The Circle Of Inclusion

for sure – and it pisses people off to the point of kicking folks out of churches….the fear is THAT strong. Great post Jonathan.

Good word, Jonathan. Yes, people do find it difficult to entertain our way of thinking/being. We are like light dancing across a spectrum, rather than a consistent color to be categorized.

Its interesting to me that what I call “beliefism” is so ingrained in some branches of western Christian thinking, that many think you have absolutely nothing to stand on until you start filling out a “statement of beliefs”; as if the document itself is where our security lies. But like N.T. Wright says, we are justified by faith, not justified by believing in justification by faith.

I’m not Emergent, or at least I do not belong to an Emerging church, which is hardly surprising as I live in Spain but I just wanted to say I liked what you say, yet at the same time I can only wonder about what the whole thing is about. There is only so much you can learn from the web.

We had heard this same argument (really critique) of the emerging church. That all we do is talk and don’t do anything.
However I would say, we, the emerging church ARE doing ALOT. The problem is you just can’t see it because we are so focused on doing it out in the world, not relating it to church or belonging to any group/organization. Just following Jesus in our daily lives outside of any church.

Great post, jonathan.

You are right to point out that most us are operating under a broken system. We define people by our differences rather than our identity as defined by our baptism.

The gospel lectionary text this week is The Good Shepherd pericope. In this Jesus says that the good shepherd “lays down his life” for the sheep and does so willingly. I always thought that was Jesus talking about his dying. Really though, Jesus is speaking about living. His entire life and ministry (and even death) was about laying down his life for the sake of the other. Love. And the sister text (1 John) for this week calls us as Christ’s followers to live the same way.

If we are truly laying down our lives for the sheep (and keeping in mind that there are many “not of this fold”) than we do not have time to dissect our differences. We only have time to respond in love.

grace and peace.

Thanks, Jonathan, for the helpful reflection and the connection on Twitter.
I recently heard the differences described like this. In the traditional church we work from a model of Believe-Behave-Belong in which the starting point is shared beliefs. When we begin from a place of love, the order is reversed to a model of Belong-Behave-Believe. Our church provided space for up to 320 homeless people to sleep in our building over this past brutal Vancouver winter. They slept on the pews, under the pews, on the communion table and on every available space they could find. While we have been operating as an inner city church for 124 years and providing advocacy and a place to sleep in the daytime, we have been challenged, almost beyond our capacity, to live out of a place of love. It has been a time of great learning and of incredible blessing for us all.

Sandra

nice post Jonathan. I was wondering what anyone thought about the tension between beliefs (ideology) and action (orthopraxy). I notice the Derrida reference & was qurioys just how far we can agree with certain postmodern philosophers. When Derrida says “there is nothing outside the text.”. That’s a bold claim. He was interested in the reconstructive nature of Christianity no doubt. However sometimes I think his name gets thrown around for cool points. I’m still reading “Writing &

correction to my above post- Derriea is interested in the Deconstructive nature of Christianity not reconstuctive. I guess my computers spell check decided that what I was typing was relative to the interpreter! LOL sorry about that!

Thank-you. I think I’ll hang this on my wall. You’ve articulated the way I understand Christ’s Great Commandment. I remember a quote from a Promise Keepers Gathering 14 years ago: “Doctrine is meant to divide.” My traditional side agreed. Yet my spirit rebelled. “Is this the way it has to be?” Life has taught me to answer, “No.” You have articulated the “why.”

I cannot resist. I. Just. Can. Not. Resist.

Jonathan, brother, do you believe what you saying? If you do, you are arguing “traditionally”. The very statement, “the emerging church has taken away the traditional means of arguing” is ITSELF a “traditional” statement of fact that you hold to be true.

It amazes me to no end how post-modernists claim that logical modernism is dead, when that belief ITSELF is a truth statement using “modernist” logic. (It’s actually not modern at all, being used since, um, ADAM!)

I can only attribute this kind of muddle-headedness to Satan himself. Please, emergents, turn from this nonsense!

Shafer, I think you’ve missed my point. I’m not suggesting that we don’t argue or that we don’t differ. Differences exist. They are part of life. I’m saying that love transcends those differences.

Jonathan- I know I left a really long comment above but I’m really curious what u think about belief in Jesus. I have been a lowdown, filthy, greedy, lying, cheating, sinner & it was a certain, specific type of belief in Christ that seemed to make a difference in my life. I don’t go to church. I don’t hang out with alot of people who go to church and just for the record, I’m not a Calvinist.:). However I have felt the darkness so strong and so powerful in my life that I knew for me a choice had to bs made. Would I follow Jesus as my only master? So far, I’ve been a pathetic failure at that task. But the question still remains- when C.S. Lewis talks about God he makes it clear that a choice has to be made. Siren Kierkegaard also speaks of this in his either/or essay. For him either/or was the road to heaven. Both/and was the road to hell. I guess what I’m getting at is there seems to be a fundamental choice to be made in this life. I’m not saying that I know what that choice is persay but for me, Christ seems to be at the center of that choice. Unlike your friend, I don’t claim to have “THE CORRECT” understanding about belief in Christ or about Christ but I wouldn’t be shocked if there were “A CORRECT” way to believe in or about Christ. Do u think it matters what we believe about Jesus (ie.-diety, death on the cross, ressurection, etc.). Or can we just come at this relationship in any old way? I don’t mean to sound preachy I’m just someone who is wrestling with these questions & I was wondering what u thought since this is your post.

Daniel, I appreciate your position because I lived in that space for a long time. And here’s my resolve to your question.

I think what Jesus did on the cross is sufficient for me, but my faith is not in my own belief. It is in the person who believes correctly for me. He never said believe in a list. He said believe in me. He didn’t say follow a list. He said, come follow me. And the cross was the single moment of destroying the power of death in my life. What he did is not of my doing. I can’t change it. I can only embrace it. My embrace is simply a recognition of what happened, not the second half of a contract that fulfills it.

So when my life begins to reveal the fruit of the spirit, it means that I am embracing that truth. When my life is revealing violence to myself and those around me, it reveals that I am rejecting or denying that truth. Neither change, invalidate or complete what happened on the cross. But the violence in my life does have a consequence that effects me in tangible ways. So the journey for me is learning to embrace the dignity that was lost in the garden.

I hope that answers your question. If not, let me know.

Jonathan your comment was very helpful. I guess I’m just not quite satisfied with the simplicity of the gospel. Apparently for some reason I feel the need to make it more complex. For example, when you say above that differences exist but that love transcends those differences I want to wholeheartedly agree but then I’m reminded of something not so pretty and peaceful. I hate to be so pessimistic but hey, alot of really bad shit goes on all the time and people are suffering constantly in this world. I just had my 2nd daughter 5 days ago and I watched a new life enter this world & I love my little girl. If someone were to try and rape or kill either of my daughters, that’s a big difference between me & that guy. Such a big difference that i’m not sure love could transend it to the point of drawing me into unity with this guy in his current state. I know this may sound bad but if he meant to kill my daughters then I would hope to stop him even if it meant Id have to kill him first. Is that a loving act towards him or an act of hatred? I agree we should broaden our circles, make room for the other, welcome the outsider, and place Christ like love at the top of our to do list but can I really extend an offer like that to a person who has my child at gunpoint? In that moment I have a decision to make. I’m not saying I know the right choice I’m just saying as their father is it possible that the loving thing to do might seem violent? Like the movie Watchmen or reading the Bible, the moral and ethical implications of a reality like the one that all to often surrounds us does not always lend itself to quick, simple, fixes. Many times poetic cliches are not enough & sadly someone has to make a tough decision. It is a traumatic event and following Christ seems to have the same complexity & trauma. I’m rambling now, it’s late, & I’m working on a term paper. Thanks for the response & I’m not saying I disagree with you I’m just asking is it possible that it’s more complex then that?

Jonathan,

I know your overall point was about love. What I was criticizing was HOW you going about making your point. Saying that Emergent has come up with a new method of arguing is false (in fact, it’s impossible!). No matter how much Emergent/Post-modernism wants to kill “traditional” logical reasoning, the fact is that it is the only form of thinking humans can perform (and thus, it is from God Himself—the Logos). From this, I conclude that any nonsense about the death of logic is Satanic. Now I will press you here: Do you admit that Emergent DOES, in fact, use the same form of reasoning that your friend tried using on you? If you do, which is laudable, you must also admit that divisive, logical doctrine is the only method of having religion.

(P.S. All this hard-core talk about love and inclusion plays right into my thesis that Emergent is headed for a unified, global religion based on Love. See “The Remerging Church” thread.)

I still don’t understand how you get ‘Love’ out of God. I can see where getting love from the biblical Jesus story comes from but if it is God that is love rather than Jesus then you are stuck with the guy who chucks people out of Eden, wipes out all sentience except the two of each species and the family of Noah, ever wondered how Noah’s sons wives felt about their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers? The guy who swallows whole families in the ground for the sin of one member. The one who orders systematic genocide of all people in Canaan once they have served their purpose of keeping the wilderness under control till there are enough Israelites to run the show. The one who kills off first born kids who are not of ‘our tribe’. etc etc.

I laud the emergent setup and hope that we will indeed land up with a global religion or preferably none at all. It is interesting to me that most of the ‘spiritual’ people I know who are moving toward global peace and unity are using the word compassion instead of love to be the defining centre of their lives. A much better idea I feel because of the over use and abuse of the word love in our modern world.

It is not possible to have biblical religion of any kind based on the bible and love at the same time. No matter how you justify it, explain it away, retranslate and interpret the bible, that god is not a nice being and will never be able to be part of unity, love and peace. With which I wish to honour all of you. Namaste.

Note to all: I did NOT pay Jacqui to write that.

Shafer, I applaud you for your tenacity, yet I still think you’ve missed my point. I think you have me confused with a stereotype of a postmodern that doesn’t believe in anything. I deeply appreciate logic. It’s a natural part of conversation and thinking.

Central to the emergent ethos is conversation. I’ve never said we don’t argue. And I’ve never said we don’t disagree. We do.

The traditional means of arguing typically define conversation through differences that lead to exclusion. We argue to the point of not being able to be in the same room with each other. We seek validation based on our ideas and lists, rather than on the dignity that God has provided us.

The Emergent conversation is different in that it allows those differences to exist without the loss of relationship. And I will say this. None of us are perfect. I’ve seen people in Emergent conversations lose it too. And I would offer that you have people that you disagree with but stay in relationships.

What I was offering was a general trend I see that I believe was based on what Jesus was trying to get at. If you disagree with that, no worries.

Daniel, I too have wrestled with the question of love in difficult circumstances. But every time I find an instance where I am willing to stop I suddenly see how that instance is pushed further by love. And I ask myself who do I want to be. In the end I want to be love.

I would offer one of the deepest questions of the cross is that is presents the idea that it is better to give a life than to take one.

Shafer
As we have already done, not once but many times, we ask you for the sake of your own credibility – What is your point of presence? Valid email would be nice. All these constantly changing URL’s in your links are pretty lame. – Actually, what is your point at all? Beyond just “emergence = global religion”?

I honestly can’t see how you expect to win anyone over by simply playing these mind games. If you think you are offering us a vision of God that woes us or enthralls us at all, away from our “obvious” errors, it’s not coming across. At least people like Jonathan are giving you a chance, taking your point seriously. I tried that, and my friend, you did not deliver.

On reflection, you have not even begun to enter conversation over this last 6 weeks. It’s like we’re dealing with a petulant child here. Are you going to grow up or what?

And did you read the post that I wrote to try and address the issues we have been bandying about? http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/does-emergence-global-religion/

Shafer said:
ll this hard-core talk about love and inclusion plays right into my thesis that Emergent is headed for a unified, global religion based on Love.

Wow. Sounds beautiful – like heaven, even.

God, thy kingdom come, on earth, as it is in heaven. May it be so.

Shafer, I think Emergents would allow progressive revelation into the thinking/conversation. In First John, I read “God is love.” Jesus was our first hands-on, eardrum-vibrating, visible showing of God I John 1:1-2. I believe in Christ’s presentation. I appreciate the OT revelation, but have to be it is lost in the light of God’s showing up on the scene—in the flesh.

I guess I meant Jacqi. :) Sorry.

Well, I certainly didn’t want to get embroiled in the global religion mess on this thread, although I understand how interesting indeed is the coming slaughter of fundamentalists and Jews in the name of Love (or Unity, or Compassion, or whatever Rosy-Let’s-All-Come-Together word you want to call it, which fundamentalists like myself are restraining). (See Rev. 6:9-11 and 20:4-6). And, for those who don’t know, I am “Shafer”, the resident, drooling, locust-eating doomsayer trying to warn Emergent of where they are headed. If you want more of this stuff, just keep dropping in on the “The Remerging Church” thread. I’ve promised to periodically post news stories and general commentary on how Emergent is founding (or at least egging on) the coming, Satanic-Unity-based global order.

As for this thread, I’ve got another fish to fry. Jonathan is currently tip-toeing towards the door while I’m fending off the pro-globalists. I ‘aint through with you, yet, Jonathan, so get back over here, boy!

Now Jonathan, I’m satisfied with your admission that Emergent still uses logic as its basis for reasoning. In fact, I’ll even admit that I (possibly) misread you. My goal now is to get you to admit that exclusion is actually a good thing when it comes to religion. And, of course, if you’ll admit that, you must then admit that your whole essay is bogus.

Well, shoot, I’ll just try to hit a grand slam right here. Consider this conversation between me (S) and you (J).

S: Loving inclusion is not a good thing for religion. Do you disagree?
J: Yes.
S: If you disagree, then you must think I’m wrong.
J: Of course.
S: Then I’m wrong and you’re right?
J: Yep.
S: I see. But it’s best to be right, don’t you agree?
J: Yes, all the time. It’s best to know and hold to the truth, which is right.
S: So since I’m wrong and you’re right, it’s best if you try to convince me of the right.
J: I guess.
S: But let’s say I refuse to accept the right. Will you come to accept the wrong instead?
J: Absolutely not.
S: Then you will remain right and I’ll remain wrong.
J: It looks that way.
S: And you won’t include me in the right?
J: No, I can’t do that.
S: Then you exclude me for being wrong?
J: I’ll have it no other way.

Shafer,

Inclusion is not about agreeing. It’s about accepting each other despite our differences and disagreements. It’s about loving each other even though we are very different.

I won’t speak for Jonathan, but I suspect he would disagree with the entire line of reasoning in your make believe discussion above. He wouldn’t try to “convince” you of anything and love you regardless.

Shafer, thanks for reinforcing my original idea with your request to exclude everyone else from this conversation and the end point of your conversation, which leaves you with no option but to exclude.

Your logic includes a couple flaws. One, love does not invade or evade. I have no desire to prove you are right or wrong. I don’t work from that framework because you obviously don’t value my input. No worries in that regard. If you think you are right, then I’m happy for you. You have to live with the consequences of your own logic, not me.

Two, I begin with the idea that we are broken human beings capable of error in our logic. And yet love chose to stay with us. That is illogical from most regards. Yet it is the very idea in the cross. It is the very essence that allows two people who disagree to realize they are finite individuals looking through broken glasses.

And I will say this, I could be wrong.

Much love to you.

Guys, I favor exclusion. That’s no secret. What I am trying to get you to realize is that you do, too. You obviously disagree with me. That ITSELF is exclusive. It’s like my original post in this thread: The very act of stating, “Logic is dead” is ITSELF logical. Likewise, the very act of disagreement is ITSELF exclusive (regardless of who is actually right!).

Now, of course, if you’re using the word “exclusion” in the benign sense of ignoring someone (as Chad seems to imply), then I have completely misread you. If that is the case, then basically, the whole thesis of your essay is merely, “We ought to talk to people who disagree with us.” I hardly find this threatening to religion. Heck, no missionary could evangelize without TALKING to pagans.

Or, possibly, since you seemingly hold that love does not attempt to determine truth (e.g., “Love does not invade or evade. I have no desire to prove you are right or wrong.”), your thesis is, “Never try to convince anyone of the truth.”

I can only leave you with three options:
1. You agree that truth is exclusive (and thus, exclusion is a good thing).
2. Your thesis is, “We should talk to others.”
3. Your thesis is, “Nevery try to convince anyone of the truth.”

(Jonathan, you are walking dangerously close to not believing that you can know truth, which is Rule #1 in Postmodern thought.)

Shafer,

No one here is excluding you. You are excluding yourself. Big difference.

And your “logic” amounts to “Could God create a boulder so big even he couldn’t move it?” (*sigh*)

Jonathan
In this fracas, you have made some sublime observations.

”...which leaves you with no option but to exclude.”

“You have to live with the consequences of your own logic.”

“I could be wrong.”

Thank you. I celebrate Grace.

Steve
“The door to hell is locked from the inside” as a wise Englishman once said.

I don’t quite get people who claim Christ yet “favor exclusion.” Amazing, really.

I just posted an essay on my blog about worship as seen by St. John in Revelation including it’s inclusive nature.

How lucky for Shafer that though he may be an exclusivist, the Christ he confesses as Lord is not.

I’ve created no paradoxes here, Steve.

But now that you’ve brought it up, I’ll take a stab at that age-old conundrum:

1. Assume that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
2. Since He is omnipresent, nothing is bigger than Him.
3. If nothing is bigger than Him, nothing exists OUTSIDE of Him. (or else that “something” would then be bigger than Him)
4. If nothing exists outside of Him, all things exist INSIDE of him.
5. If all things exist INSIDE of Him, then He moves nothing that exists. (since there is nothing for Him to move the thing INTO)
6. Therefore, since He moves nothing that is created, it is impossible for God to create a boulder that He moves.

Does this hinder his omnipotence? I don’t think so. I think it implies that even God does not break the laws of logic. Remember that He IS logic. He can’t break his own nature.

Shafer, I should’ve known that you’d have a logical answer to that age-old question! You crack me up, man.

BTW – Can I call you Spock from now on? as in, Mr. Spock? I’m going to see that new “Star Trek” movie this weekend. Are you going? I’m guessing you’re a “Star Trek” fan, am I right? ;-)

2. Since He is omnipresent, nothing is bigger than Him.
3. If nothing is bigger than Him, nothing exists OUTSIDE of Him. (or else that “something” would then be bigger than Him)

I just love how Shafer just “logically” proved that God is an inclusive God :)

Oh, come on! Don’t act like you all haven’t tried to figure it out in your head.

You know how I really feel? I feel like I’m in this white room, and all of these weeble-wobble air things surround me, with big eyes, a huge, toothy grin, and their tongues dangling out the side of their mouth. The more I slap and kick, the faster they rebound, whoooop, right back up in front of me. Emergent is driving me insane, I tell you!

(And yes, Chad, God is inclusive. All are invited (included) but sadly, many are excluded (“No one comes to the Father EXCEPT…”)

Shafer,
No, actually I have never tried to figure that out before.

So you don’t have any problems reconciling your belief that God is inclusive yet you prefer to be an exclusive person? You say in #27 “Guy, I favor exclusion.” That doesn’t sound like the God you believe in.

The interesting thing about no one coming to the Father except through the Son is that the Son did all that was required in such a way that if he be lifted up, “ALL” will be gathered. No one does get to the Father apart from Jesus – this is why the Church has long proclaimed Christ as Victor.

heres a helpful quote: I believe it’s from John Franke but I could be wrong- anyways here it is-
“there is only one way to the father and that’s through Jesus….but there are many ways to Jesus.”
Ahhh sweet inclusion! I’m diggin all the comments on this post, this is why Emergent Village is all about…true conversation. Shafer, I appreciate your convictions about logical reasoning. Thanks for adding your voice:)

Jonathan, I really like your definition of emergent and, as for the rest of the blog, spot on! Did I detect a little ‘twesearch’ happening last week? Definitely a blog to be shared.

Sadly, the C.S. Lewis quote about heaven and hell cuts both ways.

While Lewis does hold that the gates of hell are locked from the inside, and allows some room for crossover in the Great Divorce (which you all can interpret as a fuzzy inclusive God), the work itself is called “The Great Divorce.” Lewis meant to definitively divorce heaven and hell, especially in response to William Blake who was trying to marry them.

So C.S. Lewis can be included within the exclusionary group that includes Kierkegaard (who champions Either/Or over Both/And), and Schafer.

In Orthodoxy, we reconcile these claims of inclusion and exclusion by recognizing that there is a big difference between being included in heaven and actually experiencing this inclusion as light and life. Hell is nothing other than the fire of God’st love, but if one has not become a new creature in Christ, one cannot bear this love and it is experienced as fire rather than light. It is a truism to say that God’s love includes all, or that everyone will be included within the eschatological embrace of God. The real question is how will this event be experienced by each person? Depending on who we have become it will be experienced as either fire or light. As C.S. Lewis was trying to show, there really will be a great divorce, a great Either/Or. Not everyone who journeys to heaven on the bus wants to stay there. Some have become so small that they no longer contain the very large desire for God that is the source of our dignity as human beings and image bearers.

I agree with Scafer at least in part. It is not at all loving to allow someone who is in error to continue in their error. What is more loving is gentle correction. It can even be loving to passionately argue with someone to the point of utter exhaustion and aching sadness.

I agree with Jonathan in that how these arguments or conversations (if there is a distinction here it is not at all precise and simply reflects personal preferences) proceed tells us as much about what we believe as anything else (thus someone who says that he loves God but hates his brother is a liar; someone who merely believes in God without loving is as likely to be a demon as anything else). But this does not change the fact that we are called as Christians to be a prophetic voice to the world. To think that the Postmodern world is one that appreciates the voice of prophets any more than any other period in the history of the world is to be delusional, and is also a sign that we have lost the prophetic message completely and are only telling our culture what it wants to hear (were false prophets ever slain either in Israel or in any time or place since?).

Christ did not come to bring peace (inclusion), but a sword (exclusion). The cross and the testimony of the martyrs are clear about how this sword is used and upon whom. The kingdom of this world cannot bear the prophetic message of the Gospel and uses the sword quite literally on the followers of Christ. To be included within the Kingdom of God is to be a stranger and pilgrim in the world: it is to be excluded from the Kingdom of the World. It is to embrace the call of martyrdom, which only comes when we confront the world with the truth and refuse to pair this truth with the violence that could protect us.

Evangelism is itself our method of practicing inclusion, and also a presupposition for believing that what one believes really is true and good (if we don’t want to share our beliefs and values, then what sense is there in thinking that they are all that important even to us?).

Schafer- just so u know I don’t believe that logic is dead. I do however believe God is dead. A dead God is a Christian idea if there ever were one.

Daniel,

Before we appropriate Nietzsche (the self-proclaimed anti-Christ) as an Apostle and messenger of the Lord, I think we should tend to an important semantic difference.

It might be a Christian idea to say that God died, refering to Christ’s passion which is itself proclaimed in the Nicene Creed. But it is not a Christian idea to say that God is dead, using a present verb tense. The reason for this is that:

Christ is risen!
Indeed, He is risen!

Christ himself argues from verb tenses to the reality of God, saying that the Lord is (is rather than was is significant!) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here the Lord is (present rather than past tense) the God of the living and not of the dead.

Christ, because He died and rose from the dead (trampling down death by death) is the living God of those who are being made alive. The verb tense makes all the difference.

On the other hand, I would be perfectly willing to appropriate Nietzsche’s claim that the image of God on the cross threatens to revalue all values. Of course, Nietzsche took this as a bad thing because it glorifies weakness rather the brute exertion of strength or will to power.

Christ does threaten to revalue all values, and it is only as they are revalued that they become valuable in terms of our salvation.

Peace.

Todd
Thanks for your input.

Of course Inclusion “cuts both ways” – otherwise it would be cheap. The Inclusion I believe the Gospel to proclaim is Costly, ultimately with the price of our very lives.

This idea that Inclusion is the opposite to Justice is where many are coming unstuck. No, as Thomas Talbott says, “his mercy demands everything his justice demands, and his justice permits everything his mercy permits. According to the alternative picture, in other words, ‘mercy’ and ‘justice’ are but two different names for God’s one and only moral attribute, namely his love”.

And as NT Wright says, “forgiveness is not the same as tolerance.”

I am neither a evangelical or an emergent. Evangelical exclusivity creates paradigms that justify hate, racism, sexism, and promotes oppressive paradigms that are contrary to the Gospel. Emergent “discussions” will not be truly “post-modern” until they deal with the demographics who are creating their “conversation”- white men. Yet again, the dominant voice that enmeshed American hate with the Gospel is growing in a new morphed “exclusivity.” Until the emergent conversation can invite voices of “other” to be their neighbors, they are not too far from the oppressive structure of Evangelical exclusivity. I will bet $100 all these post are by white people…emergent village you have a problem. Beware. Most white Christians are “inclusive” until you threaten their white power and privilege, then they are caught in shame and fear as much as today’s Evangelicals are.

Makeesha, Sandra, Jacqui, and now Jessica: (race not known, gender guessed).

Will you settle for $50?

Jessica, your voice is welcome. You are already pat of the conversation.

Jessica,

Thanks for your comment. This critique of Emergent is one many of us are very familiar with, and there is much truth to it. But I’d just encourage you to take a look around the blog. The post before this one was written by three Asian-Americans (granted all men, which they acknowledge as being less than ideal). The post after this one is from a white woman (Holly Rankin Zaher). There have actually been a lot of women’s voices on this blog over the past couple of years. I’m just saying that if you look around even a little bit, I think you’ll see that the voices on the EV blog are not 100% homogenous (e.g., white male).

Are we “there” yet? Of course not. The vision of truly embodying kingdom diversity is not fully realized, but there is an intentional movement in that direction. I’d say our participation in God’s mission draws us toward it like a magnet. And the reminder to be vigilantly and unceasingly self-critical of white privilege—or, as Anthony Smith says, white supremacy—is appreciated (by this white man, anyway).

Shalom,
Steve K.

Steve K…thank you for your comment. Your words are obviously well thought through for the sake of kindness, that is much appreciated.

All, I want to clarify something. I appreciate Shafer’s voice in the matter. The push back is always good even if it’s not fun.

Yet I think we are approaching things completely differently. Shafer appears interested in an argument or debate, which is embodied in one person being right and convincing the other through logic. He is very entrenched in his position and states it so.

To invade is to force him to think like me and I have no desire to do that. To evade is to run from relationship because he doesn’t think like me. I don’t want to do either. Love seeks out the best for/in others but also is willing to allow the person to walk away, recognizing they just aren’t listening.

I am proposing that the Emergent conversation is different. It begins with the idea of holding what we believe, but also being open to other possibilities, or what many call living in the tension of an opposing thought. It’s what allows voices like Shafer to exist in the Emergent conversation.

I think there is an absurdity to approaching something from the idea that we can be completely right. We’re broken human beings in limited structures. Are we close in much things. Sure. But are we still wrestling with many of the things we hold sacred and true. Yes. Is it valuable having these conversations? Yes.

I hold that the Emergent approach to the conversation does not begin with the idea of conversion to a position (dualism), but a willingness to sit outside of the black or white (non-dualism). I have Rohr to thank for this language.

To me this is love, or the willingness to sit with Shafer and seek out relationship even if we disagree. Because at some point, as he has made clear, he is NOT going to accept my opinion, and if I take that personally, I run the risk of stepping away from relationship. Love seeks to hold the tension in that.

Jonathan,

When you say, “Is it valuable having these conversations? Yes.” I think that you are ignoring what is going on here and what is frustrating to people like Schafer and others.

In what sense is this a “conversation”?

Schafer has articulated his own position and has been trying to get everyone else to commit to their own positions and discuss with him how these relate to how he views things, but almost no one has taken up the task. This is only a conversation if a bunch of comments lined up one on top of the other is a conversation. There is very little back and forth, and there is very little attempt to understand one another (I think that Schafer is less guilty of this than others in that he has tried to articulate your position for you when you would not). To simply call it a conversation and an inclusive one at that seems like an exaggeration.

It reminds me of Sarah Palin’s comments about how she loves to answer these tough questions, when she had not in fact answered the question and instead merey asserted that she likes to do so.

Here you are wanting to pat Emergent on the back for being a place where these conversations have taken place, but most people are refusing to engage with Schafer’s points.

To engage with Schafer would be to patiently explain to him why his positions are wrong, which would probably require articulating your own positions in the process.

If you don’t believe that anyone is entirely right or wrong, because we are all finite and limited beings, etc. you should at least try to articulate in what ways he is right and in what ways he is still mistaken (If you cannot make an attempt to do even this, is there anything that you think we can know?).

It is not enough to say that no one has a monopoly on the truth. To say this is to shut down conversation rather than to further it by creatively engaging with Schafer around his and your beliefs to end up and a position that is more true. But again, this involves carefully articulating your own position and also interacting with Schafer’s to affirm where he is right and to correct where he is mistaken.

To do less than this is not to be loving at all. It is to allow someone to continue in their error instead of correcting them.

It is not loving to be in someone’s presence, listen to their speech, and then promptly ignore them.

Your comment about invading and evading is useful because it allows us to get clearer about what we are talking about here.

Is love radically non-invasive or is it non-violently invasive? One thing that we can agree with right off the bat is that it is not evasive (good, the fact that we have established this from the beginning allows us to have a genuine conversation).

It seems to me that the middle position between invasion and evasion is not love but tolerance. If I am tolerant then I am willing to speak with you or to let you walk away because you are not listening, but in either case I remain unmoved (to be moved by another is to be either invaded, or to be called forth by them for help and healing – which is itself another invasion, albeit a gentle, benevolent, and humanitarian one).

This is not love. Was Christ radically non-invasive? If so, then what do we believe about the Incarnation? What do we believe about the Great Commission? About the Apostolic Mission, etc?

Radical non-invasion is just another word for tolerance. I let you be as you are, and you let me be as I am. The only thing that upsets tolerance is when one or more people, we can call them exclusive fundamentalists, think that what they believe and practice is not only good for themselves but for others as well.

But doesn’t a loving person always think that what is best for others is to be loving as well. Doesn’t it involve non-violent invasion to bring this about?

If you use the word love to mean non-invasion, then the only thing that is left is to have a long conversation about the meaning of love. I have already outlined what I would want this conversation to look like by pointing towards the visible icon of Love Himself, which is Jesus Christ, the Son of God and His invasion that starts in a manger.

Todd, I have attempted to articulate my position but Shafer just kept missing what I was saying. At what point is he responsible for his own thought process?

I agree that this CAN be a string of comments, but I see it as a medium for people to explore ideas and different ways of seeing things. If you see it differently, no worries.

I think we still see love differently, and I could be wrong. But love to me is so compelling that in its presence we reduce and even remove our guards. So what may seem like invasive is actually a receiving.

I will also say this. I value my words and thoughts and don’t see Shafer reciprocating. Again, I just chose to not speak because from my perspective he was not listening.

Jonathan,

Thank you for your response. I would like to see you respond more fully to the likes of Schafer, and I think that that particular call or demand is something that you are going to have to get used to. I am not sure why you are reticent to answer your friend’s (I am not talking about Schafer here) question about what you believe about Jesus. Why not just recite the Nicene Creed? That would not commit you to an atonement theory, which is one of the things that lots of Emergent’s have been accused of taking fudging on. Reciting the creed does not commit you to an atonement theory that you don’t believe, but does put you in continuity with traditional orthodox Christianity and serves to allay fears of apostasy.

The reticence to be more specific about your beliefs about Jesus Christ can not help but come across as evasiveness and only confirms what most fundamentalists fear (a fear that I am coming to share), namely, that Emergent is a departure from the Christian faith as it has been passed down to us. It could be a revival of liberal Christianity or some sort of new and mystical spiritual and religious pluralism, but by refusing to get specific about what you believe about Christ, you are fanning the flames of these fears.

What would it look like for Schafer to reciprocate (he most probably does value his own words and thoughts every bit as much as you do)? Perhaps his tone could be a little bit better, but is it only his tone that puts you off or also his content?

To the extent that you are calling for charitable discussions, I agree that we should promote and practice these. What I have been trying to tease out is whether this charity and love exclude exclusion.

Our disagreement might not be in regards to love as much as to time. I think that if we read the Scriptures we have to recognize that God’s love is invasive. It was after all while we were sinners that Christ came into the world. Christ sought us, before most of us were in any position to seek Him. However, you should notice that I said that Christ’s invasion of the world began in a manger.

Why did I not say that it began in the womb of Mary, a young and righteous Jewish virgin? Because what is exemplary about Mary is that she willingly receives God the Word. She is what all of us are to become – that is, God-bearers. We are to become those who freely and cooperatively participate in God’s sanctification of the world, by first going through the process of sanctification ourselves and thus becoming conduits of God’s healing presence.

So here we have a tension (hopefully one that everyone here at Emergent Village can appreciate), the best of the Jewish tradition is crying out for the Messiah, for God Himself, or for Christ, while the world at large is not yet calling out (or at least they are calling out for something very different than this Love who shows up). So in the case of some, Love is asked for and received willingly when He comes from the Father, but for others the entry of Love into the world is a genuine invasion.

Christ’s life shows us just what kind of invasion this is to be. A gentle and humble invasion (Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey after all, not a war horse), but it is an invasion and confrontation nonetheless.

You want to preach receptivity and receiving, and thus negate the language of invasion. I say, not yet my friend. We are not there yet. Eschatalogically we may find that the invasion has not been an invasion after all, but has only been the response of the loving God to the cries of His creation. However, for now it is still very much an invasion.

We announce the Kingdom that everyone should and perhaps eventually will want to accept. But people have trained themselves for imitations and have deadened their desire for God with cheap pleasures and distractions, and thus this call can only come as a shock and outrage.

I think we would be better off embracing this, than in shrinking back from it.

Peace.

Hey Todd,

Sorry to interrupt your “conversation” here with Jonathan ;-) but I think you need to understand that “Shafer” is a known “troll” (totally anonymous, using a fake name and email address, posting numerous antagonistic comments, etc.) here on the EV site. He/she has posted a dozen or more comments on the “Remerging Church” post, which you can see here:
http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/the-remerging-church

I just wanted to try and explain this because I know it doesn’t “sound” (from reading our comments/responses to “Shafer”) that we are being very gracious and loving. And perhaps we should have still been more patient and gentle, but I wanted you to realize there is a backstory to this whole “Shafer” saga going on that you’re just now coming into. (For the latest – and saddest installment – go to that “Remerging Church” post for “Shafer”s potentially “last comment” and my response.)

That’s the first thing I wanted to try and clear up.

Secondly, I just wanted to say my impression is that Jonathan is attempting to speak broadly in his blog post for the Emergent Village community (so to speak), which is a theologically diverse group of people from across numerous denominational backgrounds, Christian traditions, etc. If you want to know what Jonathan believes about certain things, then I encourage you to ask those questions of Jonathan (not ask him to speak for the entire Village).

And likewise, Jonathan, I’d encourage you to share freely and openly about your personal theology without attempting to speak for everyone in the Village ;-)

BTW—One thing I’ve been thinking about recently is the idea of of Emergent Village as a “liminal space” or, to use Peter Rollins terminology, a “suspended space,” where some personal theological positionality is “suspended” or held as “transitional”/”in-between” in order to really listen and engage “the other” in dialogue. We are fully who we are (e.g., evangelical/post-evangelical, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.), and we allow others to be fully who they are (e.g., Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.). We are all followers of Jesus Christ, part of his body, the Church. And there’s an epistemic humility in being willing to enter that “liminal space” and do so in community together—because it’s an admission that we each could be wrong, and, even more than that, that we ARE wrong, we just don’t know what we’re wrong about (yet).

This doesn’t mean that we never “land” (individually) on certain theological topics (I’d argue that there’s no such thing as “not landing,” everybody lands somewhere), but rather that we value the way in which our beliefs are held as much as the beliefs themselves. I can have all of my theological I’s dotted and T’s crossed but if I don’t have Love then I’m a resounding cymbal, a clanging gong.

Just my two cents … Now back to your regularly scheduled programming …

Shalom,
Steve K.

I like your post. I think we would do well to describe “love” as an action verb. Love is shown in our good deeds.

Todd, here’s my concern. It is not my responsibility to manage how you think or try and track down every point where I think you’ve have misunderstood me. That’s impossible. Your thoughts are your responsibility. So when you say you disagree with me, that’s fine. I’m not here to debate. But if you are genuinely interested in understanding Emergent, then I would suggest that argument is not the way to begin, as Shafer did.

Given the nature of this dialog as a written response, it seems to be impossible to cover all points, I’m going to respond to two, because I think one at least touches back on the original post.

You said, “The reticence to be more specific about your beliefs about Jesus Christ can not help but come across as evasiveness and only confirms what most fundamentalists fear (a fear that I am coming to share), namely, that Emergent is a departure from the Christian faith as it has been passed down to us.”

When I say that I believe IN Jesus I mean just that. I believe in the person, not in my construct of what I think he did. I think I know what he did, but I don’t place my trust in that list. I have learned that it has changed, deepened and grown over time.

If this seems evasive to you, then rest assured it is not your approach and you don’t have to live with it. I do. If this is a source of fear for you, then I can only say that I appreciate your concern for me.

I will say also say this. In our dialog of invasion and evasion, you and I disagree. I’m okay with that. If your approach works for you, then great. But I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it is the Holy Spirit that transforms a life, not me.

Jonathan:

I will try to keep it short.

I don’t think it is loving to refuse to engage people in disagreements. It may not be the particular form of violence that you are accustomed to and that you are trying to avoid, but it is still a subtle and more hidden form of dishonoring “the other.” To truly honor the other is to talk to him or her. To truly honor the other is to be myself in relationship (which means owning up to what I believe and why). If I refuse to do these things, then I withhold my love.

Your comments are used to end conversation just as effectively as the fundamentalists who you decry. You say, “If you say you disagree with me, that’s fine. I’m not here to debate,” you cut off the conversation. If you think that conversation can only happen where there is mutual agreement then you fail to appreciate the true force and redemptive power of conversation and dialogue in the first place.

“In our dialog of invasion and evasion, you and I disagree. I’m okay with that. If your approach works for you, then great.” This is again a comment that cuts off conversation and not one that promotes it. This is the hands off approach of tolerance and not the gritty and dirty approach of love, the approach that requires actual contact with others, including with their language, beliefs, and values.

I have tried to playfully woo you into conversation, but have so far failed. For this I apologize. If the reason for this is my defense of Schafer, then I can begin to understand.

Still, I would hope for more from this conversation. If you disagree with me about invasion/evasion and love, then why? I gave one reason why I thought we might disagree, which was to turn our attention to notions of time and eschatology rather than of the concept of love itself. What did you think about this? You just disagree, and that’s it! We both walk away more convinced than ever that we disagree? What is the value in this? How is what you are doing different from evasion?

Steve:

Thank you for providing some of the context of what is going on here. I would hope that everyone who posts here would have the courage to own up to their own distinctive beliefs and perspectives, as this is the only way to really profit from sharing and dialogue in the first place. If everyone is trying to temper themselves so as not to disturb the big tent of the Village then all that happens is that everyone loses out on the diverse particularities of everyone else. When I asked Jonathan for specific beliefs, it was only in response to the conversation that he had with his friend in which he refused to say more than that he believes in Jesus. I was trying to understand the root of this hesitance to speak.

Peace to all. Please believe I sincerely want to converse. I am not an anonymous poster. I am posting under my full name, with my email and a link to my blog.

hey Todd – when your talking to Jonathan about dodging the “Jesus question” from his friend who was not Shafer, were u talking about me? If so, I’m glad someone else noticed it going unanswered:). But actually for Jonathan & anyone else out there- I don’t really care if u think that Jesus rose from the grave bodily & because u believe in this ressurection, u will be “saved”. Instead of asking, “What do u believe about the ressurection?”. I’d rather ask, “Do u think WHAT we believe about the ressurection matters?”

False, Todd! Good grief, man! You were the first to call me out in Remerging Church that I might be a fundamentalist! (see #24 in that thread). Did you suddenly stop reading the rest of the thread, and then jump on this thread, unknowing of my anonymity?! Now I will press you, too: You either (1) were fully aware of my anonymous status on this blog and yet still came to my defense here, in which case you are lying for thanking Steve for telling “what’s going on here”, or (2) you did indeed stop reading Remerging Church and did not know that I was anonymous.

You know the truth. That’s between you and God.

“Inclusion…”

For some of us, it’s a loaded word.

I have Emergent Village set up on my Google page as an RSS feed, but I rarely read the articles. Today though, the word “Inclusion” caught my eye.

It’s a loaded word.

Inclusion is a word that we parents of children with special needs often use when we are talking about our childrens’ education within mainstream classes.

“Inclusion” means that maybe for one hour out of a day my kid might get to just be a regular kid and be part of the larger whole. Some schools believe in it…some don’t. It is often pointed out that a mentally retarded child may not be able to keep up with the class and may not be able to understand the subject matter…I know mine can’t do the same level of work that her typical peers can. But, you see, I know something the naysayers don’t; it doesn’t matter if a child can understand or keep up with the mainstream. What matters is that she learns something more than she would have had she been excluded.

My kid has to have an aid in the class alongside her and the books and other materials must be adapted and simplified so that she can participate. But, the effort is so worth doing. For example, in junior high my daughter was allowed to mainstream in a history class. She couldn’t learn everything she was supposed to learn, but she came home every single day, excited about something she had learned that day in history class. And god, she was so happy to be a part of the “real” class.

What’s this got to do with Emergent? I’m not really sure, but as a parent of a child with Down syndrome, I do know this; We are all, every one of us, God’s special-needs children. Maybe inclusion could be looked at differently—not as a way for someone to “get” everything they’re supposed to get but rather as a way for them to get what they can get, and more importantly, for them to be a part of the greater whole.

And, we can find a way to include every one who wants to be a part of the whole.

Todd, I’m not trying to be evasive, nor end the conversation. My comment, “We disagree,” is stating the obvious, not ending conversation.

But here’s my problem. My post was about exactly that. We have a problem coming to a place of disagreement, and sitting with the tension of that. I wanted to call that out.

My concern for trying to address every question is what I call managing someone’s misunderstandings. Instead of true dialog and sitting with the other, I’m spending all of my time managing what you think I said. And to be honest, it’s tiring. If I speak, it’s misunderstood. If I don’t, it’s ending conversation. These posts do little to really facilitate great dialog.

I will say this. If you and I ever were in the same place for coffee or a beer, I’d love to sit down with you and answer your questions.

RuthMarie
Thank you so much for your perspective. What you bring to this particular (heated) conversation is the fact that in God, we are not in competition. All the competitiveness of this age will not count in the light of Love.

In Love, all achievement is boiled down to how much we give, for as we give, so will we receive. True inclusion is inclusion in Grace, where works and worldly glory is voided.

Just as I suspected. The only way to get a grip on Emergent’s beliefs is to get a little tipsy.

(BTW, Steve, since my name is plastered all over this thread already, I’ll let this thread run its course, and then, I tell you, I will go back to my lair, where I’ll hibernate for a time. So don’t any of you Emergent knuckle-draggers say anything so idiotic that it offends humanity itself. Then I’ll have to awaken—career goals be darned.)

Schafer:

Since it seems that the only way for me to reach you (since you are anonymous) is to post on this thread, I will tell you the truth. It is: 2) I stopped reading the Remerging church thread after I called you out for being a fundamentalist. By the way, I wasn’t trying to maliciously unmask you or anything on that thread, I was simply trying to get clear about who you are and what you were saying.

(Schafer I would ask you, and everyone else to forgive me if I stop reading this thread as well, and even more, if I forget the names and positions of the principle participants. Sometimes it is hard to keep you digital others straight since you all look alike, at least from my side of the glowing screen).

RuthMarie:

Your story is a powerful and concrete illustration. Wow! I would hope that we can be Christians who do include those people who want to be a part of the whole even if it might require some more translation work on our part.

What I have been trying to get at here is that we can be inclusive without giving up on the traditions, beliefs, practices, and worship that make us distinctively Christian. The way to be inclusive is to lovingly communicate these things to others in ways that they can understand and in ways that allow them to begin a transformational spiritual life with God and the Christian community. And this is simply the work of evangelism and discipleship. What I am concerned about is the type of inclusiveness that accepts everyone, exactly where they are at, and does not offer them the hope (and challenge) of changing and growing – which simply means growing in truth and holiness, or in short, growing in Christ.

Your said that your daughter’s joy came from learning new things with the “real” class, and we can see the Church in the same way. It’s traditions are deep and rich and if we draw from them deeply we also can experience the joy of transformation. I pray that we can make these traditions available to contemporary thirsty souls through the difficult work of translation and proclamation.

Peace.

Very well, Todd, I’ll take you for your word. But that doesn’t let you off the hook. You seem to have wavered in your support of me after learning that I am a “troll” (a subjective term). Tsk. Tsk. You, of all people (being an adjunct philosophy prof yourself ), should know that neither a person’s name nor background has any bearing on the validity of his or her arguments. Remember, ad hominem is a rhetorical fallacy. So whether or not you know “what’s going on here”, it’s what my logic says that matters, not who I actually am.

That being said, son, how am I ever going to send you into a full-fledged melee when you don’t know which side you’re on? Having given you my personal Shafer-Whiffle-Bat, I reclined back in my chair with an I.V. linked to a nice big bag full of meal replacement fluid, and was waiting to watch a good Steve-walloping. I was really hoping for, “Actually, Steve, I’m fully aware that Shafer is a troll. But that doesn’t matter—his arguments are what counts.” But what do you do? You sprint back across the room, swat my I.V. out and kick me over backwards in my recliner, you little punk!

And, um, Jessica,

Are you as hot as you sound? CB: Cave 22-B

Schafer:

I think your arguments are very worth hearing. Unfortunately, I also think that your presentation does much to hinder their reception here.

Since much of the “melee” that I was having with Jonathan, Steve K and others was around whether they were being fair to you and answering your questions and concerns clearly and soberly, the fact that they have been “had” by you does make a difference.

I will repeat the refrain that everyone else made on the Remerging Church thread: it would be much easier to talk with you if you would identify yourself. Although, what is more important than your identity for the purposes of any conversation is your tone. You had moments of glory over at the Remerging Church thread, but then your posts degenerated to the point of absurdity. You accuse Emergents of being logically absurd, fine and well. Here we probably agree. I accuse you of being absurd when it comes to wisdom, and the common sense of interacting with other people. Your arguments would be much better if you tried to articulate them in a language that people here would be more likely to understand. When you post random links to articles that are tangentially relevant to the discussion at hand, or when you speak to people in a demeaning and patronizing tone, you actually harden the ears and hearts of those who could benefit from your words.

Peace to you Schafer.

ScottL, Nic Paton, Steve K, and russ:

I just read through the entire Remerging Church thread and was very impressed with your humble and gracious interactions with Schafer. The latter half of the 80+ comments were not very worthwhile, but there was a period when that conversation was really good.

I am glad to see that conversations are going on here about the importance of theology and not just blanket condemnations of it because it divides.

It may be that Schafer is right and that those who are most willing to form Emergence Christianity are those who are Syncretistic and will give up what it means to be distinctively Christian.

I was happy to see that there were many of you on the Remerging Church thread who were trying to defend the value and necessity of the truth of Christ against those who would belittle it for the sake of a cheap unity.

All:

I wish I had read the Remerging Church thread before getting drawn in here. Oh well. These conversations will likely have to happen again and again and again until finally those who want inclusion at all costs and those who want the truth even when it’s exclusive can no longer pretend to be within the same large tent, or Village.

Peace to all.

This ain’t no melee, Todd. Steve versus Todd with Wiffles was a training run. You need some more hardening before I send you over to Pharyngula.

All this namby-pamby stuff makes me sick. Weren’t you ever spanked for getting too close to the road? The Satanic Mac-trucks out there will plaster you in the real world of apologetics.

“Shafer”,
Wow, you’re back – and with all kinds of reinvigorated personality and non-fundie swagger (i.e., “Jessica, are you as hot as you sound?”). Sheesh about it! You never cease to surprise. I’m actually glad to see you’re sticking around.

Jessica,
I hope you’re not offended by “Shafer” for hitting on you (and my repetition of his pickup line in this comment for comedic effect). I suspect “Shafer” is a white male who is unconscious of his position of privilege and dominance and oblivious to those he is hurting around him because of it.

Todd,
You said, “These conversations will likely have to happen again and again and again until finally those who want inclusion at all costs and those who want the truth even when it’s exclusive can no longer pretend to be within the same large tent, or Village.” I’m not sure I agree that those are the only two options. Can’t we agree to disagree and still be “within the same large tent”? I think that’s a large part of what Emergent stands for. We hold different beliefs, but we hold enough of the same beliefs to stand together and work together for the cause of Christ, his kingdom and justice here and now.

I’m really encouraged to be a part of something that includes Christians from across various traditions (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox). There’s a sense of unity in the body of Christ that I experience being in dialogue with all of these traditions that feels like an answer to Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane. I’m being really honest with you here. This isn’t some utopian, “Shafer”-ian one-world-religion type dream – this is a real biblical expression of unity in Christ by the Holy Spirit. This is something that transcends belief statements. Is this unique to Emergent? No, not necessarily. I just haven’t experienced it anywhere else. So that’s why I’m grateful for this “large tent” Village.

Shalom,
Steve K.

Sup Steve. The fact that I AM a fundamentalist is what allows me to hit on Jessica. Liberal-types think this is evil. That’s why the Anti-Christ won’t have a woman (Daniel 11:37). And alas, just another reason why people who think like you will fall for the A.C.

(P.S. I told you—I’m going home after this thread. I’m getting no work done and getting too embroiled in this mess.)

LOL. First of all, I am as hot as I sound. Second, Shafer, you sound like a man that in my presence would crumble at my strength and you would curse your futility for not having los huevos to handle a woman like me, may your heart one day learn how to long for woman who knows her beauty and tenderness, as I do…a man who can long for that knows no cowardice.

Well done Jessica. Well done.

I think Shafer & Jessica should get a room
;-)

OK so we’re negotiating how to be the “worshipping community” with trolls attached.

When we went to Africa Burn (regional Burning Man in SA) we were doing a sacred meditation and a “joyfully inebriated” participant insisted on howling while we were meditating. I was sorely tempted to tell him to shut up and respect the space, but am happy in retrospect that our patience was tested and we allowed him to be.

To make the best of this situation, I think we can learn from this trollism: “neither a person’s name nor background has any bearing on the validity of his or her arguments.”

And what I see is, in such an appeal to the reptilian brain lies the Achilles heel of testosterone spirituality: God will, at the end, not be in the slightest bit interested in arguments, logic, categories or rhetoric, but entirely interested in the state of the heart.

That was a lovely piece of literature, there, Jessica. Now since I am a reptilian-fundamentalist, and NOT politically correct, I can say this: Hush, Woman!

(Gosh, you smarty-girl professional types get me every time!)

So Shafer, I think you’ve managed to offend just about everyone, and yet nobody has asked you to leave. I have to ask. How does it feel to be “included”?

Maybe love does win.

Now just a dad-burn minute, Jonathan. Do I have you going on record as trying to get me to realize I have been WRONG all this time?

shafer, u have way oversimplified postmodern thought as the rejection of absolute truth. I’m sure Jonathan believes in right & wrong & I’m sure he would tell u about it if u would just be open to listening. I appreciate your logical, “orthodox” understanding of the Christian faith, but remember none of us are infallible, not me, u, or anyone else. We must all be willing to re-evaluate our thinking when necessary. I’m sure we all agree on slot more issues than we disagree, u seem like a smart guy. It’s confusing why u seem to want to provoke everybody. Is that your intention? If your really interested in postmodern philosophy, then give a real critique. There is such a thing as good postmodernism and bad postmodernism. U should read John Caputo. I’d love to hear your thoughts on his work. Be blessed my friend & brother in Christ:)

Shafer, it doesn’t really matter if I think you are wrong. You have to live the consequences of that. And again, I could be wrong.

Well, I’ll certainly admit I don’t know EVERYTHING. But I’ll tell you what I do know. I know exactly what my cerebral cortex frontal lobe looks like now, because of how far back I rolled my eyes after reading the last two megalithically inane posts!! Good grief, Steve,I tell you, I can’t take it anymore. Jonathan sure did name this thread correctly—we are just going round and round and round in a perfect Platonic circle. I’m out of here, and I mean it! (probably.)

But there’s still one piece of unfinished business to take care of. Jessica, my cave is 23 paces up from Lower Creek, then take a right 8 paces. Look for the hole in the granite. I’ll probably be hibernating. Throw some pebbles in first at me. If that doesn’t work, crawl in, slap me on the forehead with the BIG rabbit you ought to have killed (don’t you wake me up empty-handed, woman). Put the rabbit on the fire and we’ll have dinner. (But don’t you start spouting out any anti-male-troll slurs. I WILL lock you up with my chickens.)

Shafer,

What saddens me is your desire to provoke others into contempt towards you. You are more content in the violence you ask others to do to you, then imagining that others might delight or enjoy you. You are desecrating your personhood, which is always, theologically incorrect. Though, I am imagine safe for you, and even more grievous, lonely. Your last post, moved me from enjoyable chuckle, to sorrow in how you ended. Peace to your soul.

And wipe your feet before you crawl in.

shafer, what makes my last post “megalithically inane” ? Like I said, u seem like a smart guy- could u quit hiding behind your sarcasm and actually converse with me.

Daniel
There was nothing inane about you last comment.

Do not look to the right or the left, keep following the Conversation. ;)

thanks nic, I think…?

Sorry Daniel, didn’t mean to be cryptic. I was merely saying that I thought what you said was very valid (good vs. bad pomo, Caputo as excellant voice from within postmodernity), and you should not be put off by the sidecurrents in this conversation.

ahhhh ok…. I’m with ya now:)

How far exactly does inclusion go? For example, do we only focus on the similarities that we have with Islam and just accept Muslims for who they are?

And personally from what I’ve read of things and people who are considered “Emergent”, I don’t think that what frustrates people (or at least me) is not that they’ve taken away the traditional means of arguing, but what they say is riddled with ambiguity. I don’t see simplicity and clarity, I’m left scratching my head. I feel like I have to sift through to hope to find some answers. You say we should focus on who a person is and not what they believe, but what a person believes is a product of who they are. I can’t understand the person or the message they are conveying If I don’t know where they are coming from. That is why I asked the question.

Just in case there are any German speaking readers here: I posted a translation of this article yesterday:
http://gjmatthia.blogspot.com/2009/05/gastbeitrag-jonathan-brink-der-kreis.html

Thanks, Jonathan, for these thoughts and insights.

Shafer,

The flaw in your “logic” is to believe you don’t need to identify yourself because your “logic” is based in absolute truth. This fails to acknowledge how much of your version of absolute truth is fueled by life experience and your position in society. Truth be told, there is none unbiased, no not one.

It’s worse than that- in taking away tradition, you’ve effectively excluded the traditionalists- those who rely on tradition as a component of their faith.

So no, I don’t see your emergence methods as being inclusionary at all- in fact, I see them as being extremely exclusionary, and your love without forgiveness or truth as being extremely flawed.

JD,

Is there any absolute truth for us to grasp (or for God to reveal to us)? Or is it all relative?

Any “absolutising” we do is arbitrary, idolatrous, based on the “knowledge of good and evil”, a rejection of mystery, and is entirely humanistic.

Absolutising is not only an artifact of modernity, it is also the beginning of the loss of faith.

Faith, our justification, is quite the opposite of certainty (hence absolutes), being the evidence of things not seen. How can we absolutise what we do not see?

Nic:

Christ is the visible image (icon) of the invisible God. No one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son reveals Him. Christ is absolute, and because He is incarnate, He is seen.

Thus to absolutise the refusal to absolutise is also to deny the absolutely central event and importance of the incarnation specifically and divine revelation more generally.

We don’t have modernity to thank for absolutes, but only for absolutes that are based on human reason rather than God’s self-revelation.

If the modern temptation is to absolutise the conclusions of human reason, the postmodern temptation shares the same convictions but uses them in the opposite way, that is, absolutising our own uncertainty and the tentativeness and incompleteness of every one of our conclusions.

The conviction that both share is that we are alone in the universe, either because there is a deistic god, a pantheistic god, or no God at all Who is capable of speaking for Himself and revealing Himself to us.

The significance of Christ, and of the whole Judeo-Christian emphasis on the figure of the prophet is precisely that God is not silent.

Peace.

Hi Todd
If Christ is absolute (BTW I agree with this, even though it is presumptuous), do not the questions then become:

Which “Christ” is the absolute?

Is it your perspective of the Christ Event or mine?

Even if we are all Christ-centred believers aren’t we still victims to own subjectivity?

I get your comparative between modern and postmodern thought, however, my conclusion regarding postmodernism is that it allows for inclusion, diversity, respect, and a very different missional approach to that of modernism.

I personally don’t feel overwhelmed by uncertainty regarding my position on the Christ event. At the same time, I don’t feel threaten by your position, even if it is quite different. The problem, for me with all due respect and love, is that the modern and traditional church does not cater for, or create an environment for a process of deconstruction and subjective expression and journeying in the process of working out our faith in Jesus.

Todd.
I loved your first 2 sentances, and concur completely with them.

But then you make the statement “Christ is absolute” and the rest of your argument isn’t being fair to my position. For example, it makes the assumption that if I reject absolutes I reject Christ, and that if I do that then I am “alone in the universe, either because there is a deistic god, a pantheistic god, or no God at all Who is capable of speaking for Himself and revealing Himself to us.”

This is simply not true. I agree with you wholeheartedly (and Francis Shaeffer) that there is a God who speaks.

The notion of objectivity I reject (when it comes to God) is entirely the modern notion. I do not reject scientific method, or historical fact. I reject the anti-mystical idea that we can know G-d “objectively”. We can know God, of course we can, and we can (to quite Shaeffer again) know the truth “substantially”, but we cannot know all, and there is at its heart, a great mystery.

““But what do you believe about Jesus?”

And then it hit me. In refusing to be defined by “traditional” methods of definitions, the emerging church has taken away the traditional means of arguing. And it pisses people off. I would offer that the emerging church absolutely believes in truth, but it doesn’t go by traditional means.”

Unfortunately for you, Jesus used a ‘traditional’ method when He asked ‘Who do people say that I am?’ and after hearing Peter’s response, pressed him ‘And who do YOU say that I am?’

In ‘refusing to be defined’, are you refusing to commit to what Jesus commands you to commit, (i.e. a clear definition of who He is and what He has said)?

I think that in many cases, what I’ve seen emerging from conversations like these is an unwillingness to humbly take Jesus’ view, in favor of a pretense to intellectual circumspection and superiority.

Where the scripture commands clarity, we should be clear and above board, should we not?

Joe
The way Jesus elicits a response from Peter does not appear to me to have anything to do with this military sounding a “command to commit”, in fact quite the opposite. He is probing, and in so doing drawing Peter towards Truth.

I don’t think the clarity he sought – a clear vision of the person of God and who is creature and who is creator – is the same as the clarity you demand.

The question “Who do you say I am” is shrouded in mystery. To make it into an interogatory doctrine which forces intelectual exclusion, is I believe taking out of the Spirit in which it was spoken.

I know that Thomas is not generally seen as a paragon of truth, but this is what his gospel states:

13. Jesus said to his disciples, “Compare me to something and tell me what I am like.”

Simon Peter said to him, “You are like a just messenger.”

Matthew said to him, “You are like a wise philosopher.”

Thomas said to him, “Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like.”

And Joe, can you provide some concrete examples of this “intellectual circumspection and superiority” you claim to see in emergents?

Nic,

An example of pretense to intellectual circumspection and superiority is the passage from Jonathan’s post, which I quoted.

And sorry that you feel Jesus was being ‘intellectually exclusive’.

Jesus commended Peter on his answer. (Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.)

Perhaps you think He should have said:

‘well Peter, I can’t really tell you if that’s correct or not. You’re just going to have to wonder if what you said is really what my Father is trying to tell you. But you’ll know once you’re in heaven so it’s all good, ‘k? Really Peter, the answer isn’t all that important to the Kingdom anyway, it’s more of an intellectual exercise, get it? I mean just about any answer about Me being a good guy of some kind will do.’

Joe
I’m not sure I follow what you mean then in your critique of Jonathans words.

As I read it, Jonathan is saying, there is an way to determine truth that is quite alternative to the way of modernism. Specifically, it is an alternative to the way of “propositional truth statements”, in which verbal statements are pitted against each other, as propositions, differences highlighted, and the best argument wins.

This approach is neither bad nor irrelevant. It appears in the Greek culture as Socratic dialog, in he Hebrew as Rabbinic discourse, and in our everyday life – politics and just simple plain conversation – as we present and explore ideas. However, the Truth of G-d and the Truth of Jesus is of a different order. It is the truth of Love.

Jonathan’s point is that unlike these propositional discourses, Love seeks what is common rather than what is different.

I love the words of Jesus to Simon Peter that you quote. But he is not congratulating him on intellectual correctness, nor doctrinal conformity. Good gracous no! There was no scripture at that point let alone doctrine. Jesus’ point was that Peter was coming into the newly revealed Realm of the Spirit, the Realm of G-d come to make a tent in our midst.

This passage, if anything, completely supports the message of this post. That was an interpersonal dialog of the highest order, revealing Jesus divine genius for eliciting the truth by the Holy Spirit. Oh that I had a hundredth of that gifting.

Joe, I think you are taking Jonathan’s words as an attack. It’s not: he is merely offering us an alternative approach, he is not forcing it on us, and he is certainly not judging those who hold to propositional truth above other approaches.

“Any ‘absolutising’ we do is arbitrary, idolatrous, based on the ‘knowledge of good and evil’, a rejection of mystery, and is entirely humanistic.”
Are you absolutely sure of that?

Nic, you are talking about an alternative to voicing opposing opinions and focusing on the differences, but are you not doing the same in your discussion with Joe? He says one thing and you say basically, “no, that is incorrect. This is how it really is.” It’s not bad. If we do love then we should love truth, and if we love truth we want others to know the truth. If people don’t want to listen to that truth doesn’t make it wrongly exclusive. Jesus said those that did not believe His words were condemned by them.

The question that was asked of Jonathan (and what Joe referenced in the bible) is a valid one. Everyone says they believe in Jesus, but same as during His time, what did they believe about Him? What He a prophet? Elijah? A good teacher? Or the Son of God? Like it or not, who exactly Jesus is is a doctrinal point (and the one upon which our salvation is based). If you don’t like the word doctrine, then don’t use it. But it is still the same. Peter affirmed an absolute truth about Christ, and that was pleasing to Jesus. When Peter said something contrary to what Christ taught (His need to die), Jesus rebuked him. I just don’t understand why “doctrine” and following Jesus are considered mutually exclusive by you guys.

On another note, why did you use the gospel of Thomas, which:
A) Has been dated too late to have been written by Thomas, and
B) Is considered to be a product of gnosticism, which teaches that one must be initiated through secret knowledge (which is counterproductive to your argument, it even says that females must become male in order to enter the kingdom!).

Jonathan
Thanks for commenting.
Cheeky – no I am not absolutely sure of my stance! I’m on a journey, and what I say is provisional.

I’m trying in #97 to create an open conversation – is this not coming across?

Re your questioning doctrine vs follwing Jesus: That’s a good question.

Let me ask: Are emergents making this hard distinction? Do we reject doctrine?

My view is that doctrine should serve truth. And truth – OUR human, limited, understanding of truth, that is – is ever evolving. Doctrines are there to encapsulate a particular understanding of what is true, and like manna in the desert, remain effective for a limited time. They will be deconstucted and rewritten as we learn and change and grow. There is a time to break down and a time to build. We may at times reject certain doctrines or doctrinal approaches, but we are creating new docrine in their place.

Re The Gospel of Thomas. First, I am not claiming anything about its authorship, I am merely referring to a text known as the Gospel of Thomas. Who is believed to have written it?

And although it is generally considered gnostic, what of that? I would not throw out an entire text based on this generalised judgement. Truth is not bound by Canon. Each truth must be evaluated on its own merits.

And I quite agree that the last few verses pertaining to females are totally wacko!

Jonathan,
A good word of advice. Here’s how to read any and all of Nic’s posts:

Jonathan
Thanks for commenting. (K.)
Cheeky – no I am not absolutely sure of my stance! (Note: Nic does NOT really know if it is true that he is not sure of his stance.)
I’m on a journey, and what I say is provisional. (Note: Nic does NOT really know if it is true that what he says is provisional.)

I’m trying in #97 to create an open conversation – is this not coming across? (Huh?)

Re your questioning doctrine vs follwing Jesus: That’s a good question. (Note: Nic does NOT really know if it is true that he believes this is a good question.)

Let me ask: Are emergents making this hard distinction? Do we reject doctrine? (Note: Nic does NOT really believe we will ever answer these questions.)

My view is that doctrine should serve truth. (Note: NIc does NOT really know if it is true that this is his view or not.) And truth – OUR human, limited, understanding of truth, that is – is ever evolving. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.) Doctrines are there to encapsulate a particular understanding of what is true, and like manna in the desert, remain effective for a limited time. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.) They will be deconstucted and rewritten as we learn and change and grow. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.) There is a time to break down and a time to build. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.) We may at times reject certain doctrines or doctrinal approaches, but we are creating new docrine in their place. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.)

Re The Gospel of Thomas. First, I am not claiming anything about its authorship, I am merely referring to a text known as the Gospel of Thomas. (Note: NIc does NOT know if it is true that he is doing this.) Who is believed to have written it? (Note: Nic does NOT believe this question can be definitively answered.)

And although it is generally considered gnostic, what of that? I would not throw out an entire text based on this generalised judgement. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.) Truth is not bound by Canon. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.) Each truth must be evaluated on its own merits. (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.)

And I quite agree that the last few verses pertaining to females are totally wacko! (Note: Nic does NOT know if it is true that he believes this.)

(I warn you, Jonathan. These people cannot think clearly. Don’t bang your head against the wall.)

Nic,

“no I am not absolutely sure of my stance! I’m on a journey, and what I say is provisional.”
When you say something like “ANY absolutising we do” you’re making a very cut and dry statement that seems to leave no room for doubt. To be honest, based on the way you stated your stance, I would have to say that I don’t believe you. I don’t think making firm statements is wrong, but in that specific case it was contradictory.

“I’m trying in #97 to create an open conversation – is this not coming across?”
You’re stating your stance in response to Joe’s and vice versa. You seem to think his stance is wrong and you’re trying to correct it. Again, not wrong, just don’t act like you’re not doing that.

“Let me ask: Are emergents making this hard distinction? Do we reject doctrine?”
From what I’ve seen, it certainly appears that way. Doctrine seems to be thrown aside for the sake of “inclusion” (or as I see it, the sake of not hurting anyone’s feelings). I hear the word journey, but it looks like more of a wandering, because I see questioning done for the sake of questioning, rather than really seeking an answer (even when an answer can be given). The journey is viewed as more important than the destination.

“And truth – OUR human, limited, understanding of truth, that is – is ever evolving.”
Maybe you’re focusing too much on what we CAN’T do rather than what God CAN do. You make it sound as if we are still the blind men touching the elephant, trying to determine what it is. But the whole idea of Christ is that He opens the eyes of the blind, and we can now see. We don’t see everything at once, but God does show the truth to us, truth that we can stand firm on and boldly declare.

“We may at times reject certain doctrines or doctrinal approaches, but we are creating new docrine in their place.”
Why do WE have to create any doctrine? What about the doctrine that Jesus taught? The doctrine that God has inspired His people to write? Look at the beginning of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

“Truth is not bound by Canon”
Is there anything in canonized scripture that you find disagreeable?

Jonathan
Well, I’m certainly not doing very well by your standards, am I? No worries. ;)

So I am trying to work out, amidst your swathe of objections, how we might take this conversation forward.

To be honest, I really do not care about winning arguments. While it’s a good thing to represent our points of view, even to tussle with our differences, ultimately I agree with Jonathan Brink that the focus should be on what we have in common.

One starting point is at least discussing our frames of reference. If we mean completely different things by the same word we need to bring that our into the open. And just so you understand me a bit better, I don’t have all the answers. Don’t take me for an expert.

Don’t read into things that which is not there. For example, don’t say to yourself, “That Nic, he’s emergent, therefore I am bound by my duty towards God to oppose him”. The fact that you disagreed with everything I said, suggests to me you are not being open to what I am saying.

We are all more and less that our labels. Even the self confessed fundamentalist is more than a fundmentalist, and less than one as well. I am both more and less than this wierd abstract category we call “emergent”.

I’m a creative user of language. I do not do this to confuse, but to open new meanings. If you are confused, I’m sorry for that, and ask you to try understand what I do mean.

You ask me about “disagreeable” scripture – no text is disagreeable of itself, but interpretations of that text can be.

So Jonathan, we disagree about the meaning of these things:

1. Absolutising 2. Holding to a position = trying to correct 3. Journey = an insipid wanderlust 4. Emergents do not value doctrine 5. Jesus words ARE doctrine

Do you agree?

“One starting point is at least discussing our frames of reference. If we mean completely different things by the same word we need to bring that our into the open.”

Ok, I’m with you. Let’s find out where we’re coming from and find places where we might share common ground:

Who is Jesus?
How is one saved?

Hi Jonathan
Sorry to take this long to reply:
1. Jesus: I say with Peter “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”, but I also say with Thomas, “My mouth is entirely unable to describe you”.

2. Salvation
I say with western evangelicals, “Salvation is being personally acqitted of sin by the blood of Jesus” but I also say with the East, “Salvation is being divested of our illusions of separateness from God (or Oneness if you like)”.

My current thinking (and reading of the scriptures) is akin to that of Orthodoxy, that salvation is partaking in the process of Divinisation – the restoration of all things by God.

Jonathan, I would like to know this from you:

Why do you ask me these questions: Will I be more acceptable to you if I answer them correctly?

I asked you those questions because I am attempting to learn the about the spirit (or heart) of the emergent church. I keep seeing such an ambiguity in the way the people affiliated with this movement speak that it is difficult to understand where anyone is coming from. You said earlier, “don’t say to yourself, “That Nic, he’s emergent, therefore I am bound by my duty towards God to oppose him”. I’d like to know what it is that you and other “emergents” actually believe. My acceptance of you means nothing, but our acceptance before God means everything, and if that acceptance comes by faith, then what we believe is important.

You say with the East, “Salvation is being divested of our illusions of separateness from God (or Oneness if you like)”. Could you elaborate on this point for me?

Jonathan
Thank you for keeping this conversation going. And for being open, and curious.

I am prepared to keep engaging your questions, but might I direct you to my blog, where you shall hopefully find something of my views elaborated. I invite comment, and I think it would provide a framework for this conversation.

I won’t answer your latest question now – its a perfectly valid one – but hope to do so in good time.

See for a start http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/om-re-imagining-the-logos/ and also http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/does-emergence-global-religion/