IKON, heresy and T(t)ruth.
May 30, 2005
The first worship experience I went to at the Emergent Convention was put on by here.
They describe their community as iconic, apocalyptic, heretical, emerging and failing (for a description, go here). I’m interested in heresy. I’m interested in the truth that can be found in the fields of heresy, on the borders, on the edges. Just as the ultimate Truth (Jesus) was often found in the most unexpected places with the most unacceptable people, so truth will be found in places we would never even think to look.
IKON describes themselves as heretical in the following way:
In addition to this we acknowledge our heretical stance in relation to the larger Christian community. Unlike the terms ‘unbeliever’ and ‘infidel’, which traditionally referred to those from a different religious tradition, a heretic is one who comes from the same tradition but who reads it in a different way. Not only do we acknowledge and celebrate the multiplicity of ways that one can read Christianity, we actively employ these diverse readings in order to help ensure that no single understanding is taken as the only true understanding. By doing this we also endeavour to be a place of refuge for those on the edges, or outside, the traditional church system, yet who desire God. While this can often place us in tension with more established forms of religion, we view this as a creative force that allows for a critical, two-way interaction with the larger church, challenging while being challenged.
Let us strive to live this out. Let us make room for the diversity that exists. Let us look for truth in places we’d never before thought of looking. Let us make room for heresy.
Tags: Emergent, IKON, Worship
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
May 30th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
in this vein, i would be pleased to be called a heretic…when our dedication to religiosity is cast aside so that “no single understanding is taken as the only true understanding” there may be many who are drawn to Jesus. this type of heresy may be the only hope for the church!
May 30th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
“Amen” Susie! You “preach” it, girlfriend! i am happy to be known as a heretic! Thanx, Adam, for sharing this in blog world! BTW, did you know you are my hero?! Seriously, i love the way you think about things and articulate them! You are awesome and don’t stop growing, questioning, searching, being you!
May 31st, 2005 at 9:55 am
Wow, so hip and provocative.
I have a better idea: let’s ditch the facile dichotomy assumed by this “embrace heresy” meme, and instead let’s realize that the beauty and power of the Gospel is a heck of a lot more expansive, compelling, and wide-reaching than fundamentalists of the right (regressive) or left (progressive) can bear to allow.
There is wonderful range and diversity within the Christian faith. Lots of room for searching, questioning, exploring, doubting, pushing the envelope. Lots of space for debate, disagreement, and divergence. But none of that is necessarily “heresy.”
Now, I can appreciate that wow, calling it “heresy” is edgy and all that. Reclaiming a word from those who use it as an instrument of oppression is very post-modern, and I can resepct that. But heresy is a very particular thing. And by watering down the idea of “heresy,” a disservice is done to those at the edges of Christian faith and those outside the faith. Heresy is serious. It is spiritually deadly. It’s not coming to Jesus a different way. It’s coming to someone other than Jesus. Heresy isn’t the road to being the “authentic you” or any other romanticized notion. It’s the road to denying the very image of God in which one is created.
I realize this all probably sounds so old-fashioned. Boring even. Maybe it even sounds (gasp!) reactionary. But rather than lift up heresy as a great thing, it will be much more fruitful to mine the depths of authentic Christian tradition, wherein one will certainly find lots of truths that today’s fundys of the right and left would certainly call “heretical,” but would do so only as a power play to defend their own turf. Let’s subvert the damage that human sinfulness in all of its power-hungry, self-serving manifestations (be they pre-modern, modern, or post-modern) has done to the beauty of the Truth, rather than look at the sin-stained Church and, imagining ourselves as privileged observers free from the wreckage, say, “Oh dear, how awful. Let’s go looking at the heretics to find something lovely.”
Peace & joy to y’all!
May 31st, 2005 at 12:54 pm
“all great truths begin as blasphemies”
-george bernard shaw
May 31st, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Hey, Evers, I hate to get all pedantic on you, but heresy doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means:
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
Contrary to church dogma, hmmm? (Dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church)
Given that many branches of the “church” have doctrines that conflict with the doctrines of other branches means that once again we’re dealing with who defines what as “true faith” or “true morals”.
Daring to think or explore something beyond the bounds of conventional wisdom is where real learning lies.
(For 10 bonus points - name that tune: “But mama, that’s where the fun is…”)
May 31st, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Eph 4:
1I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call– 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
If there are multiple understandings of Scripture, then there is no absolute understanding of any passages, including this one. Which of course totally detroys any truth Paul was trying to present here. That would mean that there is no unity of the Body. However if we all agree in a literal interpretation of this Scripture then we have a problem. If all this is true then there is only one understanding for the believer which is Christ’s understanding. This all contingent on the belief that the bible is in fact the actual inerrant and infallible Word of God. Using the stupidity of the denominations in interpretation of Scripture is no excuse to wallow in the mudbogs of relativism. There is the going beyond conventional wisdom, and then there are
those who have none whatsoever. There is the walking together in one mind, the mind of Christ which is the only and true understanding that exists. Where in the Bible are we told to celebrate diversity?
May 31st, 2005 at 2:51 pm
I have to disagree with Evers post above and echo the sentiments of Dave Paisley’s post above.
And Chris P., what is your point? Please help me to understand more of what you are getting at here. I am not being cheeky, just trying to understand you.
May 31st, 2005 at 2:55 pm
BTW, Evers, ikon is not attempting to be “hip and provocative and edgy”.
May 31st, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Dave,
Differences between branches of the Christian tradition(s) are not “heresies,” except perhaps to some within the Eastern Orthodox communions and a smaller subset of the Roman church.
And let’s face it. “Heresy” isn’t being used in any rigorous sense at all here. I mean, are we being encouraged here to embrace Montanism or Arianism or Adoptionism? But “heresy” has a certain fuzzy cultural cachet today. It sounds rebellious and anti-authoritarian. Which is, of course, among the absolute heights of power and authority in our culture!
“Daring to go beyond the conventional wisdom” sounds all brave and great and wonderful. But there is very, very little “conventional wisdom” in the Gospel, in fact none at all. Rather, the whole idea that one has to look to “heresy” to find truth is very, very much the conventional wisdom of our day. It is absolutely part and parcel of Western identity. So by all means - go beyond conventional wisdom! Dare to reject the facile cultural assumptions around us. Look instead to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a Word that is ever new, unlike the heresies, which are nothing new under the sun, but always recycled to look sexy.
Peace & joy!
May 31st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Embracing heresy? Hmm…that’s a thought. Now I do understand at times that to be necessary. But it is necessary when the dogma of the church is not embracing Scripture which is the “single understanding” and “is taken as the only true understanding.” This is true of times like the Reformation. They were considered heretics for their stance.
But today, embracing heresy because one does not like having a single understanding because we live in a pluralistic society is wrong. Trying to pull in people who have views that contradict the teaching of Scripture is very dangerous ground. This is where the church and its teaching become so diluted that it appears to be no different than any other faith in the world. This truly is heresy and is not something to embraced. One should only embrace the “heresy” you speak of when it follows Scipture where as the church’s teachings do not. Just because one doesn’t like the lines that have been drawn in the Scripture which exclude those who chose not to follow does not mean that one should embrace a teaching that goes against what Scripture teaches.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Existential,
I was just addressing the comments made. Ken hit it on the head. Heresy is anything that sets itself against the Word of God. If the plurality of understandings is the norm, then Paul’s words on the unity of the body are worthless, as the diversity of understanding would cause us to interpret the unity in different ways. IOW there would be no unity. I ask again where is diversity mentioned in Scripture by Christ or anyone else. There is only one church and one Word. We cannot take the Heinz 57 presentation of what calls itself the Church to say, “we told you so, there is no one truth”
God has established the absolute parameters.
May 31st, 2005 at 6:17 pm
A professor I once had (a “conservative” and an “evangelical” whatever those terms mean) said that “all good theology borders on heresy.”
Think about it. It makes good sense.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:30 pm
“All good theology borders on heresy.”
That sounds pretty fair. I’ve usually heard it expressed from the other direction: a heretical belief is usually PART OF a true teaching of the faith. The various christological heresies, for example, get part of the confession right, either Jesus’ full humanity or full divinity. But they don’t get BOTH together.
As one of my seminary professors (one who would be considered very “conservative,” though definitely not an evangelical in North American terminology) once reminded us, “Paul spent a lot of energy correcting the impression that he was an antinomian. Now, if your preaching never gets you accused of being antinomian, you might want to ask yourself if you’re really preaching the Gospel. Of course, if you do get so accused, you’d better have a Pauline-like response!”
Peace, y’all.
May 31st, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Chris P.
“God has established the absolute parameters.” God is an absolute God, but our human limitations in how we perceive, interpret, translate Him and His ways and His word are limited.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:31 am
i appreciate the desire to question dogma, traditional belief - even to the point of walking out into the abyss of heresy. but i wager that both IKON, adam, and others (including me) think callling themselves a heretic IS fun, provocative, hip, edgy, exciting; whether they admit to it or not. Hey, its fun to rebel, isn’t it?
But, how far are the emergers willing to take the title of heretic and search for God in the wilderness far away from the security of dogma and conservativism? how far will you go to search for God? where do you lose your bravery in the wilderness away from the crutch of tradition? (hehe - that’ll get comments). its fun to say you’re a heretic, but are you willing to look for truth way out on the limits, or JUST outside the borders where the traditionalists can see you rebelling? I’m personally chewing on this myself, and thought I would share my meal.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:48 am
Wow Don…great stuff (especially for one refering to himself as a heretic).
Glad to hear that there are a few others who agree with me. I was concerned I’d be the only one in this conversation disagreeing with the author.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:57 am
“Where in the Bible are we told to celebrate diversity?”
Um, 1 Cor 12?
Just a, you know, thought.
Of course, I may be misinterpreting it, because what it probably really says is, “You should all be the same cookie cutter, identical pieces because that is the way I, God, wanted things to be.”
June 1st, 2005 at 2:08 am
Don, i was apart of ikon when i lived in n. ireland and know the guy who started ikon - he is a great friend.
“but i wager that both IKON, adam, and others (including me) think callling themselves a heretic IS fun, provocative, hip, edgy, exciting; whether they admit to it or not. Hey, its fun to rebel, isn’t it?” If this is what you are about, great, and be who you are.
You presume to assume this about us, and i know ikon is not trying to be “edgy, exciting, provocative” and ikon is not in denial about this. We are all rebels to some degree.
At Ikon, “Not only do we acknowledge and celebrate the multiplicity of ways that one can read Christianity, we actively employ these diverse readings in order to help ensure that no single understanding is taken as the only true understanding. By doing this we also endeavour to be a place of refuge for those on the edges, or outside, the traditional church system, yet who desire God. While this can often place us in tension with more established forms of religion, we view this as a creative force that allows for a critical, two-way interaction with the larger church, challenging while being challenged.”
This is a reality ikon strives for in daily life and not something to evoke shock or a place to be hip.
So, before people judge and/or criticize or make assumptions, please read, ask, enquirer of the people involved.
Thanx!
June 1st, 2005 at 9:33 am
ExPnk: “So, before people judge and/or criticize or make assumptions, please read, ask, enquire of the people involved.”
But where’s the fun in that?
;)
June 1st, 2005 at 9:47 am
just wanted to inspire some comments, don’t really say what i truly believe on these things anyway… thanks for the thoughts.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:36 am
Dave, HeeeeeHeeeeeeeeHeeeeee!!!!!!
Don, ok, thnx for ’splaing!
June 1st, 2005 at 10:45 am
The point of 1 Cor 12 is not to “celebrate” anything. Paul is saying we are one body, His Body, a fact.Whether you are an arm, leg, or whatever,you have no say in the matter. Just do your job. When all the Body parts are assembled, the Body looks like Christ, not a cultural quilt. Is anyone tired of these UN one world theologies? The unity of the Body is created by God and given to us to walk in just as salvation, sanctification, deliverance, etc. These are established once and for all. Walk in them or don’t. There is nothing in the Scripture that suggests a pluralism of understanding, i.e. interpretation, is of God. I remember a post here awhile back that Genesis 11 should be interpreted as God creating diversity is a good thing. It was His judgement on arrogant men.
I know Dave has an aversion to sound exegetical, expository study, but scripture interprets scripture, not you lifting one chapter out of context. Unfortunately, that chapter does not say what you say it does anyway.
Jesus said, “if I am lifted up I will draw all men to myself”, not,if you wrap me up in cultural context and plurality, all men will choose to come to me.The Lord, the Church, the Word exist outside of culture, and in fact the Body of Christ is the one place on earth where cultural,andin fact all, differences are irrelevant. Gal 3:26-29; Colossians 3:11
A question to Don. Why would you post something that you don’t believe?
June 1st, 2005 at 12:37 pm
i reject this notion of heresy.
let’s use words for what they mean…(i do believe words having an agreed upon meaning, unless they are redefined)…not what we want to make them mean in order to spark interest, or sound rebellous, or be noncommittal.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:21 pm
Chris P: “Unfortunately, that chapter does not say what you say it does anyway.”
What did I say it means, exactly?
Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything about what it means, so you must be psychic to be able to read my thoughts. And in which (witch?) case you’d have to burn yourself at the stake.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Dave,
Let’s break it down. Here is your comment.
“Where in the Bible are we told to celebrate diversity?”
Um, 1 Cor 12? Just a, you know, thought.”
(Sounds like an interpretative statement to me. I repeat, nowhere in Scripture are we told to “celebrate” diversity. Let’s go on.)
“Of course, I may be misinterpreting it, because what it probably really says is, “You should all be the same cookie cutter, identical pieces because that is the way I, God, wanted things to be.”"
(Your use of the words, “I may be misinterpreting”, implies you considered yourself to be interpreting. It is an irrelevant point anyway as we are not cookie cutter and no one said that we were. Outside of the Body we are separate pieces arms, legs etc. just laying about, but together as the Body we look like Christ and nothing else. However we do have the problem of the aberration i.e. the third arm, or the eleventh finger, or toe, trying to make itself part of the Body. Paul’s use of this “metaphor” is enough to smash the diversity argument.
This chapter does not say what you think it says. No psychic power needed, just a good Scripture based refutation.)
June 1st, 2005 at 5:36 pm
It’s a good thing you are at Princeton Cleave with people who actually think. The comments on your post is the church world you are facing when you leave seminary. They are brutal, cruel people who are arrogant enough to think that there is only one way to think.
In my head, I resonate with the people at Princeton. In my heart, I feel the true passion from people like Cleave. However, with my eyes and ears I see and hear an American Christianity (found in the majority of comments to this post) that does not understand the gospel.
Good luck Cleave. Know that some of us resonate with you.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:59 pm
Fresh Dirt!!!???
Why don’t you explain the real Gospel to us?
June 1st, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Fresh Dirt, how can you say that it is “arrogant” for people to “think that there is only one way to think” and then say that American Christianity “does not understand the gospel”? Isn’t saying that “American Christianity… does not understand the gospel” an instance of saying that there is “only one way to think”?
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:00 am
It probably does. I tend to hold to the line that intolerance is not tolerable. I respect those who respect others. I do not respect people who refuse to respect anyone outside of their camp.
I find it interesting that many people like you Timbo use this line of reasoning against people like me. It may sound reasonable, but it doesn’t really convince too many people.
Besides, I am not actually advocating for a “anything goes” viewpoint. I am advocating for multiple viewpoints though. What is arrogant is supposing that your viewpoint about reality/life/theology/etc. is the one right way. Propositions cannot embody the totality of Truth. Yet, so many of you out there claim to have the way of beliefs.
Really in the end, all of my words are pointless. People like me assume that most people like you Timbo will never get it. And usually people like you assume that people like me will never get it. Its usually an endless circle of argumentation.
To answer Chris P.– the gospel is found everytime you turn around. Jesus was king at pointing out the gospel at work in everyday life: a widow and her mite, a child on a knee, a sower in a field, weeds and wheat, etc. Notice that Jesus finds the gospel roaming around in everyday life. Tomorrow, look for odd moments and normal moments– see if you can see the gospel in everyday life. Theology is found more in the trees and sidewalks than it is in books and statements.
We all need to be more like poets. I am on a journey trying to become more like the poets. They see life so differently.
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:42 am
“Only when he no longer knows what he is doing does the painter do good things.” ~ Edgar Degas
I think the same is true in religion. I own a book called “Mastery”. A number of people who are considered masters in their fields… scientists, painters, dancers, etc… are interviewed. The one characteristic they all had in common was the belief they actually weren’t masters at all. They all thought there was room for improvement and didn’t think they knew it all.
I think God intended us to not understand it all, and living and letting go to the mystery of life is the best (and most freeing way) to approach this wonderful thing called life. So.. I guess that makes me a heretic.
June 2nd, 2005 at 10:39 am
1 Cor continues into Chapter 13 with this:
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”
I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:15 pm
wow i can’t keep up with your postings…
replying to Chris P. a while ago of why i would post something i didn’t believe… there is an old Hebrew saying that states if you have 4 Rabbis in one room, you will always have at least 5 opinions. I rarely have just one opinion on a subject, therefore i state things i resonate with, rather than truly believe. “I believe” is a stamp that i don’t put into arguments lightly. In this “discussion” we have here, I see people who hold their opinions very close to their hearts; people who are willing to sternly (to the point of possibly being unkind) defend their positions. I am not one to quote someone’s words and use them to deconstruct another’s point, nor one to use someone’s words in a way they didn’t intend. When i do use someone else’s words it is because part of me agrees with them.
In these types of discussions, where one usually is doing much more debating than listening, i like to bring more perspectives to the table, whether they are mine or not, in hopes to get people to take a step back and rethink their point. sometimes it causes more thoughtful comments, and sometimes more frustration. i’m usually willing to take my chances.
i resonate with you, Chris P., in that there is absolute truth. i resonate with you, Cleave (bro!), that there also is Christian truth found in heresy. i think that these two statements only have to be contradictory if you are worried about losing an argument. and i like to rebel.
June 2nd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
“People like me assume that most people like you Timbo will never get it.”
Fresh Dirt, this is a strong statement given that we have never met. Perhaps you assume too much about people like me (whoever we are). While I am inclined to agree with you that “We all need to be like poets”, I don’t think this requires that we throw our minds and books out the window, which is what your description of the gospel seems to have done. Furthermore, those of us who advocate the value of propositional truths do not believe that they “embody the totality of Truth”. We do believe, however, that they are necessary aspects of understanding Truth, even if our understanding is imperfect and finite. Jesus has called us to love God with our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths (Mark 12:30). This includes, but is not limited to, propositional knowledge. What people like you (whoever they are) seem to have done is replaced mystery with contradiction, and in your wish to embrace the former, you have actually embraced the latter. Just because we can’t know all of it (Truth) doesn’t mean we can’t know some of it, even imperfectly (yet confidently‚Äînot because of ourselves, but because of the God Who enables us to know). To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, the sane do no good if they makes themselves mad to help madmen (The Great Divorce).
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:02 pm
The apocalyptic hopefuls are roosters, crowing wildly that dawn is breaking, the day of Reckoning is here. Their opponents are the owls, hooting that the night is still long, the dawn distant, the master asleep and the foxes afoot. Normally, owls dismiss roosters and Chicken Littles; and roosters denounce owls as ostriches. The hard part is to get owls to listen and roosters to articulate. At one level, to paraphrase Augustine, that great horned owl who argued that we have divided wills, irreparably split between good and evil impusles, we are divided soulsÉ at once owl and rooster. And the ability to listen Ð to our divided selves, to others, to the many voices of the past and present, and to express our understanding in ways that communicate, is a critical component of any successful civil society, of any effort to substitute discourse for violence in dispute settlement. The world is not made up of good, sane owls and bad, mad roosters; it is made up of responsible and irresponsible people, people committed to honesty no matter how painful for themselves, and people committed to denial no matter how painful for others, and we find both roosters and owls in both those categories.
You can find more here:
http://www.mille.org/people/rlpages/History1.html
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Well stated Timbo!
It seems you all run for the scriptures, when you need them, and out of context of course.
Dave,
1 Cor 13 should be read in the context of chapters 12 and 14,as Paul is dealing with good and Godly order in the context of our meetings, when we are all functioning in our gifts and callings.
I just put up a post on this at my blog:
http://thereformation.blogspot.com/2005/06/to-cease-or-not-to-cease-interesting.html
Fresh,
Paul in Romans 1:16-17 defines the Gospel. It sums up the life and ministry of Jesus quite well.
Deut 29:29 says, what has been given to us is so that we could know it, i.e. understand it. Whatever is God’s, He keeps to Himself. Without understanding we cannot walk worthy in our calling. I have never once in the two years or so that I have commented on this blog,(wow I should send Adam some flowers), I repeat, I have never once said that we do, or will, know everything. You cited several stories from the Gospels. You couldn’t know them without reading the book. They have to be absolutely true in order for us to believe them. The problem is that in your rush to embrace the mystery, you deny what has been given for us to know.
To use Dave’s reference,1 Cor 13:12 says that though we see dimly and only know in part, we do see, and we do know, something. What we know, we know for a certainty. The mystery you preach as the Gospel
denies what God has revealed. You are calling His revelation, unknowable. Since He is revealed in Christ, and Christ is revealed in the Scriptures, the only reliable source, verified by the indwelling Spirit, (Acts 17:11)then you are denying the Scriptures, and the power of God who is able to bring us into the understanding of what He has revealed. This is the essence of emergent. So hang your plurality of understandings. I want His understanding.
Psalm 25:14-15
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:54 pm
I probably have assumed too much about you individually Timbo. For that I apologize. But we all tend to belong to certain groups. These groups often can be characterized. You are right. My group tends to be too loose. We have the tendecy of loving openess for the sake of openess. The group that I have assumed you belong to often makes the opposite mistake. It seems that those who claim to have the truth/the one way are not very open to other ways of thinking. I fear that type of behavior.
Perhaps you don’t belong to this group, in fact you probably don’t or at least don’t think of yourself that way. However, I don’t think that I have embraced many contradictory ideas either yet it is assumed that I have.
All of our statements assume a greater belief system/worldview/theology/etc. Each of us read one anothers statements and make these assumptions. I have made my assumptions open, and for that I am scolded.
Basically, it seems to me, we view the concept of truth and the search for it very differently.
I recommend some good reading for everyone, a book called “The Wayward Puritans.” Excellent reading. It says a lot about those of us who post on these kinds of blogs.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Chris P.– I agree. Romans 1:16-17: What a great summary of the power of the gospel. I find it fascinating that people usually don’t describes it like that. I think your comment is very important: it sums up the life and ministry of Jesus. Is it not his whole life and his whole ministry that are the gospel? Is not this same spirit at work in daily life all around us (like widows with their mites)? Yet, I don’t tend to find absolutists who describe the gospel in this way.
I also agree with your other statement: “Without understanding we cannot walk worthy in our calling.” I agree that we need understanding. I agree that the Bible is the word of God. It is knowable to a certain level. It is understandable in certain ways. Yet, I would claim that I do not KNOW it. I do not UNDERSTAND it. (not yelling just emphasizing).
People like me are not calling for a hold of thinking– but on assuming that are views are THE view/THE correct understanding.
I try to be very biblical in making theological statments. That is why I refereed to the parables and stories Jesus told when I described the gospel. You too Chris did the same by referenceing romans. the problem I have is with the theologically assumptive language people will use to then explain these verses. I am not saying that the explanations are definately wrong, I am just saying that they are one of many explanations that could be right or wrong. I can point at the actual verses and say, “yeah, that’s right.” But our statements about them I say, “That sounds good. What does s/he say about it? Are there other opinions?” I don’t think all opinions have the same validity. We evaluate them based on scripture, based on reason, based on experience, based on community, etc. When all four line up, great! Rarely do all four line up though. And yes, in the end I stick with scripture. But the other three describe and interpret scripture and these three are all fallible.
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:39 pm
I am Jack’s ulcer…
Plurality is always going on. Everyone has their own traditions, experiences, interpretations, patterns of thought, etc. Right or wrong, people stick to their guns. Assume plurality should not be embraced/encouraged. Then what do you do with it? How do you approach it? Because it’s still there, and it’s real. Try and jolt someone out of their way of thinking, and what do you get? Cognitive dissonance, mental set. Like cornering a hyena… bad news bears.
There’s a difference between admitting that people see the world through different lenses (plurality, if I may call it that), and accepting that plurality as good or bad. One simply says, “this is the case.” The other says, “this is the case and it should (or should not) be that way.”
I’ve got more thoughts on subjectivity on my site… just scroll down the page a bit.
I spilled beer on my keyboard last night.
June 3rd, 2005 at 10:39 am
There are a lot of divergent arguments here. More often then not in the din of debate debaters without the debate master run off of the confined task.
Words have meanings they represent cognitive concepts humans perceive no matter what “book” identity is either written or read. My house su casa is another man’s yert. There in is a parable of diversity given us by Yahweh our Creator. His first command [I will add chapter verse here for those who need this or it is not truth] His first command, and unless I have forgotten my hermeneutics, 1st commands become ruling when repeated later in the text, any way Gen.1:28 reveals the Father’s heart; the whole earth was to be filled with those He created to be in His likeness and image. After the flood Gen.9:1 Yahweh repeats as Noah’s first directive to fill the earth. Later, Gen.11, “the earth used the same language and the same words” no diversity here. What happens next: DIVERISTY why, a couple of things, one from the text and the other from reason out of reflection.
The text explains that the mono - culture helped seed rebellion. Therefore the Creator Yahweh Father Son Holy Spirit formed out of the offspring of first man all the tribes, tongues, and nations. This is the diversity of action God decreased as a part of His heart. However, among them a house is a casa or a yert. This diversity has foundation - truth; the structure that protects from the environment, identifies the individual’s creativity etc, and many other common elements of family are understood. House casa yert hoogan tepee villa.
The other concept out of reason is that in the same way that first man was not able to represent the dynamic of the interdependent relational Trinitarian Godhead as a duality male and Spirit. Female was formed from the substance of the male to reveal the fullness of the Trinity’s image and likeness and as a parable of the one God in three persons.
Mankind mono - cultured was unable to reflect the infinite diversity of Yahweh. Gen.11 shows us how deeply important diversity is to Yahweh, that even totally rebellious man He formed into the various diverse tribes toungs and nations John saw in eternity.
This is revealed as a parable in nature. We all know how a prism works, the unified spectrum of light is separated into the true diversity of light‚Äôs nature. The revealed diversity represents the revelation that we are given in the Scriptures. We are given eyes to see the beauty of Yahweh‚Äôs manifoldness in the same way the beauity of creation is revealed in full color.Colorblindness restricts the sight of earth’s full beauty and understood as a handycape.
Unity and truth like white light are around us to see. Once we enter into Christ He provides manifold beauty like a rainbow. We MUST be careful to understand in our debates the difference between foundational concepts which are set and unchanging because they are the mind of Christ and how we reflecting Him His manifold diversity pictured by the expressions of the cultures He Himself formed, even in our rebellion.Form or foundation that is the question!
Pastor Art
June 5th, 2005 at 1:18 am
nothing specific to this post or line of comments, but just something general that i’ve been thinking about as i read comment threads for many posts on many blogs:
at what point have we departed from an earnest seeking of God, a true theological dialogue in which we grow in faith, a conversation where we see the Gospel lived out in one anothers’ lives…and landed in a cycle of self-involvement, debate for the sake of debate, and (at its extreme) a sad state of mere theological exhibitionism?
(just thinking about blogging, theology, and the fine line between fruitful discussion and defensive debate.)
June 5th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
“We MUST be careful to understand in our debates the difference between foundational concepts which are set and unchanging ”
Well, there’s the rub, because no two people, organizations, denominations, theologians, or whatever, will agree on what constitutes “foundational concepts” and what doesn’t. Also, some people can agree to disagree (I see your point and respect it, but I don’t share it), and some people can’t (I’m right, you’re wrong).
I guess this is the several dozenth time we’ve been around this particular block here, and the several millionth time overall in the last two millennia.
Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
June 5th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
Just to add a bit to Art’s comment. Mono-culture birthed rebellion, but the new creation in Christ is a return to mono-culture of obedience. By redeeming men from every nation,tribe and tongue and placing them in the Body of Christ,i.e. the place where culture,social standing, education and sex are irrelevant, a new mono-culture is created, the Church/Kingdom of God. The Kingdom exists where the King abides, if the ekklesia is the body of the King, and it is, then the church is the Kingdom of God. All three are the same. Gal 3:27-29; Col 3:10-11.
Finally, who cares how many times we have been around the block with this? This excuse has been used for two millenia to justify theological, and moral relativism.
The whole earth does not get to be right, and not every thought is valid or even worthy of consideration. If we used the Scriptures properly, and not as proof text for a socialist utopia, we would not have half the problems we now do. Change may rule your world, but God and His Word are the same yesterday, today and forever. Psalm 119:89 amd Heb 13:8
June 9th, 2005 at 11:45 am
ahh but the fullnes of the Kingdom will be revealed only after the Return of The King when the final prisem reveals perfection, the perfect John saw. Untill then we see in part within the confines of the light around us, the “white light” (tec term) awaiting the change of the prisem of perfection where that mono - culture of obedience will then be fully seen and unrestrained in expresion,1st Corth. 2:9-10, (a little out of context but fiting Isa.64:4f and 65:17f also taking into account the many places throughout the prophicies of the ‘nations’as identies after after Christ’s return ie restored Kingdom),13:9-12
Pastor Art