Much has been and is being said about the Emergent Church conversation/movement and especially Brian McLaren, its primary conversant. A lot of incorrect things have been written and said, which is typical of critique of any “new thing.” (… there is nothing new under the sun) I resonate with a good bit of what is being said within the conversation, especially as they engage Post-modern thought. (It really doesn’t matter what I or anyone thinks about Post-moderism – a whole generation – and following – are being raised on it and will be regardless of what we may want or demand!)
To answer some of his critics, Brian has begun a serious of three essays on an Emergent blog detailing his life. I think it would be good for anyone interested on new religious/Christian developments in the U.S., especially as this conversation changes the face of American Christianity (and it will, for good and for bad).
Here is the link: target=”_blank”>Brian McLaren on “Becoming Convergent” – Part 1 of 3

Another post on the House of Bishops/House of Deputies Listserv takes an interesting turn with the following comment. I like this idea, and it well sums up a way of looking at this issue of homosexuality and the current controversies in the Church and in society. Although he says he is a Traditionalist Anglican, he takes a position on partriarchy that most “traditionalists” would not share. Here is the post –

What strikes fear into the hearts of traditionalists, of which I count myself one, is the possibility that it is not just people who are challenging our impeccable opinions, but God. If we have learned anything about tradition over the centuries it is that tradition is flexible, and interrupted and altered sometimes by the God who is alive and well. That can be both comforting and threatening to us who love God but wish that He (…or She. Why is there not a non-genderous pronoun for God?) would stop giving us new information about truth, just when we thought we had it right.

Continue reading →

This piece of opinion-writ comes from Sr. Joan Chittister in the July 15th edition of the National Catholic Reporter. She writes about the recent decision by the Church of England to move forward on the consecration of women to the episcopate and the possible impact on the Church of Rome. I like the way she thinks…
—————————
When is conversion not conversion?
By Joan Chittister, OSB
Just when you think that things are quieting down — at least on one front — someone sets off a landmine. This time it’s a theological one.
On July 11, the Church of England voted, 11 years after the ordination of the first Anglican women priests, to begin the legislative process that will now admit women to the episcopacy. Don’t for a minute think that the issue is finally resolved. Either for them or for us.
Theology is a tricky subject. You have to be careful when you’re trying to understand exactly what is being said — or how. It has an eel-like quality to it. It slips and slides. It changes its mind a lot more than the tone of its teachings imply. It can get all entwined in history — called tradition — and interpretation — often called revelation.

Continue reading →

There is much written about the different “gospel” that is now being proclaimed by the North American Anglican churches. Whether the accusation comes from bishops, priests, and lay people of the Episcopal Church USA or the Anglican Church of Canada, or from provinces in the Global South (see this statement from the Primate of the Province of Southeast Asia as an example) they all proclaim that because Canada has approved blessings of same-gender unions and the U.S. has approved the election and consecration of a bishop in a long-term same-gender union that these churches now believe in and proclaim a different gospel. Never mind the North American churches’ presentations of how they wrestle with and understand Scripture, Tradition, and Reason as relating to their recent decisions.
How do they define the “Gospel?” What is the “Gospel?”
Here is how Dictionary.com defines “Gospel:”

Gospel
n 1: four books in the New Testament that tell the story of Christ’s life and teachings [syn: Gospel, Gospels, evangel] 2: an unquestionable truth; “his word was gospel” [syn: gospel truth] (3 has to do with music) 4: the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group [syn: religious doctrine, church doctrine, creed] 5: a doctrine that is believed to be of great importance; “Newton’s writings were gospel for those who followed”

How are these groups opposed to the U.S. and the Canadian Anglican churches defining Gospel?
1.) The four “gospels” – yes, but according to most who take an anti-homosexual perspective the Gospel is not simply the writings of the four “gospel” writers. There is a tendency to view all of scripture equally and all of it was dictated by God the Holy Spirit, it is all therefore “Gospel.” When these groups accuse North American Anglicans of proclaiming a different gospel, what they mean is that these churches are proclaiming interpretations of scripture that they do not agree with. “Gospel” to them is not simply the proclamation of reconciliation with God by Jesus Christ.
Many think of the Gospel as the words of Jesus detailed by the four writers in their “gospels.” We proclaim salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ, and we follow Jesus’ teachings, which are considered the “Gospel.” This is how I would define “Gospel.”
2.) Yes – I think we can all agree that the words of Jesus are the “Gospel.” Because the prohibitionist perspective on homosexuality and same-gender unions is in direct conflict with recent decisions by the North American churches, the forces in opposition claim that these churches have then accepted a “different gospel,” even though Jesus said nothing about this topic as recorded by the four gospel writers. Of course, they consider the entire canon of scripture to be the “Gospel” all together.
4.) Here is where their perspective finds its natural home, I believe. These groups accept a certain line of scriptural interpretive reasoning that presupposes an anti-gay bias. “The Gospel proclaims that homosexuality is an abomination, sin, contrary to the will of God, and anyone who is a homosexual is not fit to be in leadership of God’s Church.”
This is not “Gospel” from the very important teachings of Jesus (#5), or from the four gospel writers. Even when those who favor full inclusion of homosexuals give reasoned and sound rational for their interpretive perspective, it makes no difference. There can be no deviation to the anti-homosexual stance.
What the opponents of the North American decisions demand is a capitulation and strict adherence to their particular theological and interpretive beliefs – no others. This is not historic Anglicanism by any rational. It is, however, fundamentalism.
If what we say is the essence of the Gospel, the teachings of Jesus in the four gospels and perhaps what is expressed in the historic Creeds, then no, the North American churches are not proclaiming a different “Gospel.” They are simply proclaiming a different understanding of how God is working in the world today and a different interpretation and application of Scripture. It makes for great rhetoric, but not an honest dealing with the issues!

“In the Episcopal Church, our theology reveres Scripture as but one of the three sources of authority, co-equal with Reason and Tradition. We have always required clergy to be educated, and most of our seminaries have been open to historical and critical scholarship. Few priests believe that the bible is inspired literally word for word. As a result, few Episcopal parishes require you to hang up your mind when you enter; we are not beholden to a confessional statement or to a majesterium’s conclusions.”
This quote is from an essay written by Louis Crew for the book Combating Homophobia, edited by James Sears & Walter Williams (Columbia Univ. Press, 1997: 341-353).
My question is whether Scripture is really co-equal to Reason and Tradition in authority over the Church and Christians. Is Scripture THE authority, informed by Reason and Tradition, as we attempt to understand the intent of the original writers (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and how it all applies to us today? Is Reason an authority tamed by Scripture and Tradition? Is Tradition an authority mitigated by Scripture and Reason?
I grew up with Scripture being the absolute center. Traditions of man were always suspect. Reason, the thinking and philosophies of man, are always available for corruption. Yet, what is needed to understand Scripture? Tradition and Reason! The Church of Rome tends towards Tradition as its authority. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend towards Scripture as their authority. Unitarian/Universalist Christians tend towards Reason as their authority. Anglicans proclaim all three, co-equal, as our authorities. I accept that, but still tend toward Scripture when the rubber hits the road.

The Church is not for supplying our wants. The Church is to help provid for our needs! It is important to know the difference.

I am having a very difficult time right now. I need to vent. I have heard too many reports recently, and I have experienced too many incidents in classes, to believe this church has much of a future.
As much as I oppose the fundamentalists (be they conservative or liberal), they rule the day. Anglican comprehensiveness is practically gone.
Where are the people who still believe in the Via Media? Where are people who still believe in the Elizabethan Settlement? Where are the people who still believe in the Oxford Movement? Where are the people who still believe in the three-legged stool? Where are the people who still believe in the Nicene Creed? Where are the people who can still claim Christ without embarrassment? Where are the people who know that church growth means the hard work of prayer and hitting the pavement in evangelism? Where are the people who do not have defeatist attitudes and expectations of decline? Where are the people who believe that keeping the doors open means filling the pews with people who believe that this church has something worthwhile to believe in and experience rather than scheming and devising and attempting to change the church into a social services organization, psych-services, or community rental hall? Where are the people who believe that Jesus changes lives, and while psychotherapy, community counseling, and drugs certainly help, coming to Jesus is the first and most powerful means of new life? Where are the people who can stand and say that nationalism is not Christianity? Where are the people who can accept ambiguity and realize that we humans simply do not have the capacity to explain or understand everything about God? Where are the people who experience the mystery of God? Where are the people who experience the power of God? Where are the people who place the Gospel before their own prejudice, bigotry, and individualistic wants? Where are the people who realize that my own, their own, beliefs or inability for believe do not make Truth?
I am so frustrated. People in this church attempt to strategize their way out of decline, yet they do not realize that it is Jesus that causes the increase, not our beautiful plans. Yes, good programs and plans and vision are all important, but without the central figure of Jesus, Jesus, yes, there is that word, that name – Jesus – all those plans and programs and visions are nothing. Hear that – nothing. The social-gospel church has for more than thirty years attempted to remake central tenants and of Christianity, and all it has gotten them is absolutely decline and the very people they so wanted to help are not being helped because the money and the people have run out.
Taking care of the poor, the oppressed, the down trodden is a core element of the Christian faith and message, but without Jesus – there is that very embarrassing name again – there is nothing more that a social service organization. If we want to be social-workers, then be a social-worker. If we want to be a counselor, then be a counselor. If we want to be psychotherapists, than be a psychotherapist. All these things are good and important, but they are not the Church and the Church is not to be them! If the Church tries to be all those things, it is an affront to those professions and an affront to the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ.

In our Liturgy and Suffering course, we are going through Postmodernist thinkers as Jim Farwell, our professor, is setting up a way of approaching suffering, and theodicy in general, so that we do not deal with it superficially or just stuff the topic intoÂ… what? (and other stuff).
As Dr. Farwell spoke in class today, I thought of the differences between the “pop-postmodernist” ideas floating around and the stuff presented by postmodern thinkers such as Derrida and Lyotard (among others).
The “Emergent” conversation going on presently among some Christians is quickly dividing into two basic camps. Those who see themselves in the honest postmodern camp and who characterize themselves as having a “conversation” are of one camp, and in the other camp are those streaming toward the newest fad and who want to replicate the successes of some Emergent churches, they are striving to build a “movement.” This latter group is building structures that seem diametrically opposed to the openness of honest postmoderns (or something like that).
“Emergent” is a conversation, not a movement. The success of Emergent, it seems to me and if it truly is what the “conversation” camp is making it out to be, then cannot be an attempt to place it into Modernist structures or within the trajectory of such other movements as the “Seeker” church movement, etc. An honest Emergent, it would seem, does not see the conversation developing onward and into the next big thing, the next movement, the NEXT work of God, but of considering that other which is outside the framework of Modernism – seeking to converse about that which has not yet been considered. I think, anyway.
There is, of course, yet anther way.

In the New York Times Magazine there appeared a story on the new forms of Christian community popping up all over the place. This is a quote from Jay Bakker, who is part of Revolution Mnistries. (Jay is the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, from the PTL Club. Remember them?)

”We’re just trying to love people with no agenda,” he told the group. ”That’s hard, to be a Christian and have no agenda, and it’s hard for people to think of a Christian with no agenda.”

Link to article.

Here is something interesting to consider in relation to scriptural interpretation adapting scripture over time. It comes from the HB/HD Listserv.

I wonder if a quote from Ephesians 6:2-3, from the readings at Morning
Prayer today, might have considerable significance concerning
biblical interpretation. It appears to me that Paul himself had adapted a
scriptural passage to fit his contemporary world.
“Honor your father and mother”-this is the first commandment with a
promise: “so that it may be well with you and you may live long
on the earth.” (Eph. 6:2-3)
The last word in that quote is the same in NRSV, REB and KJV (translating
the Greek word “ge”), however the Exodus 20:12 quote
reads:
“Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the
land that the LORD your God is giving you.”
I have to believe that Paul knew that the original commandment referred to
the “Promised Land” – Canaan. However, Paul was a part
of the Jewish Diaspora, a native of Tarsus, which was far from Canaan.
Paul took a specific quote from scripture and deliberately expanded it to
fit his contemporary world. I believe he did this to
affirm a wider view of God’s love than the original text intended. I
believe that he was right. I believe that his expanded quote
fits perfectly with Jesus’ habit of saying, “You have heard…, but I
say…” I believe that we are expected to, and have biblical
mandates to, expand our understanding of biblical truths to fit our
expanding knowledge of the creation and our expanding experience
of the unlimited love of God for all.
Bill Fleener, Sr.
Priest of the Diocese of Western Michigan, retired