(Continues...) After the singing is over, we had a meal together (lotsa cooling fresh fruits)and prayed in small groups. What could be more spiritual than that? And no preaching!
Some may be shocked (where's the Word??) but I might do the same if I'm in the pastor's shoes. He gauged the situation and thinks it wud be inauthentic and pretentious if he just preach something for the sake of doing it, u know? The crowd was lethargic and sweaty as it is.
So we got into conversations about the history of the church... its values and so on... They wanna reach out to a new generation, "God is not a republican/democrat" etc.
Somehow, without any prompting, our chat changed somewhat when a brother asks "What is Emerging church? I have no idea"
"I dunno" another Bluer attendee replied. "Its still trying to define itself as a movement, I guess and pastor wud be in a better position to answer that. We may have some different stuffs going on but we all are the same in believing in the Bible as God's word".
The first bro, hair unkempt and looked a bit blur, then said, "Why is there a stigma attached to Emerging church?"
I kept quiet, just listening to them. He went on to share about how a famous Emergent leader (name protected) had a debate with a Baptist pastor in town. It went back and forth, while he (a homeless person) asks if they can give him a place to stay or lend him some money
"Nope", they replied, "we have a debate going on here!"
So he stopped going to church. Presumably until he came to Bluer later.
Not sure how accurate his testimony was, but I could see how hypocritical sometimes tat people can get more fixated on endless debates while people are dying outside.
I could see his point there. Tempted to point out tat sometimes debate is indispensable too, Jesus and the apostles did a lot of those too but held my tongue
Then he went on, "I could sense God at work here. In this church."
"I dun see much differences, we all believe in Bible and call people come to Jesus alone for eternal life." He has been to many denominations before.
Then he paused and continued, "But when it comes to Jehovah's Witness or Mormons, now I know tat's not right. They say Jesus is a god, not God. When I hear that, I dun even wanna go there!"
I thot, That's interesting. This formerly homeless follower of Jesus, for all his unsophisticated theological learnings, knows where to draw the line after all! There are some teachings he recognise as so seriously defective, he won't even wanna go there.
He knows where the boundaries are. Arianism is out-of-bounds! He's definitely Nicene.
I sense tat after all is said and done, the church is an evangelical church in conviction with a charismatic flavor in experience at heart. And if my pulse on what's happening the reason many people attracted to 'Emerging church' is basically we wanna reach out to a new generation, we wanna be more doers of the word, we wanna serve people, be authentic people...
And for that, I pray God, may all our churches be emerging!
Also it appears to me tat most of these hi-tech stuffs about postfoundationalism, postmodernism, wittgenstein view of language are not even in the radar for the people at the pews. Probably they dun even care.
That 'simple' brother may not represent everybody elsewhere but I suspect he represents many. And I wonder wat happens if I were to share with him why a 'stigma' seems to attach to the EC... I felt it's inappropriate to do tat as a guest.
I think he would flip if I told him that in *some* (not all) quarters of the emerging church, people no longer believe that trusting in Jesus alone is necessary for salvation. Others can be saved if they live a selfless, humble, authentic life even if they dun.
But all have sinned (Christians included) and come short of the glory of God! We all need Jesus bcos none of us lived a perfectly authentic life.
While doing the Davinci code forums, I get the chance to share a bit about the history of the Nicene creed. It was never about upgrading the status of Jesus from man to God.
The issue was: Does Jesus have similar nature with God? (Arian)
Or does Jesus have the same nature with God? (Nicene creed)
And the difference between 'similar' and 'same' in Greek lies in a small, little 'iota'. A small letter 'i' made all the difference in the world of whether Christians oughta bow their knees and worship Jesus as Lord, and His divine sacrifice wud be infinitely sufficient to redeem all of mankind in every age!
That simple, uneducated follower of Jesus knew that calling Jesus 'a' god, and calling Him God makes all the difference in the world. The only difference is just the letter "a", by the way.
Despite all his protestations against theological debates, he has 'intuitive knowledge' if u will, on where the boundary lies.
What's worth laying down your life for? He is willing to die for that, at least.
Sadly when the EC gets 'exported and mutated' beyond US borders, some (not all) are prepared to change not just a single letter, but to change whole lines of the Christological creeds...
(er... and what possible missional/pragmatic results can come out of reopening the ancient Arian/Nestorian/Monophysite debates in our 'postcolonial' context I honestly dunno, hmmm...)
And I wonder what the folks at Bluer wud say if I tell them:
"Ok folks, u are emerging and wanna reach out to postmoderns rite? Well, u should start changing ur views abt JWs and Mormons now... they are nice and authentic communities too ok? It doesn't really matter whether Jesus is a god or God..."
My bet is their response wud be an emphatic, "Whoa! I dun even wanna go there!"
Some may be shocked (where's the Word??) but I might do the same if I'm in the pastor's shoes. He gauged the situation and thinks it wud be inauthentic and pretentious if he just preach something for the sake of doing it, u know? The crowd was lethargic and sweaty as it is.
So we got into conversations about the history of the church... its values and so on... They wanna reach out to a new generation, "God is not a republican/democrat" etc.
Somehow, without any prompting, our chat changed somewhat when a brother asks "What is Emerging church? I have no idea"
"I dunno" another Bluer attendee replied. "Its still trying to define itself as a movement, I guess and pastor wud be in a better position to answer that. We may have some different stuffs going on but we all are the same in believing in the Bible as God's word".
The first bro, hair unkempt and looked a bit blur, then said, "Why is there a stigma attached to Emerging church?"
I kept quiet, just listening to them. He went on to share about how a famous Emergent leader (name protected) had a debate with a Baptist pastor in town. It went back and forth, while he (a homeless person) asks if they can give him a place to stay or lend him some money"Nope", they replied, "we have a debate going on here!"
So he stopped going to church. Presumably until he came to Bluer later.
Not sure how accurate his testimony was, but I could see how hypocritical sometimes tat people can get more fixated on endless debates while people are dying outside.
I could see his point there. Tempted to point out tat sometimes debate is indispensable too, Jesus and the apostles did a lot of those too but held my tongue
Then he went on, "I could sense God at work here. In this church."
"I dun see much differences, we all believe in Bible and call people come to Jesus alone for eternal life." He has been to many denominations before.
Then he paused and continued, "But when it comes to Jehovah's Witness or Mormons, now I know tat's not right. They say Jesus is a god, not God. When I hear that, I dun even wanna go there!"
I thot, That's interesting. This formerly homeless follower of Jesus, for all his unsophisticated theological learnings, knows where to draw the line after all! There are some teachings he recognise as so seriously defective, he won't even wanna go there.
He knows where the boundaries are. Arianism is out-of-bounds! He's definitely Nicene.
I sense tat after all is said and done, the church is an evangelical church in conviction with a charismatic flavor in experience at heart. And if my pulse on what's happening the reason many people attracted to 'Emerging church' is basically we wanna reach out to a new generation, we wanna be more doers of the word, we wanna serve people, be authentic people...
And for that, I pray God, may all our churches be emerging!
Also it appears to me tat most of these hi-tech stuffs about postfoundationalism, postmodernism, wittgenstein view of language are not even in the radar for the people at the pews. Probably they dun even care.
That 'simple' brother may not represent everybody elsewhere but I suspect he represents many. And I wonder wat happens if I were to share with him why a 'stigma' seems to attach to the EC... I felt it's inappropriate to do tat as a guest.
I think he would flip if I told him that in *some* (not all) quarters of the emerging church, people no longer believe that trusting in Jesus alone is necessary for salvation. Others can be saved if they live a selfless, humble, authentic life even if they dun.
But all have sinned (Christians included) and come short of the glory of God! We all need Jesus bcos none of us lived a perfectly authentic life.
While doing the Davinci code forums, I get the chance to share a bit about the history of the Nicene creed. It was never about upgrading the status of Jesus from man to God.The issue was: Does Jesus have similar nature with God? (Arian)
Or does Jesus have the same nature with God? (Nicene creed)
And the difference between 'similar' and 'same' in Greek lies in a small, little 'iota'. A small letter 'i' made all the difference in the world of whether Christians oughta bow their knees and worship Jesus as Lord, and His divine sacrifice wud be infinitely sufficient to redeem all of mankind in every age!
That simple, uneducated follower of Jesus knew that calling Jesus 'a' god, and calling Him God makes all the difference in the world. The only difference is just the letter "a", by the way.
Despite all his protestations against theological debates, he has 'intuitive knowledge' if u will, on where the boundary lies.
What's worth laying down your life for? He is willing to die for that, at least.
Sadly when the EC gets 'exported and mutated' beyond US borders, some (not all) are prepared to change not just a single letter, but to change whole lines of the Christological creeds...
(er... and what possible missional/pragmatic results can come out of reopening the ancient Arian/Nestorian/Monophysite debates in our 'postcolonial' context I honestly dunno, hmmm...)
And I wonder what the folks at Bluer wud say if I tell them:
"Ok folks, u are emerging and wanna reach out to postmoderns rite? Well, u should start changing ur views abt JWs and Mormons now... they are nice and authentic communities too ok? It doesn't really matter whether Jesus is a god or God..."
My bet is their response wud be an emphatic, "Whoa! I dun even wanna go there!"
Comments
I appreciate the story and I think that homeless brother is very fortunate to still have strong seeds of orthodoxy from his past.
But, and surely I don't have to say this: Not everyone is like that brother. And yes while people like him and you may say you "dont want to go there", there are more than a few who do want to "look" there (maybe not quite 'go in'). I'm glad you've made up your mind about JW and Mormonism, but sometimes I'm curious as the utter refusal to even engage. If the answers are so secure, so easy, then just SHARE them, dude! (grin)
Likewise, it's entirely your prerogative to not wish to reexamine Chalcedon or Nicene in the context of post-colonialism - I perfectly respect this. But it'd be good not to denigrade other groups/individuals who MAY wish to think about it. (E.g. I may not know why in the world people want to know "how the animals got into the Ark", but because I respect them I don't devalue the question...*smile*)
But, if I were you, I would WELCOME a reexamination of my 'touchstones' of orthodoxy - it's your foundation, your base, your base-line. Let its glory shine, man. Relook into it. Make sure everybody knows it's a true touchstone and not merely 'untouchable'.
"... it appears to me tat most of these hi-tech stuffs about postfoundationalism, postmodernism, wittgenstein view of language are not even in the radar for the people at the pews. Probably they dun even care." .. when I replace those "big" words with Christology, pheumatology, echatology, iconclastic debates, theological methodology, etc. most people in the pew in Malaysia would indicate they don't care too.
"...*some* (not all) quarters of the emerging church, people no longer believe that trusting in Jesus alone is necessary for salvation. Others can be saved if they live a selfless, humble, authentic life even if they dun." I wondering are there explicit statements people have made from the EC more prominent figures on matters above? or is this by implication guesses?
"...(er... and what possible missional/pragmatic results can come out of reopening the ancient Arian/Nestorian/Monophysite debates in our 'postcolonial' context I honestly dunno, hmmm...).." ... perhaps time will tell. And it depends what this exercise is "aimed" to do ... mere theological experimentation for novelty is not helpful but then I don't think genuine thoughtful theological reflection can't open missional and pragmatic possibilities ... a minimum is to open up fresh categories for engagement at all levels - starting from thinking to doing.
Thanks for ur responses man!
Looks like we are talking about different things here abt JW and Mormons. I wud say I'd not wanna 'go there'. And you say let's 'look there'.
So it seems tat you misunderstood our refusal to 'go there' as an utter refusal to even engage. I'm sure ur intentional in making that mistake. Of course, the fact tat our ex-homeless brother knew tat JWs teach that Jesus is a god tells u tat he at least 'looked' enuff to know tat..
So, dude, dun just assume people who have strong convictions are blind and refuse to consider the other side la... hehe
Hey Sivin,
Guesses? Oh not guesses... I actually spoke to specific individuals in EC who no longer believe tat Jesus is the only way and teach others the same :)
Sad but true
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that in your book you've probably written off JW and Mormons as 'not saved', correct? Orthopraxis doesn't matter very much because they've got the key doctrines wrong, right? (Again, that's fine, but...) Are there alternatives to this view? Have you examined them? What does Scripture say about this? That's what I meant by 'engage': To give good fresh answers to those who wonder if there's a chance JWs' "could be saved".
(And, whilst I PERSONALLY may not be very enthusiastic about this question, *many people I know are*, because these people are VERY CURIOUS about the ways God include/exclude people - aren't you?)
In some sense you've tried to respond to the issue via the "Guli solution" but - notwithstanding the discussion there - I'm not sure you actually addressed the issue of exactly how you constructed your boundaries. Think about this: What do you even MEAN by boundaries?
I'm also surprised you equated "knowing what JWs think about Jesus" with "engaging" (as if I thought that you and the homeless bro didn't know anything about JW..), but I'll grant I didn't make myself clear (smile).
And yes, I have spoken to JWs and Mormons...haven't *debated* about the nature/Person of Christ with any of them, yet, but something tells me they're not going to change their minds (but then what else is new, eh?) *grin*, sigh. Still, the devotion to kindness and goodness and working for what they believe makes me wonder if Jesus Himself would 'cast them away' as easily we sometimes teach/suggest that He will...I'm not saying there are easy answers, dude, but your help in *probing the question* would be much appreciated.
Thanks too for the reminder that I mustn't assume people with strong convictions are blind...pls accept my apologies if I gave this impression.
And yes I think we're all curious: Who did you speak to who believed that *Jesus isn't the only way* and teach others the same? What did this person mean? I guess you don't mean anyone (like me) who happens to be an inclusivist, because inclusivists do believe that Jesus is the Only Way. But I guess I don't have to explain, since you've already 'engaged' them, right?
I don't get the impression that people engaged in this conversation says that "this is the ONLY solution to our problems" as far as church and theology is concerned.. It's more like "This is what we are wrestling with and working towards some resolution .. how about thinking or exploring or experimenting with another way to do church and even theologize"? So the accent is giving some space for the intuitive and imaginative (and this is not confined to candles and art, maybe that's why some are uncomfortable *I could be wrong*). But even for theology I think there is a place to bring back the intuitive, and imaginative (or in other words acknowledge more intentionally their presence in the process). Now there are multiple qualifiers on this ... without abandoning the Gospel, being faithful to Revelation in Christ, etc.
As far as I know, most of the "labels" are more applied from others (like journalist and critics) to those who are in the conversation. Brian Mclaren has gone on the record a number of times in articles and talks saying how uncomfortable he is with the term "emerging church" (because of the tone of superiority and temptation towards separatism it conveys).
And because the whole "conversation" is not like a denomination, or like a parachurch, but perhaps more like a network (and yet in many ways a looser one) it becomes more difficult to "pin them down". Many people find it hard because IMHO the lack of mental models/paradigm/categories to see how it works. I find insights from Free-scale networks helpful in this regard.
I think for those who want to understand the USAmerican and UK context better, Emerging Churches is a good book to read and listen to the people involved themselves. Emerging Church Resources: A Beginners Reference Guide. I've always held the "position" that they can speak for themselves (and they are able to do so very well). As far as Malaysia is concerned, I still see more churches impacted by the debris of modernity than anything else (where some of the developments in the churches mentioned in the book would be a breath of fresh air).
Yet, I do feel a tinge of "straw man" unfairness to this statement (specifically in regards to our current messy not so organized Malaysian conversation ... maybe I "perasan" or reading too much in between the lines) --> "the EC gets 'exported and mutated' beyond US borders, some (not all) are prepared to change not just a single letter, but to change whole lines of the Christological creeds..." And this is surely not the case in other conversations around the world (more "emergent" linked ones like Emergent Canada, or Emergent Africa, then again I don't deny the wider emerging church discussion (a bit tired to type the longer conversation *grin*) maybe as wide as all the issues we discuss and debate about in the wider universal Church.
Take the example of the uniqueness and particularity of Salvation in Christ, we know within the "Evangelical" community .. (and the wider protestant, RC, Eastern Orthodox) Christian family there has been long debates and discussions. So depending on what David means by some EC folks saying they "no longer believe tat Jesus is the only way and teach others the same" .. I'd be curious to find out what these EC folks are saying or perhaps being misunderstood. I can't speak for others, I can only try to make sure I get what they are sayinng right (as much as possible), even when I disagree or feel .. "I can get what you are saying, but I'm not ready to say that or believe that."
I think there is place of a healthy dose of "I don't know" in matters of theology and life in general or "I'm trying to understand better" (Faith seeking understanding) ... while affirming Jesus the Way the truth and the life. Could it be that while these issues are in conversation, many feel uncomfortable with the REAL struggles we face and wish to stay at the borders? Or in my view, we need not fear but have confidence in Christ guiding us even though we may be asking questions that previously are "not allowed"?
Ok .. I think I've been more longwinded than usual.
There is no Armageddon that will annihilate 6.5 billion people,and install Watchtower leaders as world rulers.
The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming 'invisibly' in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.
Jehovah's Witnesses door to door recruitment is by their own admission an ineffective tactic. They have lost membership in all countries with major Internet access because their false doctrines and harmful practices are exposed on the modern information superhighway.
There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the 'imminent' apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.
Every Jehovah's Witness member will grow old and die just like everyone else.
----
Danny Haszard Bangor Maine 'expert witness on the Jehovah's Witness'
Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy are both important and inseparatable. Orthodoxy shouldnt devoid of Orthopraxis, if not, it is not orthodox anymore (and vice versa).
Tired of debates doesnt mean stop debating but redirect it into a more orthodox way. The same goes to desires to live an 'authentic life' doesnt mean stop other stuff and concerntrate on 'living'. If praxis and doxy can't come together, that means we are trapped in either the arrogance of modernity or the incoherence and ideals of postmodernity.
Looks like I've got a lot to catch up! Thanks for the continuing chat
"...Why is there a stigma attached to Emerging church?"
Maybe Ravi Zacharias may have his finger on the pulse -that there are some genuine concerns which are legitimate and should not be dismissed off-hand. Conversation involves listening to critics as well, even if we dun like what we hear.
"when I replace those "big" words with Christology, pheumatology, echatology, iconclastic debates, theological methodology, etc. most people in the pew in Malaysia would indicate they don't care too.”
On the contrary, I think the layfolks in Malaysia still believe that Jesus Christ is fully divine and human, they worship Him week in week out. That’s Christology. The last time I check, they are also very big on the Holy Spirit (pneumatology) – spiritual gifts, personal experiences and encounters with His power and touch at altar calls. End times? Whoa… There is even a whole setup called Parousia generation. We Malaysians are positively so ‘into’ premillenial pretribulation eschatology. Iconoclastic? I know of many Malaysian Christians at the pew who care a lot about destroying dragon amulets, pictures of deities, other cultic paraphernalia
Hehehe… Those things are certainly ‘on the radar’ J
"...*some* (not all) quarters of the emerging church, people no longer believe that trusting in Jesus alone is necessary for salvation. Others can be saved if they live a selfless, humble, authentic life even if they dun."
Sivin, the EC big shots are not in any way representative of everybody rite?
There is no “official position” that they give on this issue, mar… we both know of “some” people in the ‘conversation’ who go around telling others that they can’t be saved without knowing Christ if only we can see “Jesus reflected in their lives”
"...(er... and what possible missional/pragmatic results can come out of reopening the ancient Arian/Nestorian/Monophysite debates in our 'postcolonial' context I honestly dunno, hmmm...).."
imho, we should not do our theologizing in isolation from tradition, history and communion of saints across time. A "perhaps time will tell?" answer simply ignores that there is 2000 years behind us, telling us 'something'!
Doesn't that count? It just smacks of "mere theological experiment for novelty sake" to keep on arguing about these foundational issues 'inside the fold' instead of moving forward to just so many "fresh categories for engagement" which are specific to the needs of the Malaysian church here and now.
If it's unhelpful, impractical, not pragmatic effects on mission; why even 'go there' and cause unnecessary divisions?
Why not just unite behind the ecumenical creeds which united Christians all over the world instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?
On "Maybe Ravi Zacharias may have his finger on the pulse -that there are some genuine concerns" - I am listening to these concerns. But I get the impression the being "dismissed off-hand" is being experienced from the other end at least in the USA context(this is my unrefined observation).
On "Big words" - I think your argument can be used similar for the pomo-related words you mentioned in your original post. The terminology (and more conscious reflection) may not be "on the radar" but perhaps the ideas, issues and and mode of thinking or living are.
On "No longer believe ..." part - "Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, Chris Seay" (whom some would call "big shots" in the conversation) say "yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus;" (Taken from "An Emergent Village Affirmation of faith?"/ My frustration lies in that you say "some" people no longer believe ... but these "named" people say other wise.
On Matters relating to "Theologizing" - I'm not sure where did you get the impression there's a sense of ignoring 2000years of "tradition, history and communion of saints across time". As for the cause of "unnecessary divisions" - I think it's more complicated than the way you are framing the issue right now (The ecumenical creeds - e.g. Nicene, is a good place to start, but the outworking of it's relevance is a massive undertaking). I think it's important to distinguish between an attempt to understand and articulate the best that one can on a particular doctrine from one who takes the Bible, Church History, and the context seriously from perhaps one who is doing it merely academically or from a detached (and some antagostic to the Christian faith) perspective. I'm aware of various approaches and the variety in theological reflection and construction all with a concern to contribute to the wider mission of the Church, and God's mission for the world. I agree with you ... that there are "so many "fresh categories for engagement" which are specific to the needs of the Malaysian church here and now." That's where both of us surely converge - the way we are approaching the specifics may differ. I think there's space for that.
I appreciate the willingness to talk about all things sparked by "Emergent Village" and the wider Emerging church conversation (which I do think is under the radar in our settings to some degree - and maybe more limited to those who read it online or 2nd or 3rd hand information). My hope is that we Christians can model as best possible a fair hearing of where each person is coming from and what is their stated constructive proposal is about. Perhaps such a model of engagement could start here in Malaysia? I better not end with a question ... :-) Because that's actually more of an invitation to a posture towards one another as well as to take our discourse to higher level.
Peace ...