time finding any denomination, iberal or conservative that would dispute it. Not the case with many other doctrines. I think many doctrines create 21st century pharisees that I think Jesus would speak against.

9. Pixel
   “Love the Lord God with all your heart soul mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself (even if he is Muslim).”
   This also is from 2 mellennia ago. What to do? How does this apply today and the rest does not?

10. I read the letters to each other and Tony Jones’ comment at the end is something that I am wrestling with. The “rightness” of evangelical, the idea that we are right and we have to believe we are right and if we stray from that thought then we are in a state of apostasy. This idea of rightness is why we have so much division and denominations. We finite humans take a text from 2 millennia ago that has been modified over the years and bring it to our modern day context. We put out own presuppositions on it, we take texts literally for our day that were intended to be for 1st century times. I try to fall back on two main points, Love the Lord God with all your heart soul mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself (even if he is Muslim).

Comments are closed.