I first saw this sometime in high school and was assured that it was some sort of ultra-liberal propaganda against Bush and his policies. But the more I think about it, the more I agree. Not about Bush, necessarily, but about culture. Christian culture.
Example: The Emerging Church
If you're not familiar with the term, I'll give you a brief summary: the emerging church is an organ of Christianity which is reacting against modernism by saying that we should incorporate postmodern views and values into our faith. The movement criticizes fundamentalism for its methodological and formulaic view of doctrine, while the so-called 'orthodox' movement condemns the emerging church as being seeker-friendly and wishy-washy when it comes to doctrine.
In fact, John MacArthur said the following;
“They [the leaders of the emergent movement] are saying, in effect, that God may have spoken, but He mumbled, and we’re not really sure what He said. Saying that Scripture is not clear is just another way to undermine biblical authority.” (AIG)
However, this is intrinsically untrue. Donald Miller, one of the supposed front-runners of the emergent movement, says in his book "Searching for God Knows What" that the Bible IS clear in what it says, but that we've lost some of its clarity with our attemps at formatting it into neat bullet points. Indeed,
"Sometimes I feel as thought the church has a kind of pity for Scripture, always having to come behind it and explain everything, put everything into actionable steps, acronyms and hidden secrets, as though the original writers, and for that matter the Holy Spirit who worked in the lives of the original writers, were a bunch of illiterate hillbillies. I don't think they were illiterate hillbillies, and I think the methodology God used to explain His truth is quite superior." (Miller,SFGKW, 217)
Both sides, however, are faulty here. Both think that they have arrived at Truth, and both criticize the other for their shortcomings. And both are wrong.
Jesus prayed "Make them one as You and I are One," and this reactionary approach to the church is not unifying at all. Peter and Paul got into an argument about the place of Gentiles in the church. There's been disagreement after ugly disagreement since the very beginning of our faith.
I'm not condoning all the beliefs of the emergent movement. Nor am I condemning it. I believe that it has some very valuable things to say about our faith and how we approach God's Word, the Gospel, and Other People. I don't agree with everything it says, though. I think that it can be a bit too all-embracing and it can forget that the Gospel of Jesus is an offence. So, to resolve this issue in my own heart, I have to quote my brilliant friend Jordan, "Moderation can solve a great many theological disputes."
P.S. Remember in History we learned about the Inquisition where anyone who disagreed with the Church was called a heretic, or the witch trials where anyone who disagreed with the leadership was accused of being a witch, or the 'Red Scare' when someone who questioned the US government was called a communist? I think a new "witch trial" is upon us in the fundamentalist Christian movement. Only instead of being a heretic or a witch or a communist, people who raise controversial issues (whether their point is good or not; whether they're right or now) are called "emergent" and discounted in everything they say. Didn't we learn our lesson?
2 comments:
Interesting topic, I've been thinking a bit about it lately, especially since I've taken to listening avidly to the Relevant Podcast, which interviewed both Donald Miller and Rob Bell. (You really should listen to it, I think you might like it, especially some of the archived episodes.) Truthfully, I have a great respect for both of those men. While I fundamentally disagree with some of Rob Bell's viewpoints, it would be foolish to say that everything he's doing is wrong and that his ministry is without success. And, as of yet, I don't really have any major disagreements with Donald Miller. I suppose this may be surprising since I'd say I was one of the "orthodox" types, but then I also greatly dislike the fact that we feel like we have to label everything and I don't know if there even exists a label that clearly defines me.
In agreement with Jordan, I believe moderation and discernment must remain the two prongs on the fork to which every one of our songs is tuned.
There are some things to keep in mind, though. First, doctrine needs desperately to be methodological, formulaic, or, as I call it, systematic. This is not because the biblical writers didn't explain their points clearly enough themselves, but because they did. And because they're writing is all in tune, we can be confident that Scripture interprets Scripture. This hermeneutic is called the apologia fide, or apology of faith. An unsystematic (that is as much as to say "inconsistent") theology tends to elevate our first-reading interpretations of any portion of the Bible as superior to what the authors meant, which is always defined best by the Bible itself, even if by another author. If the Bible is treated as an organic unity, theology is methodological.
Second, it is fair, indeed necessary, that those who disagree with the Church are called heretics. It is not name calling; it is labeling. And labeling is not a bad thing. It is, after all, simply the use of language. When I say "the Church," I cannot, of course, mean an organization headed by any oligarchical group that interprets the Bible for the masses. But I do mean the consensus of the Christian church over the last two millennia as marked and made plain by historical synods and confessions and creeds--that is to say, orthodoxy. It is very important that we maintain a creedal church, especially as new ideas run rampant. We must stick to the Bible (to which the Christians creeds also stick). The wiggle room within orthodoxy is still considerable, and liberty is quite permissible in discussing nonessential doctrine. But there are cardinal doctrines for which Christians must fight with unchained ferocity, not an inch to be given up.
Post a Comment