All comments

Guerrilla Worship - Liverpool Flash Mob

The world has moved on.: Re: Guerrilla Worship -... (1 hour ago)

Why YOU Should Plant a Church

The world has moved on.: Re: Why YOU Should Plant a... (3 hours ago)

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?

Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (3 days ago)
Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (4 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Contradictions in the... (4 days ago)

Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth

john doyle: Re: Day One: A Sir Toby's... (4 days ago)

A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren

john doyle: Re: A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian... (4 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (4 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (4 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (5 days ago)
Syndicate content

Re: What does the emerging church stand for?

Re: What does the emerging church stand for?

Danutz, I made an attempt to pre-empt your criticism that this ostensibly objective account of an emerging theology is really only a catalogue of my personal preferences:

What I want to outline here, therefore, is a broader set of values, though they may appear rather too condensed, a little idealistic in places, perhaps more prescriptive than descriptive, and may reflect a rather too personal perspective.

I don’t really see how the trap can be avoided. On the one hand, if the phrase ‘emerging theology’ is to be at all meaningful, it must imply some sort of boundary. On the other, we all inevitably view the phenomenon from a particular point of view and interpret it according to our prejudices. I have merely outlined what I would like - ideally and in the current state of my understanding - an emerging theology to be or become.

I disagree that ‘the ancient tree of biblical narrative is justice’ - I would argue that justice is rather a fruit of that tree, and I think that we have a responsibility, not least an intellectual responsiblity, to get these fundamental theological structures more or less right. As long as we accept the Bible as a ‘sacred’ text and in some sense definitive for the descendants of the promise to Abraham, it seems to me that we are bound to keep searching for a better understanding - we can’t help it. I regard this as a matter of hermeneutical integrity.

I would suggest that we both have the ‘mentality that certain particular views are excluded’. The difference has to do rather with what views we exclude and include, where exactly we draw the line. I don’t imagine for one minute that your theology is entirely inclusive.

Perhaps our basic disagreement about interpretation and loyalty to scripture must simply be accepted for now as one of no doubt many faultlines in the emerging conversation. I have no need to declare a winner, and I agree that the openness of conversation that you describe must be protected. But that is not the same as saying that we should not expect some sort of consensus to emerge over time.