To answer some of the questions left by Kevin in my last post, I've decided to answer quickly as November shall become a crazy month for me and I will (if I can withhold from posting) stop posting until November is over. I think we've began an awesome conversation within the last few weeks since the start of T'shuva, although it has been mainly subjected to me posting, but the conversation continues.
So here I am in respond: (I realize each of these could result on a blog entry of its own)
Yes indeed I've slowly started my library of progressive, post-modern theological books like Brian Mclaren and Rob Bell etc. But I don't think I quite fit within the more liberal Emergent window due to a few truths that I cling on to as part of my belief.
1. Divinity of Christ, resurrection of the body etc
- At this point of my journey, I continue to believe strongly that Jesus is indeed the son of God who came to show me a new way of life, also dying for my sins and then coming back to life 3 days later. I belief this to be one of the essential truths I hang on to. Contrary to dudes like Marcus Borg who thinks other wise in the resurrection of Christ, and I know N.T. Wright had a tough time dealing with his good buddy Borg not accepting that and yet still wanted to classify Borg as a Christian because Borg loved Christ as any other believer. (Maybe Kev you could relate to Borg?)
2. The Bible
- I believe in reading the Bible as an unfolding narrative and the power that is within it (kind of liberal in some ways). I also believe the Bible is written as we call "inspired by God". Although I am not opposed to the interpretive approach in reading the Bible, I think at this part of my journey, I have come to a keen liking for the narrative appraoch.
I believe the Bible to be true, just as I believe that I am in reality in existence and that is truth. We might argue that the Bible is full of biases, opinions, contextual, and personal agendas of the authors who wrote them (it carries the full blunt of the humanity of its authors), and hence making it decrease its reliability and truth. I think Mclaren gives the best example and I will try to reuse it here: God created me, Eugene a human being, but I am also a pro-creation of my parents. I am shaped by my culture, society, schooling, friends, etc...to make Eugene the Eugene I am today. All these other influences don't take away the truth that God created me. In the same way, I believe the Bible came out is like that, it's "pro-created" by human hands, influenced by culture, history etc. But it doesn't take away from the truth that God created the Bible, just as I am created by God.
3. I believe in TULIP (I actually like to call this Post-Calvinisim)
- I'm still working on this one. I can say I used to oppose the acrostic of TULIP. But as I keep on coming across, I do see why this doctrine in so many churches today. (More on this on another day)
How I hold on to reform theology in a post-modern world:
I believe Jesus was on a mission here on earth and has left this mission for us to continue after he returned to Heaven. This mission is unchanging. So in this sense, I think (as Wing does) that there is an underlying truth that we must cling to (stuff from the above). However, I also believe we need to be constantly reforming (not in theology) but rather how to be an example of these truths in this world. Not because our past history as Christians or churches have gotten it wrong, nor are we moving closer to getting this whole journey right. Our mission field is dynamic and changing, and hence our actions of being and doing good like Jesus must also try to fit in this dynamic scenario. (I think Jesus highlighted 2 very important truths for us to follow which is to Love God with all our heart and soul and mind, and loving our neighbors as ourselves)
As mentioned by Dan tonight during dinner, I'm sure I will come back to this some time soon and revisit and continue to reform these beliefs. But as of this point of my journey, I've reach that as I am a mere Christian, trying to love God and people in this post modern world.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Post-Emergence?
I recently had a conversation with Wing about the terms "emerging" vs "emergent" which I believed in classification of post-modern church means something different. Then Dan threw in the "Post-Emergent" where we take the best of the crop and start our own kind of thing.
After a little research (something I find myself doing a bit too often in the last month) I've found some answers to justify for what I mean.
The concept of the emerging church came out of a conversation within a group of pastors and theologians in regards to their response to "generation X" and how they could reach generation X in the middle late 90's. But this conversation then shifted towards of how the church should handle post-modernism: This is what we call Emerging
Within it came out 4 different streams:
1. A stream within that came out that tended to be more liberal regarding issues like original sin, authority of scripture, atonement of sin, exclusivity of Christ etc. This is what we call Emergent. (I think Kevin could relate to this)
2. Then we have another group that are more based with house churches and try to do smaller groups, moderate and evangelical, just trying new church forms.
3. The third group we have the traditional church with all the jazz, but they are trying to upgrade the music, upgrade the preaching style to make it more hip and cool for the kids. Trendy Church beta/ RC 2 that kind of thing.
4. The last group we have churches that hold on to traditional reform theology and try to change the focus of the church towards what looks it would look like from a mission in the post-modern culture. So, what does mission look like within our own culture. Like imagining us becoming missionaries and dropped in this society, what do we do? What does the mission church in this society look like? What does the missionary look like? That's the emerging part. The Missional church.
In some ways, I wish I could be like Dan to pick and select the best from all these 4 to make a "post-emergent" view, but I don't think is possible. I don't think I belong to the first 3, for one I'm not liberal, nor am I small house church, or am I into this hip and cool church thing.
Kev, I think I've got you started for this coming Saturday's conversation.
After a little research (something I find myself doing a bit too often in the last month) I've found some answers to justify for what I mean.
The concept of the emerging church came out of a conversation within a group of pastors and theologians in regards to their response to "generation X" and how they could reach generation X in the middle late 90's. But this conversation then shifted towards of how the church should handle post-modernism: This is what we call Emerging
Within it came out 4 different streams:
1. A stream within that came out that tended to be more liberal regarding issues like original sin, authority of scripture, atonement of sin, exclusivity of Christ etc. This is what we call Emergent. (I think Kevin could relate to this)
2. Then we have another group that are more based with house churches and try to do smaller groups, moderate and evangelical, just trying new church forms.
3. The third group we have the traditional church with all the jazz, but they are trying to upgrade the music, upgrade the preaching style to make it more hip and cool for the kids. Trendy Church beta/ RC 2 that kind of thing.
4. The last group we have churches that hold on to traditional reform theology and try to change the focus of the church towards what looks it would look like from a mission in the post-modern culture. So, what does mission look like within our own culture. Like imagining us becoming missionaries and dropped in this society, what do we do? What does the mission church in this society look like? What does the missionary look like? That's the emerging part. The Missional church.
In some ways, I wish I could be like Dan to pick and select the best from all these 4 to make a "post-emergent" view, but I don't think is possible. I don't think I belong to the first 3, for one I'm not liberal, nor am I small house church, or am I into this hip and cool church thing.
Kev, I think I've got you started for this coming Saturday's conversation.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
My view of the Bible
We go through the Bible day in day out being taught such terms that the scriptures are: authority, inerrant, infallible, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal. These are so important that some churches make it their core belief in that. But were in the Bible does it say they are any of those things?
For one, how can the layman of today understand those terms we often say the Bible is without some background knowledge of the sciences, the Enlightenment, philosophy etc (I am part of the group that knows very little about them) which provides the context in which we have doctrine that say the Bible is all those things I've listed above.
Hence, I propose a new way of seeing the holy scriptures for the people of today. Not that I'm saying those things about authority, and inerrancy etc are not true, or that I no longer believe in it. I merely suggest that we should look at it this way: The Bible is good for preparing God's people for good works.
I would like to one day understand how our church forefathers came up with these terms in description of the Bible and the struggling they would have to over come to get to these doctrines. But for me today, I would much prefer to accept the latter.
That is something my simple mind can comprehend. That is something I can accept.
For one, how can the layman of today understand those terms we often say the Bible is without some background knowledge of the sciences, the Enlightenment, philosophy etc (I am part of the group that knows very little about them) which provides the context in which we have doctrine that say the Bible is all those things I've listed above.
Hence, I propose a new way of seeing the holy scriptures for the people of today. Not that I'm saying those things about authority, and inerrancy etc are not true, or that I no longer believe in it. I merely suggest that we should look at it this way: The Bible is good for preparing God's people for good works.
I would like to one day understand how our church forefathers came up with these terms in description of the Bible and the struggling they would have to over come to get to these doctrines. But for me today, I would much prefer to accept the latter.
That is something my simple mind can comprehend. That is something I can accept.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Nothing like civil war
nothing like civil war. i was waiting for this to happen. there is always someone somewhere who disagrees especially when it comes to something as sensitive as faith. they'll always think they are right and the others will always think they are right and then they will precede to fight to the death over some truth that they probably both haven't grasped.
what am i talking about?
i present to you an article that is titled "Rob Bell denies the Gospel"
the same beloved Rob Bell who wrote Velvet Elvis
just thought it was interesting and i would share it with you
i'm not here to hate on Rob Bell or the other guy but it's interesting to see their different views and takes on the bible.
and of course, the most interesting is how they call each other (or at least this guy calls Bell) a heretic like he has all the answers and the "true" christianity.
but we all know God is bigger than one man and one idea.
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/10/rob_bell_denies.php
what am i talking about?
i present to you an article that is titled "Rob Bell denies the Gospel"
the same beloved Rob Bell who wrote Velvet Elvis
just thought it was interesting and i would share it with you
i'm not here to hate on Rob Bell or the other guy but it's interesting to see their different views and takes on the bible.
and of course, the most interesting is how they call each other (or at least this guy calls Bell) a heretic like he has all the answers and the "true" christianity.
but we all know God is bigger than one man and one idea.
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/2006/10/rob_bell_denies.php
Thursday, October 05, 2006
I heard this imagery the other day..
So I was listening to this talk given by Brian McLaren the other day and what he thought Christianity was like when he grew up. He said life is like a box of jigsaw puzzles and our point of life was to put this puzzle together. Now jigsaw puzzle boxes have the picture of what the completed puzzle should look like. So in this sense, people will try to follow the picture to figure out the puzzle. So what if the top of the box, with the picture was switched onto a different box of puzzles that was trying to build a different picture? 
Mclaren continues on with this illustration and says the Bible is the jigsaw pieces, and he loves every single piece. But he says when we try to put everything together, we are left frustrated because we were given the wrong picture lid. Some would take a marker and fudge the pieces to fit with the pictures. Others would leave out some pieces that doesn't seem to fit the picture.
Mclaren continues on with this illustration and says the Bible is the jigsaw pieces, and he loves every single piece. But he says when we try to put everything together, we are left frustrated because we were given the wrong picture lid. Some would take a marker and fudge the pieces to fit with the pictures. Others would leave out some pieces that doesn't seem to fit the picture.Interesting....
Did somebody switch our lids?
Are we more loyal to the picture on the lid or the puzzle pieces?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
