Comments on: The Conversations of Our Times: Part two http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/ The unmotivated are oblivious to the obvious Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:48:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: easum http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-967 easum Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:04:01 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-967 Tim, I just posted on Emergent Village and responded to you and the others who have commented. I appreciate this conversation because I want to understand the movement Tim, I just posted on Emergent Village and responded to you and the others who have commented. I appreciate this conversation because I want to understand the movement

]]> By: Tim Thompson http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-965 Tim Thompson Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:14:37 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-965 Your initial post above has been cross-posted on the Emergent Village website (http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/blogologue-part-1-bill-easum) and there are a number of comments for you there. I posted there myself (although I was intending to post here and forgot which site I was on!) so here's an excerpt I'd like to share with you. You ask; “Is the message of the Gospel actual reality and eternally true, or is it nothing more than a construct of our own language…?” I think it’s both. The Gospel is an actual reality that is eternally true – and – our ability to understand it and communicate it is always an imperfect, conditioned, contextual approximation. It’s an approximation, because both thinking and speaking rely on language, which is a “jar of clay” in which, thankfully, the treasure can actually be found. Put another Pauline way, not only do we see through a glass dimly, but we also think and speak through smeary lenses as well. But we *do* see because there really is Someone there on the other side of the glass: namely, Jesus. I think that accounts for how you were able to find in Tony’s book that many leading Emergent voices, including McLaren, gladly affirm that “yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.” (A related issue is that “truth” and “knowing” in the Bible are more about relationships than facts in the first place. Jesus shatters the modern category of Truth when he says “I am the truth” for example. If anyone is interested, I’ve written more about that here: http://feralpastor.blogspot.com/2007/09/talking-about-truth-with-evangelicals.html.) You also ask the missional question: how is this conversation supposed to reach beyond the philosophers? I believe that the Emergent conversation is very relevant to the faith of believers in general, but it does need to “trickle down” a bit for that to show. It’s like what I’ve encountered in science, where there are theorists who come up with ideas and experimentalists who then test them out, but eventually it comes to the people doing applied science to make something useful out of it. Sometimes that takes a while, and often it’s difficult to foresee the practical applications. One application I am seeing is this: idol smashing. In my tradition, we appreciate Luther’s definition of a god as whatever you fear, love, and/or trust above anything else. It seems common to me for believers to make idols out of their theologies, their own understanding, and the belief in a set of facts called Absolute Truth. These intellectual idols are loved and trusted above all and generate visceral fear when they are threatened. The postmodern critique has the power to dethrone these idols. (It actually undermines them by removing our absolute confidence in language, which is the foundation of all theologies and knowledge. Sort of a “trickle up” attack from below.) That does cause some people tremendous distress, but it’s so important because it forces us to remember that the object of our faith is not a set of beliefs but Jesus himself, and the content of our faith is not confidence in those facts but rather trust and confidence in Jesus as savior. So, if we all take out theologies off the throne and down a notch it makes it clearer that we do share the same faith (trust and confidence) in Jesus. That can help believers treat each other more like one body rather than rival factions, which would be great for our public witness in the world. Your initial post above has been cross-posted on the Emergent Village website (http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/blogologue-part-1-bill-easum) and there are a number of comments for you there. I posted there myself (although I was intending to post here and forgot which site I was on!) so here’s an excerpt I’d like to share with you.

You ask; “Is the message of the Gospel actual reality and eternally true, or is it nothing more than a construct of our own language…?” I think it’s both. The Gospel is an actual reality that is eternally true – and – our ability to understand it and communicate it is always an imperfect, conditioned, contextual approximation. It’s an approximation, because both thinking and speaking rely on language, which is a “jar of clay” in which, thankfully, the treasure can actually be found. Put another Pauline way, not only do we see through a glass dimly, but we also think and speak through smeary lenses as well. But we *do* see because there really is Someone there on the other side of the glass: namely, Jesus. I think that accounts for how you were able to find in Tony’s book that many leading Emergent voices, including McLaren, gladly affirm that “yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.”

(A related issue is that “truth” and “knowing” in the Bible are more about relationships than facts in the first place. Jesus shatters the modern category of Truth when he says “I am the truth” for example. If anyone is interested, I’ve written more about that here: http://feralpastor.blogspot.com/2007/09/talking-about-truth-with-evangelicals.html.)

You also ask the missional question: how is this conversation supposed to reach beyond the philosophers? I believe that the Emergent conversation is very relevant to the faith of believers in general, but it does need to “trickle down” a bit for that to show. It’s like what I’ve encountered in science, where there are theorists who come up with ideas and experimentalists who then test them out, but eventually it comes to the people doing applied science to make something useful out of it. Sometimes that takes a while, and often it’s difficult to foresee the practical applications.

One application I am seeing is this: idol smashing. In my tradition, we appreciate Luther’s definition of a god as whatever you fear, love, and/or trust above anything else. It seems common to me for believers to make idols out of their theologies, their own understanding, and the belief in a set of facts called Absolute Truth. These intellectual idols are loved and trusted above all and generate visceral fear when they are threatened. The postmodern critique has the power to dethrone these idols. (It actually undermines them by removing our absolute confidence in language, which is the foundation of all theologies and knowledge. Sort of a “trickle up” attack from below.)

That does cause some people tremendous distress, but it’s so important because it forces us to remember that the object of our faith is not a set of beliefs but Jesus himself, and the content of our faith is not confidence in those facts but rather trust and confidence in Jesus as savior. So, if we all take out theologies off the throne and down a notch it makes it clearer that we do share the same faith (trust and confidence) in Jesus. That can help believers treat each other more like one body rather than rival factions, which would be great for our public witness in the world.

]]> By: Eric Wangen-Hoch http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-961 Eric Wangen-Hoch Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:57:55 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-961 Bill, you mentioned why the hype around the emergent conversation. I think it is not necessarily hype rather it is just that the niche, and I agree niche, is very computer savvy and high functioning in organizing gatherings, booking big speakers, etc. I don't wish to be classist but as the population is highly motivated academically and follows through on its goals, it does the same with what it's "niche" which makes it look really big, which it may not actually be. Bill, you mentioned why the hype around the emergent conversation. I think it is not necessarily hype rather it is just that the niche, and I agree niche, is very computer savvy and high functioning in organizing gatherings, booking big speakers, etc. I don’t wish to be classist but as the population is highly motivated academically and follows through on its goals, it does the same with what it’s “niche” which makes it look really big, which it may not actually be.

]]> By: easum http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-960 easum Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:31:36 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-960 Len, ive tried hard not to caricature Emergents. I have taken my thoughts from their writings and they themselves have said Ive been fair. And i agree with you that the converation is very diverse. However, The New Christians does try to summarize what Emergents stand for. Have you had a chance to read it. Len, ive tried hard not to caricature Emergents. I have taken my thoughts from their writings and they themselves have said Ive been fair. And i agree with you that the converation is very diverse. However, The New Christians does try to summarize what Emergents stand for. Have you had a chance to read it.

]]> By: len http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-959 len Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:20:55 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-959 Sorry, the source of the above quote is "A Primer on Postmodernism." And btw, the emergent conversation is very diverse and I what I hear above sounds mostly like a caricature. “It is surely a fact of inexhaustible significance that what our Lord left behind Him was not a book, nor a creed, nor a system of thought, nor a rule of life, but a visible community. He committed the entire work of salvation to that community. It was not that a community gathered round an idea, so that the idea was primary and the community secondary. It was that a community called together by the deliberate choice of the Lord Himself, and re-created in Him, gradually sought - and is seeking - to make explicit who He is and what He has done. The actual community is primary; the understanding of what it is comes second.” Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God, 20. Sorry, the source of the above quote is “A Primer on Postmodernism.” And btw, the emergent conversation is very diverse and I what I hear above sounds mostly like a caricature.

“It is surely a fact of inexhaustible significance that what our Lord left behind Him was not a book, nor a creed, nor a system of thought, nor a rule of life, but a visible community. He committed the entire work of salvation to that community. It was not that a community gathered round an idea, so that the idea was primary and the community secondary. It was that a community called together by the deliberate choice of the Lord Himself, and re-created in Him, gradually sought - and is seeking - to make explicit who He is and what He has done. The actual community is primary; the understanding of what it is comes second.” Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God, 20.

]]> By: len http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-958 len Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:16:35 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-958 As someone who continues to move within emergent circles, but not exclusively, and who equally values the missional conversation, I like to quote Grenz (who sounds a lot like Newbigin here).. "Therefore, we agree that in this world we will witness the struggle among conflicting narratives and interpretations of reality. But we add that although all interpretations are in some sense invalid, they cannot all be equally invalid. We believe that conflicting interpretations can be evaluated according to a criterion that in some sense transcends them all. Because we believe that "the word became flesh" in Jesus Christ, we are convinced that this criterion is the story of God's action in Jesus of Nazareth." To me this echoes John Franke's "hermeneutic of finitude" while not being afraid to "name names." As someone who continues to move within emergent circles, but not exclusively, and who equally values the missional conversation, I like to quote Grenz (who sounds a lot like Newbigin here).. “Therefore, we agree that in this world we will witness the struggle among conflicting narratives and interpretations of reality. But we add that although all interpretations are in some sense invalid, they cannot all be equally invalid. We believe that conflicting interpretations can be evaluated according to a criterion that in some sense transcends them all. Because we believe that “the word became flesh” in Jesus Christ, we are convinced that this criterion is the story of God’s action in Jesus of Nazareth.” To me this echoes John Franke’s “hermeneutic of finitude” while not being afraid to “name names.”

]]> By: easum http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-956 easum Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:58:09 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-956 well, I think the Gospel is about two things: Bringing the Kingdom to this world and saving individuals to both live that kingdom life and to prepare them for eternity. well, I think the Gospel is about two things: Bringing the Kingdom to this world and saving individuals to both live that kingdom life and to prepare them for eternity.

]]> By: Jim http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-948 Jim Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:56:46 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-948 The reality, post-modern or modern, is that the Church and the Gospel are all-ways contextual. Jesus is The Eternal Word, not the unchanging word. The Gospel has been a local phenomenon since the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John raised up their messages for their own particular youthful Christian communities. I continue to be amazed by the volume of Evangelical rhetoric that emerges in the Emergent movement. Is the message of the Gospel a call to "save" people for the hereafter or is it a dynamic message to convert the world through acts of faith so that Christians can offer the message of God's Domain into the world here and now, based upon current experience and hermeneutics. The whole argumentation of relativism is based upon the precept that the Gospel has stood the test of time in a concretized fashion. That notion has not been true since Christianity's earliest roots and it continues not to be true today. The reality, post-modern or modern, is that the Church and the Gospel are all-ways contextual. Jesus is The Eternal Word, not the unchanging word. The Gospel has been a local phenomenon since the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John raised up their messages for their own particular youthful Christian communities.

I continue to be amazed by the volume of Evangelical rhetoric that emerges in the Emergent movement. Is the message of the Gospel a call to “save” people for the hereafter or is it a dynamic message to convert the world through acts of faith so that Christians can offer the message of God’s Domain into the world here and now, based upon current experience and hermeneutics.

The whole argumentation of relativism is based upon the precept that the Gospel has stood the test of time in a concretized fashion. That notion has not been true since Christianity’s earliest roots and it continues not to be true today.

]]> By: easum http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-947 easum Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:41:29 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-947 Jonathan, Im responding to your response to this quote of mine "They don’t even believe in planting churches in order to reach more people, nor do they believe in doing things to get people to come to their church. They plant churches only to save themselves, whatever that means.”" This is almost a direct quote from Tonys new book The New Christians. Just wanted you to know that. bill Jonathan,
Im responding to your response to this quote of mine
“They don’t even believe in planting churches in order to reach more people, nor do they believe in doing things to get people to come to their church. They plant churches only to save themselves, whatever that means.””

This is almost a direct quote from Tonys new book The New Christians. Just wanted you to know that. bill

]]> By: easum http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-946 easum Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:30:45 +0000 http://billeasum.com/20080826/the-conversations-of-our-times-part-two/#comment-946 In case you couldnt follow Missio Dei here is his blog. it is well worth reading. http://jonathanbrink.com/2008/09/01/a-response-to-bill-easum-part-1/ In case you couldnt follow Missio Dei here is his blog. it is well worth reading.

http://jonathanbrink.com/2008/09/01/a-response-to-bill-easum-part-1/

]]>