Friday afternoon I had a lovely lunch of Cashews and Chicken at a local Chinese Restaurant with my Systematic Theology professor, Dr. Wittmer. He is as funny as he is scholarly (brownie points?) and I thoroughly enjoyed my second lunch with this new professor friend. (BTW, he’s written an excellent book called Heaven Is A Place on Earth. I would highly recommend digesting this deep, approachable work. [more brownie points, Dr W?]).
Like most of our discussions, we inevitably came to the topic of the emerging church movement. Like me, Dr. Wittmer is a recovering fundamentalist who is caught in the tension of his fundamentalist roots and what he perceives as shaky theology in this germinating movement. While he appreciates the emergent conversation and rejects much of his fundamentalism past, he still holds to the fundamentals of historic Christian orthodoxy and bemoans the loose-knuckled approach to belief within the emerging church (which will be answered by yet another book this fall called, Don’t Stop Believing.)
One of those bemoaned beliefs centers on the exclusivism of the Jesus and particularly the community of beliefs known as Christianity, or rather the inclusivism of the emerging church and the finding of God in the Other.
In our dialogue, he mentioned an essay in the year-old book by emersion (the Emergent line of books at Baker Publishing) called, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope . That essay, called “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness: Finding God in the Other” and written by Samir Selmanovic, a Seventh-Day Adventist pastor who grew up in a European Muslim family, explores the nature of the exclusivism of Christianity in relationship to the Other and the possibility that while “there is no salvation outside of Christ…there is salvation outside of Christianity.” (pg. 195)
Dr. Wittmer thought the essay was “bizarre” and “heretical”. I couldn’t recall the specifics of the chapter, but offered that maybe the author was simply deconstruction Christianity and our obsession over the institutionalization of Jesus rather than suggesting people can be God’s children simply by living like Jesus. He then challenged me to re-read the chapter and give him a 5-point essay on why it isn’t heretical (he was sorta kidding…) and I said I’d write a blog post, instead 🙂
So here is a reaction post specifically to Salmanovic’s essay in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope and more broadly to the inclusive tendencies of Emergent, all for (you) Dr. Wittmer!
Let me start by saying I’d consider myself apart of the emerging church conversation as a participant and appreciator. I participate as a read of and writer for the ideals of this refreshing movement; I participate as an appreciator, because I appreciate the general undercurrents of the conversation and what those leading the charge are trying to accomplish. But with that said, I also can see some troubling things within this diverse, adolescent movement. So after re-reading Selmanovic’s “inclusiveness” I come to this topic both appreciating and troubling. Let me continue…
The general theme of his essay is this: Is Christianity the only container of Jesus? In other words, is our religious system the only legitimate manager of Christ, or can people of other faith communities and spiritualities be in “partnership” or “relationship” with Christ.
Unfortunately, the author makes the mistake at the very beginning by confusing Religion with Story. Rather than dealing with the elements of the Story of the Holy Scriptures, he assumes that Christians believe our Religion is sine qua non, rather than our belief in God’s Redemptive Story of Jesus as told through the Holy Scriptures is end goal.
For instance, the author writes:
“But Christianity’s idea that other religions cannot be God’s carriers of grace and truth casts a large shadow over our Christian experience. Does grace, the central teaching of Christianity, permeate all of reality, or is it something that is alive only for those who possess the New Testament and the Christian tradition? Is the revelation that we have received through Jesus Christ an expression of what is everywhere at all times, or has the Christ Event emptied most of the world and time of saving grace and deposited it in one religion, namely ours? And more practically, how can we have a genuine two-way conversation with non-Christians about out experience of God if we believe that God withholds his revelation from everyone but Christians?”
Now this I agree with: do we honestly think that other faith communities do not contain reflections of what is real about God and His Reality? Because we are spiritual beings and created to relate to a Wholly Other that exists above and outside ourselves, it would make sense that varying human spiritual communities would reflect the strong human propensity for the Divine.
But the problem is the assumption that we through our own ability can create a truthful spiritual experience. While we are spiritual beings who were created to relate to God, Rebellion and Sin have “cracked” our ability to do both. So while other religions may contain fragments of God’s story (including even fragments of creation, rebellion, and redemption), those fragments are no substitute for The Story that is contained not in Christianity (which is such a weak strawman) but in the Holy Scriptures.
So, to answer his question “Does grace permeate all of reality, or is it only for and contained within Christianity?” allow me to use an oft used strategy from the Emergent playbook: that’s the wrong question! The teaching of grace has nothing to do with Christianity, but rather with God’s Redemptive Story. The issue is not whether the world has been emptied of saving grace and deposited into the human construct of Christianity (which is really what it seems he is getting at with this religion bit), but rather what Story tells the real story about saving grace.
At this point the real question should be this: what Story contains what is real about grace and salvation?
Moving on…
At another point, the author goes on to says this of the exclusiveness of Christianity:
“The Chominas and the Marks around us leave us wondering whether Christ can be more than Christianity. Or even other than Christianity. Can it be that the teachings of the gospel are embedded and can be found in reality itself rather than being exclusively isolated in sacred texts and our interpretations of these texts? If the answer is yes, can it be that they are embedded in other stories, other peoples’ histories, and even other religions?”
Again, the author confuses Religion with Story. Christianity is the institutionalized expression of God’s Redemptive Story as found in the Holy Scriptures. The Church is the community of called out and set apart people, by God, that embodies the Story and is sent on mission to reenact this Story by healing, restoring, and reconciling the world to Himself through Jesus Christ.
So the questions are these: Is God’s Redemptive Story isolated to the text of the Holy Scriptures? Well if you believe that God Created Humans to exist in an everlasting relationship with Himself and sought to communicate that intension to Humans through the Story embedded in the Holy Scriptures, then no. Now if this questions is no, then the second question is moot, but let’s humor him anyway. Is the good news of restoration through Jesus embedded in other religions? Hmmm, let’s ask a Muslim: Muslim, is the good news of restoration through the sacrifice and grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ found in your religion? Sort of a silly question, isn’t it Samir?
Again, Christianity as a human religious construct really isn’t the issue, Selmanovic. The issue is the Story of Jesus. Is that Story found in other texts? No, it is found in the Text of the Holy Scriptures. Is the Story of Jesus embedded in other religions? No, it is the Story of God’s Redemptive Community, a.k.a. the Church.
Which leads us the the next juicy piece of revelation (notice the lowercase ‘r’):
“We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign.”
At this point, I do believe I’m scared. I think I’m scared because I didn’t notice these sentences before, or maybe I did but was wholly uncritical of them and this entire essay, taking long, hard sips of the Emergent Kool-Aid perhaps. Also, at this point I wish I was sitting down with Samir and asking him in conversation about these two particular sentences.
If I were sitting across from Samir, I’d ask him to explain to explain three words: best, limited, and confined. First, I’d ask Him what in the worlds he means by “God is best defined by the historical revelation of Jesus Christ.” Has he not read Barth, the patron theologian of the emerging church? Wasn’t it somewhere in Church Dogmatics that he said Jesus Christ was thee fullest, complete, and entire revelation of God? Is Jesus not the ultimate expression of God’s Divine Self-Disclosure? How is he the best? Does that mean there are other not-so-best revelations of God aside from Jesus elsewhere in the cosmos?
And this leads to word number two: limited. Let me get this straight:
God…Yahweh…the I AM is not limited to Jesus Christ ?
Did something get lost in the translation? And what’s more: limiting God’s Divine Self-Disclosure to Jesus Christ is somehow theistic management? Limiting the God as revealed in His Story to God-with-us-God as found in His Story to Jesus is us managing God? To be honest: I don’t know what to do with this! If God’s Redemptive Story as found in the entirety of the Holy Scriptures is real and truly a form of God’s Divine Self-Disclosure (read: revelation) then how can you say that reducing God to Jesus Christ is improper?
What’s more: how can you say Jesus is not confined to the Christian Story? Again, the author seems to have difficulty distinguishing between Religion and Story. Christianity has nothing to do with it. God’s Redemptive Story as communicated through the Holy Scriptures does. And if one does not believe that God’s Divine Self-Disclosure is not limited to Jesus Christ, and this not confined to the Christian Story, then I wonder how you can even call yourself a Christian. Or if you prefer, a follower of Jesus. If Jesus is not the only expression of God, then what are we doing?
I’d say this is the most disturbing quotation of the essay, but then I’d forget about a section at the beginning of the piece. After recounting a story of how an Algonquin tribal chief, Chomina, rejected the offerings of eternal life by a Jesuit priest because he wanted to be with his woman and boy in his paradise, Selmanovic says:
“‘What would you choose, eternal life without your lived ones or eternal death with them?’ Chomina knew his answer. He would rather die than live without his beloved. Moved by the Holy Spirit people like Chomina reject the idea of allegiance to the name of Christ and, instead, want to be like Him and this accept Him at a deeper level. This choice between accepting the name of Christ and being Christlike has been placed before millions of people in human history and today.”
Samir, the early church was not persecuted because they offered people eternal life, a paradise or even a set of pietistic rules to walk in. No, the early church was persecuted and butchered by Empire Rome because they precisely accepted, yea proclaimed, Christ as Lord and Messiah, rather than Caesar. Despite the fact Caesar was called the Son of God and Savior of the World, they knew through both the verbal testimony of the apostles and actualy working of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ was Lord, not Caesar, and he was the one to whom they were to surrender their lives. It was His Story they were to step into, rather than the false stories (and especially divine ones) of Rome. Rome could have cared less about a band of people wanting to live well. What they cared was that thousands of people accepted the name of Christ, over against the name of Caesar.
And while I myself struggle with what to make of other religions and people who live good lives, lives reflective of the Way of Jesus, I go back to this: Faith isnt the point in the first place; faith does not save, faith does nothing for a person (other than perhaps provide a bit of psychological health…). Rather, the object to which that faith is placed has the only power to save (or not). Faith is not the Savior or Healer or Restorer or Forgiver, Jesus is. Jesus is the Powerful One. Jesus is the One (and only one) who has defeated Death and provided the Final Sacrifice. Not Buddah or Muhammad or even Moses for that matter.
Having Faith or being in Faith or coming from a Faith Tradition has become quite in vogue in the past few years, because it is incredibly noncommittal. Anyone can “have Faith” and “be in Faith” without it interfering in there lives or the lives of those around them. But Faith is nothing without Jesus. I say it again: faith is nothing unless it is placed in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.
So, Selmanovic, to say that the Holy Spirit guides people “to reject the idea of allegiance to the name of Christ” and, instead, simply live and be like Him is, at minimum, utter and complete nonsense that borders heresy. And to even suggest that rejecting allegiance to Christ in exchange for a good, lived life is a deeper level of commitment is reckless and wholly unsupported by God’s communication to humanity through the Holy Scriptures that suggests far otherwise.
While I can appreciate, at some level, the argument throughout this essay that we need to drop the requirements for people to embrace an institutionalized from of Jesus (in the form of the Christian religion), I struggle with how to do that without dropping the Story about Him or the community that He Himself built: the Church. There is a fine line between dropping the Religion and dropping the Story, and at times I feel the emerging church (as reflected in this essay) crosses the line by letting loose of the single Story that only matters: rescue from exile and restoration to relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
I am no emerging church hater and fully identify with the general thrust of this conversation. But it’s essays like this that cause me to question the limitlessness of the dialogue. While I embrace diversity and will be the first to help erect the tent, at what expense do we continue renovating the tent to include more and more voices? Do we expense with human nature? The nature of sin? Or the essence of Jesus himself? May this conversation continue dialoguing widely and deeply, by may we also conclude those conversations with punctuation marks and underscore a belief. May we continue deconstructing the human constructs of the institutional form of faith in Jesus, but may we not whittle Jesus and the grandur of God’s Redemptive Story down to human inclinations and persuasions.
Is Christianity the only container of Jesus and His redemption? No, but God’s Redemptive Story as found in the Holy Scriptures is. May we devote ourselves not to a Religion, but a Story, the Story of rescue and restoration to relationship with God through Jesus and Jesus alone.
I guess on a surface level I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But you make a number of assumptions which make it hard for me to articulate what exactly I feel you are not quite seeing in the writing. I’m not saying I fully embrace everything Selmanovic says either, but I approach this as a Christian who studies cultures and the worldviews of other religions.
I heartily agree with what you said: “….do we honestly think that other faith communities do not contain reflections of what is real about God and His Reality?” But then you go on to say, “Because we are spiritual beings and created to relate to a Wholly Other that exists above and outside ourselves, it would make sense that varying human spiritual communities would reflect the strong human propensity for the Divine. . . . But the problem is the assumption that we through our own ability can create a truthful spiritual experience.”
I’m uncomfortable with your starting point. You are starting with us and how WE reflect the Divine or are able to relate to a “Wholly Other.” I can see some of where Selmanovic is coming from. It starts with God, not human’s ability to conceive of or reflect anything.
I am not going to make arguments like a theologian, but I have thought a lot about the question, to what extent is Christ or His Story present outside of the “box” of Christianity. Yes, I agree with you that Christianity is a human religious construct that is conveniently exclusive. So, you ask, “The issue is the Story of Jesus. Is that Story found in other texts? No, it is found in the Text of the Holy Scriptures. Is the Story of Jesus embedded in other religions? No, it is the Story of God’s Redemptive Community, a.k.a. the Church.”
I think you are still creating boxes for the Story. The Story happened independent of being recorded into any form of Scripture. And as for your fears of what Samir says, ““We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign.” I think I actually agree with him.
Maybe it can become a game of semantics, but I see that God has revealed himself in many ways to many different peoples throughout history. In the OT time period, God revealed himself to many cultures outside of the Israelites. How was he revealed? . . . as God in the burning bush, God of the mountains, God of the Hebrew people. Did they know anything about Jesus? No, so they did not/could not define God through Jesus alone. About 500 years before Christ, Buddha prophesied about the coming of One greater than he, the Messiah. Somehow God had revealed Himself to those cultures, certainly not through Jesus or even God’s people. Did those of the Far East understand it? Not all, BUT today a lot of evangelism is prospering in Thailand based on Buddha’s ancient and mostly forgotten prophesies of the Messiah, a greater One to come. Isolated tribal groups in far Northeast Cambodia, when presented with the Gospel said, “yes! we know of this Story because through our oral tradition of Stories, we have continued to look for the “white buffalo” as was prophesied.” Jesus was immediately embraced as the fulfillment of their “faith practice.”
When I went overseas to work among unreached people groups, I was challenged by someone from another mission group to “look for Christ already here, already in the people you meet.” I thought she was one of those “far-left” Christians that was bordering on heretical. Afterall, I was the Christian being sent into that “pagan land!” (sarcasm) But after years of working among people who were admittedly trapped in their cultural practices of different religions, I realized that Christians can get the same way, so trapped in our cultural religious constructs of God, that we can’t see Him anywhere except the places we say He exists.
Obviously, the most transforming revelation of God is in Jesus, for that is how we can receive Salvation. And it is best if the revelation comes through the workings of the Church, Christ’s Body, but the truth is, or I don’t believe that God is confined to either.
Why else can we pray in faith for those who are lost, especially for those who have never met a Christian? Do we know how the Holy Spirit works? Or what about prayers for those who have been burned by the Church and want nothing to do with it? God’s revelation of Himself can be bigger than even the Church.
There are lots of other cultural examples I could give, but maybe this is not the slant you were arguing against. But these are just a few reactions as one interested in this topic as it relates to culture and religion.
First time visitor…
I’d like first to say, I find real difficulty in understanding the ’emergent’ church. Does ’emergent’ even have a meaning? I come across some areas which, to me, are clearly heretical, and so-called leaders have no understanding of some fundamental areas of basic theology. Infact, in the majority of cases, I see what seems to be no desire to submit to the absolute authority of scripture.
But then I come across men like Mark Driscoll, who is trying to unite ’emergent’ ideas with reformed theology. I suppose I just don’t know what to make of it all.
This individual Selmanovic, appears to me to be kind of person I keep coming across when it comes to most things ’emergent’. A man trying to teach others, when he has no clue about basic scriptural doctrine. It stems from a lack of desire to submit to the scriptures as our sole authority for faith and practice. If he knew his Bible, he would understand that ‘saving faith’ (which consists of knowledge, assent, and trust) is absolutely crucial to salvation, and cannot be neglected, or even replaced with a ‘Christ-like’ life. He would also know that in Christ, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9), so he would then understand that there is no revelation like Christ.
Anyway, I’ll be taking a look around here 🙂
I’m with Armen. I am thinking more and more that there is less and less meaning to “emergent church”.
Jeremy, love reading your blog. Also, I think Mike Wittmer is a wonderful voice today, especially in Grand Rapids. I have a couple of qualms with you guys on this one. I’ll limit my comments to one portion of your post for brevity’s sake.
“We do believe that God is best defined by the historical revelation in Jesus Christ, but to believe that God is limited to it would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign” you quoted the writer.
Wasn’t the writer’s emphasis clearly on the LIMITATION of Christ and not on the reality of Christ’s revelation? In other words, while our faith may be limited to the text, our God is not limited to the text. The text isn’t God. The text is God’s revelation. So, if God choose to speak to a Buddhist during transcendental meditation, so be it. The revelator is in charge of the revelation.
Jeremy, you wrote, “I feel the emerging church (as reflected in this essay) crosses the line by letting loose of the single Story that only matters.” I don’t see this essay reflecting emergent flight from Orthodox soteriology. Instead, the essay is an attempt to bring an understanding that Jesus is greater than what we say or believe about Jesus.
You note:
Dr. Wittmer thought the essay was “bizarre” and “heretical”.
If he had had fact-based arguments, he would have used them. This sort of name-calling recalls the manner in which the Israelite religious leaders treated Jesus.
This may be a helpful resource:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/
Jeremy,
This is an excellent example of irenic dialogue (in written form) 🙂 I appreciate your selection of Samir’s quotes and your kind interaction and disagreement with Samir. I am saddened by Armen’s arrogant comments above. He seems to be about 2 years late to the conversation.
It’s so fascinating to me to read things like this because I read Samir in a very very different way – – maybe I (perhaps wrongly) presumed Samir to be speaking through an orthodox filter or maybe it’s because I heard him give this presentation on a podcast and maybe he presented it differently in oral form than written.
Either way, I don’t relate to your critique because I don’t hear Samir saying the things you hear him saying. I think that is in fact a lot of the problem with the emerging critique across the board – – different people hearing different things.
Also, keep in mind that Samir’s heart is for multi faith relations which probably makes his voice different than many in the Emergent conversation or the broader emerging movement. He doesn’t speak for everyone in other words.
Having said all that, my expression of christian orthodoxy isn’t threatened even by those things you are hearing Samir say so *shrug* it’s not worrisome to me. Finally, to the critics, this movement is young, critique away but keep that in mind
John – You may like to further state exactly what you mean. I clearly noted that, “I don’t know what to make of it all” which is surely an invitation for someone like yourself to inform me. No?
Or, maybe you were referring to another aspect of something I said, in which case, I’d still appreciate some clarity.
Jeremy:
I am impressed with your line of argument and reasoning–you make all the right points in a gracious and thoughtful manner. My only question is why you say that Selmanovic’s view “at minimum…borders [on] heresy.” I’m wondering what he would have to say that would push him across the border into full-fledged heresy. Why can’t we simply call it what it is?
Per my private comments that I found his article “bizarre” and “heretical,” this was not because, as some other posts indicated, that I am a name-calling Pharisee or feel that my faith is threatened by his views, but simply because:
1. Selmanovic’s statements have no precedent in Jesus, Paul, John, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or any other stream of historic, orthodox Christianity, thus they would have to be deemed “heretical.”
2. His statement that it is possible to follow Jesus by not believing in Jesus strikes me as “bizarre.”
Anyway, I think that it is important for us all to clearly distinguish common from special grace (the fact that God is at work among and through all people in general ways does not mean that people can be born again apart from faith in Christ) and to remember Hebrews 1:3, which tells us that Jesus is the climax of God’s progressive special revelation (so the fact that Old Testament saints did not know about Jesus does not count against his significance).
Augustine was heretical.
I know you’re trying to say that Samir strays from orthodox and ancient Christianity by including the church fathers but it falls very very short when you talk about Augustine and some of the others.
You MIGHT be able to make the argument that some of Samir’s STATEMENTS *as you hear them* are apostate but I think that’s about as far as you can go.
Before I respond to all the wonderful insight (which is NOT sarcasm!) please understand that Dr. Wittmer is not a reactionary fundie! I fear his “private comments” of ‘bizarre’ and ‘heretical’ will be taken as such, so I want to make sure to squash that bug straight-up. While I don’t always agree with Dr. Wittmer (which he’ll be quick to point out!) I have always respected him as a fair-minded scholar, especially with these “emerging” views.
In fact, it was our fair-minded conversation that led this post! I hope to comment with some thoughts soon, but I’ve sorta been germinating on all your insight for a bit…
-jeremy
Hi Armen,
thanks for popping in and commenting! And I’m sorry for my friend, John…I think he misunderstood you; he can get a little carried away 🙂
Emergent/emerging church is sometimes hard to understand, especially if you are only an outside observer and reader. Because it really is a conversation you really need to embed yourselves in our communities and friendships to hear what we’re saying, and especially not saying. Maybe you’ve done that or maybe you’re just reading. Either way asking questions like you’re doing is the best way to learn about it so thanks for coming and asking!
I like your comments about and commitment to Christ as supreme to salvation and your reaction to Samir’s essay that seems to contradict that. I would be cautious though to write off the entire conversation by a man like Samir or others that use language that seems to contradict Scripture. Often the confusion arrises because we just describe things differently or think the old ways of describing things are no longer helpful or are even wrong.
Like some of the others said, maybe I am hearing something that Samir didn’t intend, and I’m IN the conversation 🙂 I can only imagine what it’s like for you! Anyway I doubt this helped clear up confusion on the EC, but hope some of my earlier writings will..and if you have specific questions feel free to ask…
come back soon,
-jeremy
Jeremy, you blog rock star! Just look at these responses. Aren’t they incredible!?
First, let me say I have enjoyed reading all of this. Secondly, before I comment, let me admit to having never read the essay we are critiquing. I have merely read every word on this blog and have internally wrestled with similar questions regarding exclusion.
Maybe I am misunderstanding all that is being said, but when reading, several things come to mind. I’ve mentioned before that my mother does not proclaim to be a “Christian,” and she certainly is not part of any local church; however, she exhibits more inner transformation (read: Christ-like behavior) than my father, the regular church-go’er. I see this example duplicated everywhere. I know so many lovely, lovely people who I really adore, and they are far more likeable than a lot of “Christians.” To be honest with you, that is a hard pill for some of us to swallow. I’m not always sure what theological bucket to put this reality in.
Furthermore, those who go out of their way to reject Christianity can exhibit a kind of “access” to the supernatural realm that I, being a Christian, do not necessarily possess. I am thinking of the psychics and the wiccans when I write this. Do you simply write them off as being phony? If so, you should avoid the cop-out and think again. I just wouldn’t be surprised if the position of moon in relation to the earth or my birth month really does play a part in how I feel and act. Why is it that the horoscope usually bears a good deal of relevancy and accuracy to my life?
Jeremy, I am just being open and honest here. I don’t have time for B.S. Life is incredibly short. You know I am a conservative, white—even Calvinistic—Christian who holds to Orthodoxy with a fairly tight grip. Yet I wrestle and question, and I don’t mind to admit that. I also don’t mind telling you that I lack the answers.
I love the thoughts shared here about God being bigger than the scriptures. I feel this reality when revelation comes to me through extra-scriptural means (like nature). God is always communicating, it seems like. Yet when I realize something about God that I didn’t know before, I can always find that new meaning echoed somewhere, somehow in the text. It’s just that I was blind to it before.
I do think Jesus is the only way to the Father. I believe my Bible, but I do so on the grounds that it is the best story I’ve ever heard. It captured my heart, and it continues to do so. That is to say, I deal with it according to how I feel about it. Thank God I feel good about it. That is a gift, I think. Now, how do I make sense out of the rest of the world and all the people in it…
Jeremy – I recognise the written medium isn’t the best form of communication when discussing views which multiple parties may differ on. I have no problem with what John said, I would just have preferred a little more clarity. Maybe my comments were arrogant and out-dated (again, I don’t know what that means), I’d just like to know why.
I am very much an outsider from that which may be deemed ’emergent’. I admit that wholeheartedly. Although my outward life may not always do exactly the right thing, my head holds very strongly to what may be seen as ridged Protestant orthadoxy. However, over the last year, I’ve been moving away from some things which I was taught were to be found in every Christian. e.g. that all woman should wear skirts.
You’ll no doubt have come across this before, and yet, as I submit to the scriptures as the sole authority, I see that’s man’s law, definitely not God’s, and while such a thing may be a preference, it cannot be imposed.
But, it’s also led me to be more strict in other areas, particularly in various areas concerning assembled/public worship. I must submit the God’s revealed will, otherwise my profession of love towards Christ is a lie.
From where I sit, most emergent churches are advocating radical measures to get people’s attention. I don’t mind radical. However, when sex is used, not as something to educate and discuss carefully, but more as an attention grabbing, pew-filling ploy, my heart repudiates it. Even the very ads used to market, border on soft porn in some cases.
Having said all that, I’m not closed to learning more, as I recognise not everyone who may be ’emergent’ is advocating these methods. I may be judged as out-dated and irrelavent to today’s society. I’d like to think that I’m as relevant as God permits me to be.
I understand millions of Christian’s are under the preaching ministry of men who really haven’t a clue (in all sides), and they’re suffering because of it. But, they are still God’s children, and I am making a diligent effort to love inspite of the differences. If I can educate and be educated along the way, all the better.
sex? armen, what exactly are you seeing that you think is emergent?