OK, so it's not really a meeting. I did get to shake the guy's hand and say a cursory hello.
(By the way...that's me on the fourth row aisle seat, looking stoned. I wasn't. I promise. My brother and sister-in-law are to my left.)
Brian McLaren, known in many ways as the father of the emergent church movement, visited my brother's church (Highland Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky) this past weekend, delivering a Sunday morning sermon, holding an informal Q&A during Sunday School and then lecturing on the thesis of his new book, "Everything Must Change." I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in all three activities and certainly enjoyed the experience. Not that I agree 100 percent with his theology, but I think he is raising some important issues for the Church to consider.
(Others didn't agree either, especially during the evening Q&A. This is McLaren's take on the event. I looked across the blogosphere for the guy who challenged McLaren about redemption, eternity and the emergent theology during the Q&A but couldn't find him. I also looked on Twitter to no avail.)
Of course, I could spend hours talking about where McLaren and I agree and disagree. Feel free to peruse posts tagged "emergent" or "brian mclaren" for times we've discussed it before.
Sure, this is a late response to that particular blog post, but I'm sharing nonetheless.
I'm certainly in agreement that religion has treated science with disdain when the two are not inherently competitive. I'm also in agreement that society has, in large part, sacrificed objective truth on the altar of subjective morality (although I don't think Charles Darwin is solely to blame for this shift in cultural attitudes...post-modern thought didn't arise from one man's scientific theory).
I disagree with Ken that "do unto others as you would have them do until you" is the core of Christ's message. It is undoubtedly an essential part of the Christian theology that Jesus established. It is not The Gospel. To think otherwise is to place man's actions ahead of God's salvation. Indeed, that line of reasoning has it backwards; the reverse, in fact, is true: salvation first, works that result from that salvation is second.
The Gospel is this: in an outpouring of love, God created the universe, and with it, mankind. The first man chose sin instead of a personal relationship with God, and, thus, sin entered the world, separating imperfect humans from a perfect and divine God. Yet God, in his great mercy and love, ever-seeking to restore man's relationship to Him, provided Himself as a sacrifice by coming to earth as a man, Jesus, who lived a perfect and sinless life prior to giving Himself to death.
In that act of sacrifice--and in His glorious, bodily resurrection from the dead three days later--Jesus now stands at man's side as an advoate, saying to God on behalf of those Christ has saved: "This is my child. He/she has asked forgiveness for the sinful acts of their lives that have separated them from you. Yes, this one is imperfect. But I was willing to live the life he/she could not have lived by dying the death he/she should have died. I took this one's place, Father. My perfection provides Grace to them in your eyes, regardless of their worthiness."
That's The Gospel. Sure, gratitude from Christ's sacrifice pours itself out from Believers in acts of sacrificial love; these are reflections of Christ's love for man, stirred in us by Christ living within us through the Holy Spirit. This manifests itself as Christ commanded, through "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you." But that oft-quoted verse is not The Gospel. A component, yes.
I'm not as intelligent as Charles Darwin. I think he came up with a fascinating theory. The minutae of how God, in His omniscence and omnipotence, established Creation, is beyond the limits of my human intelligence. Don't misunderstand. I'm not suggesting that it is somehow wrong to attempt, with vigorous scientific observation and inquiry, to discern these and other matters. What I am suggesting is that mankind is guilty of a collective arrogance in regards to its attempts at comprehending God. That, among other reasons, is why I can't understand the reasons behind some evangelicals' celebration of an agnostic scientist, despite his obvious genius.
So, what do you think? Agree with me? Disagree with me? That's cool...but share your thoughts. Back 'em up.
Emergent Village is in the midst of a transformation in its operations, a move its board announced Thursday after a year of what it terms a "discernment process."
Its announcement lays out a framework for the future of the Emergent "conversation." I've certainly been critical of aspects of the movement; I've always felt those involved in shaping its message are too willing to capitulate on areas of core Christian doctrine. I know, I know. Emergent is about being a safe place where hard questions can be debated without fear of repurcussion. I get it, and I think that's an admirable goal. I love Emergent's commitment to social justice, too. Its stance on global poverty is wonderful. I've met some truly great, loving Christians that are a part of the Emergent conversation.
Here's what scares me. "Many religious communities fear, shame, restrict and exclude people who ask questions, propose creative innovations, or open up new ways of thinking (emphasis mine.)" That's from Emergent Village's recent announcement. What exactly does this mean? Is such a statement purposely vague? I wholeheartedly agree that it's an unfortunate fact that many fundamental Evangelical communities fear, shame and even exclude those from their congregations who ask hard questions and propose creative innovations. But does "open up new ways of thinking" really mean "open up new ways of believing?"
It's a fine line between Emergent theology and Universalism, which to me is worse than atheism. At least atheists have the courage of conviction. Universalism--there's a great piece about it in the current issue of Relevant magazine, by the way--is, at best, flaky and, at worst, cowardly.
Now, I don't think there's anything cowardly about "friends of Emergent." But it's a slippery slope.
What are your thoughts? Are you a "Friend of Emergent?" Do you agree with its goals and mission? What are your thoughts on its recent announcement? Is Emergent too close to Universalist theology? Join the conversation here.
Ah, if only spirituality was as simple as answering a bunch of questions on a quiz to find out who you should worship.
Apparently, it is that easy. At least if you use Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic. I'm not a big fan of Beliefnet; it's a little too Deepak Chopra-esque to me. But the Belief-O-Matic is mindless fun. Some of the questions need more varied answers--I found that for many of them I had to pick answers that were as close to my Evangelical Christian convictions as I could get; the "right" answer wasn't there--but if you want to spend five minutes taking an online quiz (and who doesn't?), try the amazing, 100% guaranteed Belief-O-Matic today for only three easy payments of $19.99!
In other Emergent news, there are rumors that Rob Bell is leaving Mars Hill Bible Church (Michigan). Has anyone else heard this rumor? Is there anything to it?
* What were your Belief-O-Matic results? (I was quite relieved to discover I am, in fact, a born-again Christian. Glad the Belief-O-Matic cleared that up.)
* Should pastors and other Evangelical leaders publically support a presidential candidate? Why or why not? What role should Christian leaders take in presidential politics?
* What do you like about Rob Bell's theology? What don't you like?
* Would having a Mormon on a presidential ticket influence your vote? What about a Muslim? A Hindu? An atheist?
