And this Elder Son, or man of bondage, hath held the Earth in bondage to himself, not by a meek Law of Righteousnesse, But by subtle selfish Councels, and by open and violent force; for wherefore is it that there is such Wars and rumours of Wars in the Nations of the Earth? and wherefore are men so mad to destroy one another? But only to uphold Civil propriety of Honor, Dominion and Riches one over another, which is the curse the Creation groans under, waiting for deliverance.posted by Abiezer at 12:25 PM on February 10, 2010 [3 favorites]
But when once the Earth becomes a Common Treasury again, as it must, for all the Prophesies of Scriptures and Reason are Circled here in this Community, and mankind must have the Law of Righteousness once more writ in his heart, and all must be made of one heart, and one mind.
1.0 Christ
2.0 Instiutionalization of Peter/Paul (Catholic and Orthodox)
3.0 Gnostic
4.0 East/West Schism
- 4.2 Western Church
-4.2.2 Protestantism
-4.2.2.1 Mainstream
-4.2.2.2 Evangelical
-4.2.2.2.1 Mainstream Evangelical (Baptists etc.)
-4.2.2.2.2 Emerging Church
NB: This is just back of the napkin, its much more complicated than this.That's not that complicated. But to look at many of us Christians you'd think it was.But that's assuming there is only one correct way to regain that lost fellowship. It is complicated precisely because so many different Christians think their way is correct, and have problems putting themselves in the shoes of other ostensible "fellow" Christians who don't see eye-to-eye with their views.
It's all bland pleasantries, pop theology at best. They don't even pretend to engage with any kind of theological tradition, let alone one which takes its commitments and internal logic seriously.That's the interesting, thing, though -- if you actually read what these people are writing and saying, there is no way to honestly come to that conclusion. Instead, you have to grapple with the fact that they engage with theological tradition and come to different conclusions than you do. Inside of the church, that is frightening to the point of madness. One must Other them, or accept a broader range of valid interpretations. That's not always easy, and usually Othering is the default.
I'm a Christian, and these guys piss me off to no end.Yes, that did come through.
They're making us look like intellectual lightweights, not to mention a bunch of freaking pansies.Not everyone lives out their faith by starting a church Mixed Martial Arts night. Honestly, the biggest criticism of the Emergent movement I see from outside the church is not that they are 'lightweights' but that they have refused to actively and openly condemn the regressive and less palatable parts of the body of Christ.
In point of fact, the emergent movement is profoundly negative; indeed a negative stance toward the whole Christian tradition is its sum and total.Like I said, I find it difficult to take that comment seriously from anyone who's not in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The grand tradition of Christianity is attacking the previous orthodoxy, announcing a new one, and teaching one's children that Things Have Always Been As They Are.
Why? Because Christianity is a tradition, steeped in faith, and any attempt to "move forward" and "engage" which has as its basic premise a rejection of tradition--and quite possibly faith--is doomed to failure from the start.I used to believe that - and realized, eventually, that it was nothing but hollow words. Orthodoxy is evolution but every shift paints itself as a rejection of false doctrine or manmade tradition in favor of true, eternal truth. The defenders of the existing view shout about tradition, the new hotness folks talk about true faith, and eventually folks forget there was ever a debate in the first place. Ironically, the things that the 'Emergents' are speaking out against strongest are themselves recent developments in the church.
My only glimmer of hope here is that the church has seen idiots like Bell/McLaren/Campolo before, and they're gone while the church isn't.That's like saying that Menudo has seen many other acts come and go.
empty vessel, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too, and while in some sense I hope that works out for you, I know it won'tWhile in some sense I hope that your faith works out for you, I know that it won't. I have seen the trajectory you are on, and I have seen many colleagues, heros, loved ones, and companions in faith follow it. It never ends well. (Dismissive condescension is awesome, isn't it?)
the reason I've been so hostile here is that I've seen far too many people I care about, people who are spiritually starving, wasting their time and lives on this garbage. They need liturgy, tradition, sacrament, and instead they get "discussion," "engagement," and "openness." I've seen Evangelicalism, and this, its most virulent form, work far too much damage in far too many lives to be sanguine about it anymore. And you're completely right in that MetaFilter really can't handle internecine discussions like this, regardless of whether we're talking about Christianity or any other culture complex enough to have internal conflict. I'm certainly open for that beer if we ever happen to run across each other.I'm not trying to be snarky, here. I just find it really, really fascinating. There's an awful lot of WHUTXIANS? that goes on in these threads, but I find it interesting that you are responding with the most bile and vitriol to those who are honestly discussing the issue, and are participating with more insight than your dismissal would suggest.
Being touchy about people who appear to be messing with the Gospel is just about as old as the Gospel itself.Valkyryn, this is the part that makes me sigh every time. Arguing about what the fuck the Gospel is is as old as the Gospel. Your references to 'orthodox faith' are, also, curious. Are you a member of the Eastern Orthodox church? If so, I'd be very interested in hearing more about how you see their perception of evolving theology conflicting with the Emergents. If you are not a member of the Eastern Orthodox church and you are lecturing emergents about abandoning tradition, it's nothing but pot vs. kettle. I'm not saying that to be confrontational, just noting that the history of Christianity is a long trail of instances in which "The Gospel" was "messed with." Reading further, I see that you consider yourself a Protestant. You are a theological Johnny-come-lately, when seen at the "Christianity's history" scale.
Look, I'm the last one to say that the church doesn't have an image problem, or indeed, real substantive problems. I can criticize the church with the best of them.Yes, it tells me that you are are missing my point entirely. Again, that is not an attempt to be confrontational, or an attempt to suggest that the emergents are returning to some "older and more legitimate" strain of the faith. But neither were the Catholics, or the Anabaptists, or the Lutherans, or the Seventh Day Adventists, or... Well, you get the idea.
verb, your response is insightful, I grant that, but all I really get from it is that I should moderate my tone. Which is true. But two things. First, the fact that I come off as an asshole doesn't really affect the validity of my position as much as you seem to think that it does.I said no such thing. Rather, I suggested that your angry vitriol directed at the Emergents (and those who were insufficiently horrified by them) was papering over the fact that their fundamental critique of the modernist church remained compelling. You've gone out of your way to ascribe the worst possible motives to those who come from different theological perspectives, you've thrown "I know your inner soul better than you do" condescension at other users here, and when others in the thread have asked for details, you've appealed to the classic "Well, you all aren't as knowledgeable and educated about the things I know, so you'll have to take my theological word for it." And you wrapped it all up with a bow that reads "If you note that I'm just waving my hands and shouting, you're attacking me."
So would I care as much if they weren't calling themselves Christians? Well, maybe. If they stopped claiming that their message has the same ends as Christianity, i.e. stopped claiming to preach the Gospel, then maybe I wouldn't. But replacing the name while trying to keep those ends is both cowardly and disingenuous.Indeed. After many years of grappling with these questions, I came to the conclusion that people who believe as you do actually are the legitimate protectors of the authentic Christian faith. That realization is what caused me to abandon the faith, accepting that it might mean spending eternity in hell.
Just one point: this isn't really fair. I know it might seem to be, and I know it might annoy people that valkyryn seems to be taking the side of something he (nebulously? we don't know) calls 'orthodox Christianity.' But he isn't required to be a member of any Eastern, or Western, Orthodox Church in order to argue in favor of it. I'm willing to step out and say this: I am not officially a member of any Orthodox Church, but I'll argue the side of it, because I see myself as spiritually and intellectually on its side.Just to be clear, I don't mean that that Valkyryn isn't allowed to argue in favor of Capital-O-Orthodox theology. Rather, I think that a Protestant talking about the sanctity of Church tradition is just an example of the fundamental "drift" that characterizes Christian doctrine. Indeed, it characterizes almost any religious faith.
It is no more unfair for valkyryn to argue in favor of the orthodox Church than it is for you to occasionally take up the side of emergents, even when you yourself are clear on the point that you believe that essentially Christianity is dogmatic and uninquisitive (please correct me if I'm wrong):A fair point, to be sure. Realistically, if I were taking sides I too would come down on the side of the Eastern Orthodox church rather than the Emergents as a place to point someone looking for long a place in the Christian tradition. As I mentioned, a lot of the "emergents" that I have been in contact with ended up in the Orthodox church as a result of their searching. That's one of the reasons I find the heated, vigorous attack on emergents troubling: for better or worse, often, it boils down to an attack on the act of honestly asking questions, rather than an attack on a particular set of 'ends'. The ends, more often than not, are the very traditions that Emergents are accused of trying to eradicate.
But - to put it as bluntly as possible - my own definition of the emergent movement is 'an opposition to tradition.' The emergents may dislike the dogmatism, or the sexism, or the racism, or whatever else, in the tradition - but their central conclusion is: we must break with the tradition and build something new.I suppose that is where my experience of the Emergent movement is different. The emphasis, at least in circles I interacted with, was on a willingness to approach questions honestly and openly even if they related to fundamental "givens" in Christianity. Some of those things are fundamental 'foundations' of the faith, others are commonly held beliefs (sexual mores, political viewpoints, etc.) that are not explicitly part of Christian dogma. This means being willing to break with tradition, but given the fondness of many emergents for Eastern Orthodox tradition, the writings of the early church mystics, and so on... I question the suggestion that it is explicitly hostile to tradition. Hostile to the idea that appeal to tradition is sufficient to answer questions, but not hostile to tradition per se.
And this is where our hesitation and discomfort with it come from - the last time we 'broke with tradition,' it was at the behest of a bunch of schismatics led by a vile little man who has the distinction of being the first German to publicly suggest using gas chambers to dispose of Jews.While I'm a big fan of poking fun at Protestantism, I don't think this is something that can be restricted to that strain of the Christian faith, or even to the Christian faith itself. At the end of the day, when human beings have an ideology they consider bigger than themselves, even bigger than the people around them, they tend to make hash of things. That's true when it comes to politics, faith, open source software, economics, pop music... You name it. That making-hash-of-it doesn't inherently invalidate a given ideology, but it should give us pause when the time to mark off "in-group" and "out-group" comes.
The emphasis, at least in circles I interacted with, was on a willingness to approach questions honestly and openly even if they related to fundamental "givens" in Christianity.To be fair, that emphasis can lead to a fuzzy life of theological drift inside of a nominal Christian faith. There is a point at which some people just need to admit that they're agnostics and join a Unitarian church if they want to be part of a "church structure." But that isn't unique to the Emergents, either. Spong, at least in my mind, long since passed the point where he could be legitimately considered a Christian writer. Perhaps a spiritual writer existing in the general Christian tradition? It's fuzzy.
And you know what? They're both right! [Catholicism and Protestantism]that viewpoint is in and of itself a controversial point of disagreement inside many Christian circles. You can say that those who call Catholics heretics are wrong, and they say you are wrong. As I said earlier, the idea that there is disagreement in the church about "the essentials" does not mean there are no essentials. It does, though, mean that
The faithful response at this point is to engage that discussion, figure out what the teaching of the church is, and struggle with it while accepting it on faith.For a very, very small set of doctrinal issues, yes: you can't deny, say, the divinity of Christ and still honestly refer to yourself as a Christian. But the approach you describe above -- "you're supposed to find out what the official answer is, then accept it on faith" -- is not something that can be applied outside of a very narrow denominational context for the majority of issues.
The Eastern church is even more tradition-bound than the Western churches, and yeah, they're generally more aesthetic and mystical than us Westerners, but a lot of emergents confuse that for the sort of progressivism they're shooting for. They're no less dogmatic about their beliefs than Rome is, but their authority structure is significantly less streamlined, so for the uninitiated, this can look a lot more chaotic and "loose" than it actually is. On most ethical issues they're completely in line with Rome, and if anything, they're even less interested in modifying their liturgy than Rome is.Interestingly enough, though, the Capital-O-Orthodox believers I've talked to can explain very clearly why the emphasis on tradition is there, what it means, and what purpose it serves. The ability to engage, to accept that there are unanswerable questions, and to find purpose and direction outside of the echo chamber of Sola Scriptura, is regarded by many Emergents I know as a fundamental strength.
But the emergents, in general, won't sign on to anything: it's too dogmatic, too restrictive, too decided. Or, at least, I haven't seen any evidence that they're willing to toe any particular line.A fair observation, but that raises the question of the purpose of the creeds. Are they the equivalent of an employment contract? "Agree to these terms, and we'll let you in!" Or is are they intended to be descriptions of one's own beliefs? If the former, your framing would be correct: the emergents are essentially rogues who want to jump onto the Christianity ride but refuse to pay for a ticket.
Lest we get confusion on this term too, I'm using "heresy" in the technical sense, though "heterodoxy" might work.Yeah, I figured that -- although it's worth keeping in mind that Protestants are officially heretics in the eyes of the Catholic church. 'Heretic' is a heavy word with some serious implications, but being called a heretic by someone who claims not to be a heretic has never been the be-all end-all of Christianity. It just means that somewhere, someone thinks you're not on the straight and narrow.
Though most confessional Christians would consider credobaptism to be heterodox, it isn't heretical in the same way that Arianism is. By saying that everything is on the table, emergents can and do flirt with things as serious as that.I'm just not sure why that's so threatening. Some heresies are pretty easy to explain: "Someone proposed X as a solution to Y. After a lot of arguments, though, that conflicted fundamentally with doctrine Z. A critical mass of church leaders decided Z was more important, and X became 'heresy.'" I've yet to meet an emergent who didn't find an answer like that interesting and compelling: perhaps I've only been exposed to a tiny subset, and perhaps my experience is not representative.
Let us try to clarify this issue somewhat more fully by contrasting the life characterized by the idea of return with the life characterized by the idea of progress. When the prophets call their people to account, they do not limit themselves to accusing them of this or that particular crime or sin. They recognize the root of all particular crimes in the fact that the people have forsaken their God. They accuse their people of rebellion. Originally, in the past, they were faithful and loyal; now they are in a state of rebellion. In the future they will return, and God will restore them to their original place. The primary, original, initial, is loyalty; unfaithfulness, infidelity, is secondary. The very notion of unfaithfulness or infidelity presupposes that fidelity or loyalty is primary. The perfect character of the origin is a condition of sin—of the thought of sin. Man who understands himself in this way longs for the perfection of the origin, or of the classic past. He suffers from the present; he hopes for the future.It's in that context that I see the emergent debate - and it seems to me that, while things are rarely black and white, most emergents have more feeling for progress than return.
Progressive man, on the other hand, looks back to a most imperfect beginning. The beginning is barbarism, stupidity, rudeness, extreme scarcity. He does not feel that he has lost something of great, not to say infinite, importance; he has lost only his chains. He does not suffer from the recollection of the past. Looking back to the past, he is proud of his achievements; he is certain of the superiority of the present to the past. He is not satisfied with the present; he looks to future progress. But he does not merely hope or pray for a better future; he thinks that he can bring it about by his own effort. Seeking perfection in a future which is in no sense the beginnning or the restoration of the beginning, he lives unqualifiedly toward the future. The life which understands itself as a life of loyalty or faithfulness appears to him as backward, as being under the spell of old prejudices. What the others call rebellion, he calls revolution or liberation. To the polarity faithfulness-rebellion, he opposes the polarity prejudice-freedom.
I need to make sure, however, that no one—whether scholar or seeker—is left with the impression that the perennial philosophy is some kind of substitute for a revealed tradition, or that metaphysics and esoterism are the same as religion. Although I have approached your question strictly from the point of view of the Intellect, one must never forget that there is more to the human being than intellection alone. "If every man possessed Intellect, not merely in a fragmentary or virtual state, but as a fully developed faculty," then there would be no need for Revelation, since "total intellection would be a natural thing." [Frithjof Schuon, Stations Of Wisdom] The problem, however, is the fall. While the "total Truth is inscribed, in an immortal script, in the very substance of our spirit," [Frithjof Schuon, Light on the Ancient Worlds] we are now cut off from that substance, cut off from the Self, and cannot re-enter our center save with the aid of grace—the grace that flows through those objective manifestations of the Divine Logos which are the revealed religions. "The Intellect contains in its substance all that is true," but this Truth cannot be fully known, much less fully realized, unless "the Intellect is deployed in the atmosphere of a Revelation." [Frithjof Schuon, ibid.] For Revelation is to the macrocosm or human collectivity what intellection is to the microcosm or individual. "What the different Revelations do is to 'crystallize' and 'actualize,' in different degrees according to the case, a nucleus of certitudes which not only abides forever in the Divine Omniscience, but also sleeps by refraction in the 'naturally supernatural' kernel of the individual," [Frithjof Schuon, ibid.] that kernel precisely which is the intellect.I know I've been quoting stuff at extreme length, but I guess this late in the thread I'm less hesitant to do so, and I think these things kind of give a better picture of where I'm coming from. I'm pretty alarmed at a whole bunch of aspects of the modern world, and I can't help but feel as though those within the emergent movement are being taken in, to a certain degree, by its deceptions. I think these texts, anyway, give some context as to what I'm trying to say.
It follows that each of us must be living the life prescribed by a religious tradition if we wish to find our way back to that inwardness where man and God are but one. "In normal conditions," that is, before the advent of the modern, secular world, there would have been no question as to the necessity of such a life, and we would have learned "a priori the reality of Divine things through Revelation." Only "a posteriori" and as a matter of consequences would the man of a gnostic temperament have had access "to the truth of these things through intellection, which reveals to us their essence lying beyond received formulations." [Frithjof Schuon, Esoterism as Principle and as Way] Owing to the skepticism and general loss of faith in the modern world, however, one is often obliged to proceed in reverse and go straight to this essence, since "only esoterism" can "restore the lost truth by referring to the total Truth." [Frithjof Schuon, ibid.] And yet this does not mean that Revelation is no longer necessary. Although "the spiritual chaos of our epoch permits or requires that the 'inward' be manifested 'outwardly,'" [Frithjof Schuon, Roots of the Human Condition] this is no reason to think that the inward alone can take the place of the outward. The dogmas, the moral code, and above all the sacramental rites of an orthodox tradition are essential provisions for everyone making the spiritual journey.
This was sort of my point earlier; I know that emergents themselves probably wince when I say that they're 'anti-tradition,' but I don't think there's any other way to see it.I thought I'd explained the idea pretty clearly, but I guess it's a point of fundamental disagreement rather than misunderstanding now. I see a distinct difference between "rejecting tradition" and "refusing to accept mere tradition as a sufficient explanation for beliefs." The former is, as others have suggested, often a theological tantrum with no real endgame. The latter view is still capable of accepting tradition as a valuable component of religious faith.
You can't put forward one opinion without immediately negating its opposite....This is true. The problem, in my eyes, is when things that are related, and sometimes conflicting, are incorrectly framed as "hard opposites". It's a bit like the claim that Emergents are wolves in sheeps' clothing, roaming around and seeking gullible innocents to trap. There is a middle ground between "martyrs for truth" and "evil deceivers."
I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.—Thomas Jeffersonposted by No Robots at 11:04 AM on February 17, 2010
The point being that it’s up to us to find the meaning in God’s words, and once we are charged with that responsibility, not even He can interfere, the way that a parent can raise his/her children to obey certain rules but with the ultimate hope that they’ll become independent and make up their own minds.For orthodox Christians, this is not the point. Central to the Christian faith, from the very beginning, is the idea that God works through the Holy Spirit in guiding the church to truth. I am not aware that Judaism has any similar analog, so the idea that God gives his revelation and then leaves us to figure it out for ourselves works in Judaism. But it doesn't work in Christianity. The entire argument I've been making--and the one the church has made since the first century--is that the reason we can trust what the church says is because God promised that he would guide the church to truth. So to borrow from your parable, the orthodox Christian church has believed something very similar to an angel coming down and choosing sides, while the emergents are far more like the second rabbi, who wants to figure it out himself. It's unsurprising that you find the emergents so attractive, as it is in a sense a far more humanistic approach to Christianity than has been traditional. But it's also kind of gratifying to lear that, because it confirms my suspicion that this differs from traditional Christianity in important ways. Christians aren't supposed to be any more impressed than Jews when the entire world thinks they're doing it wrong.
Fred Phelps could not have emerged in a tradition with any kind of spiritual oversight, and I doubt James Dobson could have either.Long and interesting posts on both sides, but I want to point out that this particular statement ignores the long history of pretty much everything.
This is in effect saying that you'll honor any authority that you choose to honor, because you're going to evaluate whether or not that "authority" is correct by your own standards before you "submit" to it.I'll just stick my head in and note, once again, that this is the story of Christianity. If you can explain how emergents differ from Protestants in this regard, other than the fact that Protestants have more book deals and rent larger movie theaters for their Sunday services, I'm all ears. If Protestantism is good enough for you, why is that approach poisonous and bad for emergents?
This isn't obedience or submission in any significant sense, and it's what I've been trying to get you to understand all along. Saying that you'll obey provided you agree isn't obedience. It's consensus. And consensus isn't something you reach with a real authority. It's something you reach with a body of equals, where every involved party has an equal say in the matter.You're misrepresenting empty vessel's statements pretty blatantly: he was discussing the process by which one decides whether or not someone who claims to be an authority is legitimate. Saying that doesn't count is like saying that marriage doesn't count if you agree to it.
A real authority, on the other hand, is someone who can tell you want to do, and you have to do it whether or not you agree, because their authority is not based on your recognition of said authority. You don't get to withhold your allegiance until they say things you like. They get to tell you to do things that you don't like. They get to judge you, you don't get to judge them.Scripture is pretty clear about the fact that such submission is God's to demand. empty vessel's entire point is that there are many claims about who is in an authoritative position to speak for God, and it would be foolish not to carefully weigh those claims and their sources before 'submitting.'
« Older Miss me yet?... | A fourth music video clip has ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Of course the other changes with each version of a religion: Jews massacre Canaanites, Catholics burn Pagans and witches, Protestants skewer and hang Catholics, Congregationalists dispossess Baptists, Baptists call Haitians devil worshipers.
Acceptance, social justice, and world peace, that just doesn't sell. I mean, Jesus more or less preached that, and look where He ended up. Nailed to a tree.
posted by orthogonality at 12:18 PM on February 10, 2010 [5 favorites]