Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Showing posts with label Faith and Doubt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith and Doubt. Show all posts

Sunday, February 8, 2026

Truth as Horizon, Not Property: Responding to Truth Cultures



Truth as Horizon, Not Property

On Faith, Scripture, and the Refusal of Certainty

A Public Creed for a Searching People in a Fragile Democracy

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Truth is not a possession to be guarded,
but a horizon best approached together.
- R.E. Slater

Public Creed

We believe truth is approached, not owned.
That faith must remain open to correction.
That any belief justifying cruelty and oppression has failed.
That love and human dignity come before doctrine.

Preamble
These statements do not claim authority, finality, or exclusive insight. It arises from the recognition that truth cannot be possessed without distortion, and that faith and democracy alike fail when certainty is used to excuse harm. In a time when religious and ideological language is increasingly invoked to justify brutal cruelty, exclusion, dehumanization, and unaccountable power, we offer these thoughts as a public posture or set of guidelines rather than as a doctrine - one that honors searching over certainty, responsibility over obedience, and shared becoming over fortified belief.

Truth is not what we hold.
It is how we walk together.
- R.E. Slater
 




A Public Statement

  • We affirm that truth is approached, not owned.
  • That no institution, ideology, or tradition is exempt from correction or accountability.
  • That certainty invoked to justify cruelty has forfeited moral authority.
  • That human dignity precedes any civic or religious doctrine, policy, and power.
  • That democracy depends on humility, plural voices, and the willingness to be wrong.
  • That faith, when it is worthy of trust, remains open, revisable, and accountable to love.
  • That shared responsibility matters more than enforced conformity.
  • That dialogue, restraint, and compassion are civic and spiritual strengths, not weaknesses.
  • That no claim to truth is legitimate if it requires dehumanizing the other.




Faith is Not a Possession

One says they hold truth,
as one might hold a deed,
a barrier fence line,
at times barbed and long.

One might say they are biblical,
as though ink could finish breath,
as though God consented,
to be archived and laminated.

But truth was never a property.
It came as weather.
As fire that burned.
As a voice refusing permanence.

Moses carried it in stone that broke.
The prophets spoke of it in grief.
The psalmists and poets wrote of mercy.
The Jesus gospels spoke in parables
that God might be heard in no one way.

Truth was never so simply "handed over."
It was to be entered into experientially -
as  the burning bush and consciences alike.
To be walked on roads that came-and-went.
Whose borders were permeable and crossed.

Those claiming to own "biblical truth"
built walls around the poor and unwanted,
calling imposed cruelty obedience,
mistaking a loving faith for absolutism.

But such an abominable faith was
never the answer in God's economy.
It was to be a posture of listening.
The courage to say, "I do not know,"
and to walk together in pursuit.

We do not come to belief to arrive.
We come to search, to be corrected,
to be interrupted, to learn and listen,
to be widened by other perspectives.

To conclude this is heresy is to repeat
the heresy of Abraham leaving Ur,
of Jacob limping away from divine encounter,
of Mary consenting without clarity,
of Jesus rightly refusing lurid kingdoms.

Truth does not live in locked fortresses.
It breathes where questions are allowed,
where power is held accountable,
where love risks uncertainty.

If divinity speaks at all,
it speaks in the verbs of life -
calling, undoing, welcoming,
becoming, learning, loving.

And if democracy is to live again,
it will not be through sacred certainty,
or declared human "truths"
by human dogmas and doctrines.

But through shared searching -
together, in many voices,
in unfinished sentences,
by peoples re-learning how to listen,
without owning flat, finished answers.

Those who claim truth's possession
have learned to keep their locked doors.
But those who hold truth loosely
have unlocked their doors
to walk outside their mindscapes.


R.E. Slater
 February 8, 2026
@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved






Seeking, Not Possessing

We do not claim to hold truth.
We commit ourselves to seeking it.

We reject the belief that Scripture is a finished subject,
or that "objectivized faiths" grant ownership of certainty.

We receive Scripture as witness, not weapon;
as provocation, not possession;
as a living field of struggle, failure, revision, and growth.

We deny any theology that confuses certainty with faith
or obedience with moral abdication of human rights and equality.

We refuse the use of “biblical truth” as a shield against responsibility,
or as a tool of discipline,
or as a justification for imposed, immoral, cruelty.

We reject fortress faiths -
faiths that make enemies of friends,
demands purity,
sacralizes power,
or renders love optional.

We affirm that faith is not assent but orientation;
not arrival but becoming;
not certainty but responsibility.

We stand with the deeper biblical postures -
of (rabbinic) argument, lament, parable, humility, and unfinished vision.

We believe any faith worthy of the name
must remain open to correction,
be accountable to the vulnerable,
and answerable to love's remiss.

We hold that faith and democracy rise or fall together -
each requiring humility, plural voices, revisability,
and the courage to be wrong and acknowledge it.

We confess that when belief harms another,
it has already betrayed its living source.

We do not guard truth -
We walk towards it, together.


R.E. Slater
 February 8, 2026
@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved





Preamble

This creed does not claim authority, finality, or exclusive insight. It arises from a long recognition that truth cannot be possessed without becoming distorted, and that faith collapses when certainty is used to excuse harm. In an age when religious language is increasingly invoked to justify cruelty, exclusion, and authoritarian power, we offer this as a statement of posture rather than doctrine - one that honors searching over certainty, responsibility over obedience, and shared becoming over fortified belief.

Such a creed does not an end.
It is a refusal to close.



A Civic Statement

  • We affirm that truth is approached, not owned.
  • That no institution, ideology, or tradition is exempt from revision or accountability.
  • That certainty used to justify harm has forfeited moral authority.
  • That democracy depends on humility, plural voices, and the willingness to be wrong.
  • That human dignity precedes policy, power, and ideology.
  • That shared responsibility matters more than enforced conformity.
  • That dialogue, compassion, and restraint are civic strengths, not weaknesses.
  • That no claim to truth is legitimate if it requires dehumanizing the other.
  • That the future depends not on final answers, but on our capacity to listen, revise, and act together.




An Anti-Creed Statement (What We Refuse)

  • We refuse the claim that truth can be owned, guarded, or weaponized.
  • We refuse the use of sacred language to excuse cruelty or indifference.
  • We refuse obedience that dissolves moral responsibility.
  • We refuse faith that builds fortresses instead of communities.
  • We refuse certainty that silences dissent or punishes doubt.
  • We refuse nationalism baptized as righteousness.
  • We refuse purity tests that require enemies to survive.
  • We refuse authority that answers only to itself.
  • We refuse beliefs that demand suffering as proof of loyalty.
  • We refuse any vision of order that renders love optional.
  • We refuse the lie that arrival matters more than becoming.



Truth as Horizon, Not Property

On Faith, Scripture, and the Refusal of Certainty

1. Holding Truth vs Seeking Truth

The difference between holding truth and seeking truth is not semantic. It is postural. It determines how Scripture is read, how faith is practiced, and how power is exercised.

To claim possession of “biblical truth” is to treat Scripture as a static deposit - as something finished, to be secured, and guarded. It becomes a boundary-marker distinguishing insiders from outsiders, and a credentialed authority that legitimizes teaching, discipline, and exclusion for others to follow. Truth, in this posture, is something one arrives at, then defends, and oppresses others for not assimilating towards their perceptions.

However, to seek truth through Scripture is to enter an altogether different relationship with the Divine, the sacred, the Loving Other - where holiness and justice conform to love and not love to holiness and justice.

Scripture must become a witness rather than a weapon, a provocation rather than a possession; to be encountered as a field of struggle, failure, revision, and growth... an unfolding conversation rather than a closed system of boundary truths. Here, faith is not about guarding (religious or faith) conclusions but about remaining open to interruption.

The church’s repeated insistence that it holds “biblical truth” must be framed in humility, but too often it is more accurately a descriptor for untenable, mythic certainties masquerading as real faith. And mythic certainties do not remain benign. They harden. Calcify. And eventually become inhumanly coercive as exampled by trans-abuse, immigrant-abuse, abuse of women, and children... all in the mighty name of faith.

One never should enter Christianity in order to "arrive". But to enter within to journey, wrestle, and be undone by the divine sacred of love and love's becoming. That holy posture - of seeking rather than possessing - places it's faithful closer to the Abrahamic-Davidic-Prophetic-Jesus tradition than those who claim to guard it.


2. The Myth of “Biblical Truth” as a Finished Object

In contemporary church discourse, “biblical truth” functions less as a theological claim and more as a mechanism of control within its power centers. It serves as a rhetorical shield against critique, a disciplinary tool for enforcing conformity, and a permission structure for cruelty. Too frequently the children and women of bible-churches experience abuse and oppression in the name of "biblical truth."

It allows religious institutions such as churches, synods, denominations, and schools, to say, "We are not choosing oppression - we are merely obeying God."

But the Bible itself never behaves as a single, settled truth-system. It is argumentative rather than uniform. It revises itself across generations. It contains internal resistance and unresolved tensions. Its ethical vision advances in fits and starts. It is morally uneven and theologically self-correcting. It is a very real picture of people and societies in motion, seeking thrival and discovering brutal roadblocks to love and energy.

To claim the Bible as a "finalized truth" is to deny the Bible’s own mode of existence. Scripture does not present itself as a "closed answer" but as a living record of human struggle with God, neighbor, power, and responsibility where truth is always approached and never quite apprehended. At its height, Israel failed and crucified the living God... how much more does the church do the same thing with Jesus' love and faithfulness through high-and-holy rules and obedience sentences??

In this sense, “biblical truth,” as it is often deployed today, rests more on a mythic foundation than it does a truth foundation - not because Scripture is meaningless, but because it is too dynamically alive to be reduced to mere "era-specific or culture-oriented" certainty. The problem is not that Scripture is unstable, but that certainty demands a stillness Scripture refuses to provide, and to which "certainty faiths" always demand of themselves.


3. MAGA Christianity and Fortress Faith

MAGA Christianity represents a particularly stark example of what happens when truth is treated as property. It fuses absolutist theology with nationalist identity and fear-driven boundary enforcement. The result is not faith, but oppresive fortress-building all in the name of "purity" and "White Christian culture".

Fortress faiths always require enemies. It depends on purity tests. It thrives on spectacle. It legitimizes punishment. It needs scapegoats to sustain itself.
This is why cruelty can coexist so easily with “biblical truth” language without producing cognitive dissonance. Once truth is owned, love becomes optional. Compassion becomes negotiable. Suffering becomes collateral.

Outsiders are not wrong to connect this magafaith-posture to ICE raids, dehumanizing policy rhetoric, indifference to suffering, and the sacralization of state power. These are not accidental failures of that theology. They are its logical outcomes.

When certainty is baptized, coercion soon follows.


4. The Older, Deeper Biblical Posture

What must be articulated aligns not with today's modernized, albeit secular, faith absolutism, but with the deeper, "truer,"  biblical posture itself:

The Hebrew prophets argued with God rather than quoting Him. The wisdom tradition refused certainty and prized discernment. Jesus taught in parables precisely to prevent closure and resist final answers. Paul confessed that we see “through a glass, darkly,” acknowledging the limits of knowledge even within faith.

Across these traditions runs a consistent thread: faith is not assent - but reorientation. Not possession - but re-attunement. Not certainty - but re-acquired responsibility.

This posture cannot coexist with absolutism. One dissolves the other. The moment faith becomes fixed, it ceases to be faithful. The moment faith learns faithfulness it ceases to be fixed.


5. Re-Birthing Faith and Democracy

To link this faith critique to democracy is exactly right. Democracy MUST depend on epistemic humility, a plurality of voices, critique and revisability, and the willingness to be wrong.

It requires shared participation rather than enforced conformity. These are not weaknesses. They are the conditions of collective life.

Similarly with any faith - whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. When churches and faith groups claim to own truth, they train people to accept authoritarian certainty, moral exemption, and (often enforced) hierarchical obedience. When churches model God's love, they then place themselves in the posture of seeking truth rather than owning truth; cultivating dialogue rather than demand obedience; and willingly seek to be accountable, compassionate, shared responsibility, and grow in civic maturity with cultural and religious difference.

In summary, challenging the rhetorics of “biblical truth” is not an act of anti-faith or lost-faith; it is a very pro-God, pro-democratic, pro-human, and profoundly biblical in its deepest sense.

When true truth seeks seek loving, critiquing approaches to flat statements of "biblical truth" they are not dismantling their faith. They are removing false floors that lead to abuse and oppression. They are allowing perceived truth to breathe again as Abraham had learned with his experiences in Ur and later, with God. Seekers of true-truth are but naming the difference between faith as arrival and faith as becoming. We wish always to become the latter.




A Manifesto Against Possessed Truth

On Faith, Scripture, and Democratic Life



  1. Truth is not a possession.
    Any claim to hold truth as settled, guarded, or owned has already begun to distort it.

  2. Scripture is not a finished object.
    It is a living record of struggle, argument, revision, and moral growth.
    To freeze it is to betray it.

  3. “Biblical truth” has become a mythic device.
    It now functions less as theological insight and more as a shield against responsibility,
    a tool of discipline,
    and a permission structure for cruelty.

  4. Certainty masquerading as faith is not humility.
    It is mythic certainty—and mythic certainty always hardens into coercion.

  5. We reject obedience that dissolves moral agency.
    “We are merely obeying” is not faith.
    It is abdication.

  6. Fortress faith is not faith.
    Any belief system that requires enemies, purity tests, spectacle, punishment, or scapegoats
    has already abandoned love.

  7. Cruelty justified by sacred language is not a failure of theology.
    It is its logical outcome when truth is treated as property.

  8. The deeper biblical posture is unfinished by design.
    Prophets argued.
    Wisdom refused certainty.
    Jesus spoke in parables to prevent closure.
    Paul confessed partial sight.

  9. Faith is not assent.
    It is orientation.
    Not arrival, but becoming.
    Not certainty, but responsibility.

  10. Absolutism and faith cannot coexist.
    One dissolves the other.

  11. Democracy and faith share the same ethical soil.
    Both require humility, plural voices, revisability, and the courage to be wrong.

  12. When churches claim to own truth, they train people for authoritarianism.
    When they seek truth, they form people capable of dialogue, accountability, and care.

  13. Challenging “biblical truth” rhetoric is not anti-faith.
    It is pro-human, pro-democratic, and faithful to Scripture’s living character.

  14. We did not enter belief to arrive.
    We entered to walk, to wrestle, and to be undone.

  15. The future belongs to becoming, not certainty.
    Faith that cannot be questioned will not survive.
    Faith that refuses possession may yet endure.

Tuesday, November 22, 2022

Brian McLaren: Trumpism, Church & Culture and Faith After Doubt




Brian McLaren was part of my emergent church culture when I first became involved in it in 1999 through the ministries of Rob Bell. Basically it was a breakout progressive Christian movement away from conservative evangelicalism. What I didn't know was that it began around 1988 and fizzled out in the 2010s as it merged with mainstream Christianity (the "liberal" denominational sort which emphasized God's love over evangelical legalism). It was through the emerging Reformed and Catholic Church wherein I and others could breakout of our authoritarian Christian backgrounds to develop a new theology built upon a God of Love vs a God of wrath and judgment. Jesus was it's center and the Bible placed to the side. Meaning, whatever the Bible taught which was unloving was not of God but of those religious cultures which added itself into their God culture. Along the way Brian and I came across process theology. He, more recently; myself, years earlier. For a number of reasons it has expanded evngelicalism's limited theology of God away from it's legalisms and towards a far better world embracing love and loving kindness in all things.

R.E. Slater
November 22, 2022

* * * * * * * *


Brian McLaren (Part 1):
Trumpism, Church & Culture and Faith After Doubt
Interview with the Podcast, "UNenlightenment"
March 11, 2021



A conversation with Brian McLaren about Trumpism, Church and Culture, and Brian's new book Faith after Doubt. To purchase a copy of Brian McLaren's book see link below:



Brian McLaren (Part 2):
Trumpism, Church & Culture and Faith After Doubt
Interview with the Podcast, "UNenlightenment"
March 11, 2021




* * * * * * * *


Emerging church

The emerging church is a Christian Protestant movement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that crosses a number of theological boundaries: participants are variously described as Protestant, post-Protestant, evangelical,[1] post-evangelicalliberalpost-liberalprogressivesocially liberalanabaptistReformedcharismaticneocharismatic, and post-charismatic. Emerging churches can be found throughout the globe, predominantly in North AmericaBrazilWestern EuropeAustraliaNew Zealand, and Africa.[2][3][4]

Proponents believe the movement transcends the "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal," calling the movement a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a "postmodern" society. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community. A departure of this movement is the development of progressive Christianity.

Jump to navigationJump to search

Definitions

Terminology

Emerging churches are fluid, hard to define, and varied; they contrast themselves with what has gone before in referring to the latter as the "inherited church."[5][6] Key themes of the emerging church are couched in the language of reform, praxis-oriented lifestyles, post-evangelical thought, and incorporation or acknowledgment of political and postmodern elements.[7] Terminological confusion has occurred because of the use of words with similar etymology. When used as descriptors, "emerging" and "emergent" can be interchangeable. However, when used as names, they are different. In this case "Emerging" refers to the whole informal, church-based, global movement, while "Emergent" to a formal, organisational subset associated with Tony JonesBrian McLarenDoug Pagitt, and others: the "Emergent stream."[8]

Variety and debate

Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer described three categories within the movement: RelevantsReconstructionists, and Revisionists.[9]: 89 

Relevants are theological conservatives who are interested in updating to current culture.[9]: 89  They look to people like Dan Kimball and Donald Miller.[9]: 89–90 

Reconstructionists are generally theologically evangelical, and speak of new forms of church that result in transformed lives.[9]: 90  They look to Neil Cole, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch.[9]: 90 

Revisionists are theologically liberal, and openly question whether evangelical doctrine is appropriate for the postmodern world.[9] They look to leaders such as Brian McLarenRob Bell and Doug Pagitt.[9]: 90 

Driscoll has subsequently identified a fourth stream, the house church movement, which he previously included under the Reconstructionist label.[9][10] Driscoll and Scot McKnight have now voiced concerns over Brian McLaren and the "emergent thread."[11] Some evangelical leaders such as Shane Claiborne have also sought to distance themselves from the emerging church movement, its labels and the "emergent brand."[12]

History

According to Mobsby[citation needed] the term "emerging church" was first used in 1970, when Larson and Osborne predicted a movement characterised by: contextual and experimental mission; new forms of church; the removal of barriers and division; a blend of evangelism and social action; attention to both experience and tradition; the breakdown of clergy/laity distinctions.[13][14] The Catholic political theologian, Johann Baptist Metz, used the term emergent church in 1981 in a different[which?] context.[15] Marcus Borg says: "The emerging paradigm has been visible for well over a hundred years. In the last twenty to thirty years, it has become a major grassroots movement among both laity and clergy in 'mainline' or 'old mainline' Protestant denominations." He describes it as: "a way of seeing the Bible (and the Christian tradition as a whole) as historicalmetaphorical, and sacramental, [and] a way of seeing the Christian life as relational and transformational."[16]

The history of the emerging church that preceded the US Emergent organization began with Mike Riddell and Mark Pierson in New Zealand from 1989, and with a number of practitioners in the UK including Jonny BakerIan Mobsby, Kevin, Ana and Brian Draper, and Sue Wallace amongst others, from around 1992.[17] The influence of the Nine O'Clock Service has been ignored[by whom?] also, owing to its notoriety, yet much that was practised there was influential on early proponents of alternative worship.[18]

Common to the identity of many of these emerging-church projects that began in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, is their development with very little central planning on behalf of the established denominations.[19] They occurred as the initiative of particular groups wanting to start new contextual church experiments, and are therefore very "bottom up." Murray says that these churches began in a spontaneous way, with informal relationships formed between otherwise independent groups[20] and that many became churches as a development from their initial more modest beginnings.[21][22]

Values and characteristics

Trinitarian based values

Gibbs and Bolger[23] interviewed a number of people involved in leading emerging churches and from this research have identified some core values in the emerging church, including desires to imitate the life of Jesus; transform secular society; emphasize communal living; welcome outsiders; be generous and creative; and lead without control. Ian Mobsby suggests Trinitarian Ecclesiology is the basis of these shared international values.[24][25]

Mobsby also suggests that the Emerging Church is centered on a combination of models of Church and of Contextual Theology that draw on this Trinitarian base: the Mystical Communion and Sacramental models of Church,[26] and the Synthetic and Transcendent models of Contextual Theology.[27][28]

According to Mobsby, the Emerging Church has reacted to the missional needs of postmodern culture and re-acquired a Trinitarian basis to its understanding of Church as Worship, Mission and Community. He argues this movement is over and against some forms of conservative evangelicalism and other reformed ecclesiologies since the enlightenment that have neglected the Trinity, which has caused problems with certainty, judgementalism and fundamentalism and the increasing gap between the Church and contemporary culture.[29]

Post-Christendom mission and evangelism

Members of the movement often place a high value on good works or social activism, including missional living.[30] According to Stuart Murray, Christendom is the creation and maintenance of a Christian nation by ensuring a close relationship of power between the Christian Church and its host culture.[31] Today, churches may still attempt to use this power in mission and evangelism.[32] The emerging church considers this to be unhelpful. Murray summarizes Christendom values as: a commitment to hierarchy and the status quo; the loss of lay involvement; institutional values rather than community focus; church at the centre of society rather than the margins; the use of political power to bring in the Kingdom; religious compulsion; punitive rather than restorative justice; marginalisation of women, the poor, and dissident movements; inattentiveness to the criticisms of those outraged by the historic association of Christianity with patriarchy, warfare, injustice and patronage; partiality for respectability and top-down mission; attractional evangelism; assuming the Christian story is known; and a preoccupation with the rich and powerful.[32]

The emerging church seeks a post-Christendom approach to being church and mission through: renouncing imperialistic approaches to language and cultural imposition; making 'truth claims' with humility and respect; overcoming the public/private dichotomy; moving church from the center to the margins; moving from a place of privilege in society to one voice amongst many; a transition from control to witness, maintenance to mission and institution to movement.[citation needed]

In the face of criticism, some in the emerging church respond that it is important to attempt a "both and" approach to redemptive and incarnational theologies. Some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are perceived as "overly redemptive" and therefore in danger of condemning people by communicating the Good News in aggressive and angry ways.[33] A more loving and affirming approach is proposed in the context of post-modernity where distrust may occur in response to power claims. It is suggested that this can form the basis of a constructive engagement with 21st-century post-industrial western cultures. According to Ian Mobsby, the suggestion that the emerging church is mainly focused on deconstruction and the rejection of current forms of church should itself be rejected.[34]

Postmodern worldview and hermeneutics

The emerging church is a response to the perceived influence of modernism in Western Christianity. As some sociologists commented on a cultural shift that they believed to correspond to postmodern ways of perceiving reality in the late 20th century, some Christians began to advocate changes within the church in response. These Christians saw the contemporary church as being culturally bound to modernism. They changed their practices to relate to the new cultural situation. Emerging Christians began to challenge the modern church on issues such as: institutional structures, systematic theology, propositional teaching methods, a perceived preoccupation with buildings, an attractional understanding of mission, professional clergy, and a perceived preoccupation with the political process and unhelpful jargon ("Christian-ese").[35]

As a result, some in the emerging church believe it is necessary to deconstruct modern Christian dogma. One way this happens is by engaging in dialogue, rather than proclaiming a predigested message, believing that this leads people to Jesus through the Holy Spirit on their own terms. Many in the movement embrace the missiology that drives the movement in an effort to be like Christ and make disciples by being a good example. The emerging church movement contains a great diversity in beliefs and practices, although some have adopted a preoccupation with sacred rituals, good works, and political and social activism. Much of the Emerging Church movement has also adopted the approach to evangelism which stressed peer-to-peer dialogue rather than dogmatic proclamation and proselytizing.[36]

A plurality of Scriptural interpretations is acknowledged in the emerging church movement. Participants in the movement exhibit a particular concern for the effect of the modern reader's cultural context on the act of interpretation echoing the ideas of postmodern thinkers such as Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish. Therefore a narrative approach to Scripture, and history are emphasized in some emerging churches over exegetical and dogmatic approaches (such as that found in systematic theology and systematic exegesis), which are often viewed as reductionist. Others embrace a multiplicity of approaches.

Generous orthodoxy

Spearheaded by Brian McLaren, some emerging church leaders see interfaith dialogue as a means to share their narratives as they learn from the narratives of others.[37] Some Emerging Church Christians believe there are radically diverse perspectives within Christianity that are valuable for humanity to progress toward truth and a better resulting relationship with God, and that these different perspectives deserve Christian charity rather than condemnation.[38] Reformed and evangelical opponents, like John MacArthur, do not believe that such generosity is appropriate, citing the movement's shift away from traditional evangelical beliefs such as eternal punishment and penal substitution towards a reintroduction of, for example, elements of ancient mysticism.[39]

Centered set

Movement leaders such as Rob Bell appropriate set theory as a means of understanding a basic change in the way the Christian church thinks about itself as a group. Set theory is a concept in mathematics that allows an understanding of what numbers belong to a group, or set. A bounded set would describe a group with clear "in" and "out" definitions of membership. The Christian church has largely organized itself as a bounded set, those who share the same beliefs and values are in the set and those who disagree are outside.[40]

The centered set does not limit membership to pre-conceived boundaries. Instead a centered set is conditioned on a centered point. Membership is contingent on those who are moving toward that point. Elements moving toward a particular point are part of the set, but elements moving away from that point are not. As a centered-set Christian membership would be dependent on moving toward the central point of Jesus. Christians are then defined by their focus and movement toward Christ rather than a limited set of shared beliefs and values.[40]

John Wimber utilized the centered set understanding of membership in his Vineyard Churches. The centered set theory of Christian Churches came largely from missional anthropologist Paul Hiebert. The centered set understanding of membership allows for a clear vision of the focal point, the ability to move toward that point without being tied down to smaller diversions, a sense of total egalitarianism with respect for differing opinions, and an authority moved from individual members to the existing center.[41]

Authenticity and conversation

The movement favors the sharing of experiences via testimonies, prayer, group recitation, sharing meals and other communal practices, which they believe are more personal and sincere than propositional presentations of the Gospel. Teachers in the emerging church tend to view the Bible and its stories through a lens which they believe finds significance and meaning for their community's social and personal stories rather than for the purpose of finding cross-cultural, propositional absolutes regarding salvation and conduct.[42]

The emerging church claims they are creating a safe environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected within modern conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Non-critical, interfaith dialog is preferred over dogmatically-driven evangelism in the movement.[43] Story and narrative replaces the dogmatic:

The relationship between words and images has changed in contemporary culture. In a post-foundational world, it is the power of the image that takes us to the text. The bible is no longer a principal source of morality, functioning as a rulebook. The gradualism of postmodernity has transformed the text into a guide, a source of spirituality, in which the power of the story as a moral reference point has superseded the didactic. Thus the meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments – even assuming that the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone. Into this milieu the image speaks with power.[44]

Those in the movement do not engage in aggressive apologetics or confrontational evangelism in the traditional sense, preferring to encourage the freedom to discover truth through conversation and relationships with the Christian community.[45]

The limits of interreligious conversation were tested in 2006 Emergent Village coordinator Tony Jones co-convened the first encounter of Emergent church and "Jewish emergent" leaders in a meeting co-hosted by Synagogue 3000, a Jewish nonprofit group.[46][47][48][49][50] Emergent church scholar Ryan Bolger documented the meeting in a scholarly article co-authored with one of the organizers,[51] while Jones recounted the episode, which had drawn criticism from conservative Christians, in his book The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier.[52][53]

Missional living

While some Evangelicals emphasize eternal salvation, many in the emerging church emphasize the here and now.[54] Participants in this movement assert that the incarnation of Christ informs their theology. They believe that as God entered the world in human form, adherents enter (individually and communally) into the context around them and aim to transform that culture through local involvement. This holistic involvement may take many forms, including social activism, hospitality and acts of kindness. This beneficent involvement in culture is part of what is called missional living.[55] Missional living leads to a focus on temporal and social issues, in contrast with a perceived evangelical overemphasis on salvation. Drawing on research and models of contextual theology, Mobsby asserts that the emerging church is using different models of contextual theology than conservative evangelicals, who tend to use a "translation" model of contextual theology[56] (which has been criticized for being colonialist and condescending toward other cultures); the emerging church tends to use a "synthetic" or "transcendent" model of contextual theology.[57] The emerging church has charged many conservative evangelical churches with withdrawal from involvement in contextual mission and seeking the contextualization of the gospel.[58]

Christian communities must learn to deal with the problems and possibilities posed by life in the "outside" world. But of more importance, any attempt on the part of the church to withdraw from the world would be in effect a denial of its mission.[59]

Many emerging churches have put a strong emphasis on contextualization and, therefore, contextual theology. Contextual theology has been defined as "A way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologising; and social change in that culture."[60] Emerging churches, drawing on this synthetic (or transcendent) model of contextual theology, seek to have a high view towards the Bible, the Christian people, culture, humanity and justice. It is this "both...and" approach that distinguishes contextual theology.[61][62]

Emerging communities participate in social action, community involvement, global justice and sacrificial hospitality in an effort to know and share God's grace. At a conference entitled "The Emerging Church Forum" in 2006, John Franke said “The Church of Jesus Christ is not the goal of the Gospel, just the instrument of the extension of God’s mission.” “The Church has been slow to recognize that missions isn’t (sic) a program the Church administers, it is the very core of the Church’s reason for being.”[63] This focus on missional living and practicing radical hospitality has led many emerging churches to deepen what they are doing by developing a rhythm of life, and a vision of missional loving engagement with the world.[64]

A mixture of emerging Churches, Fresh Expressions of Church and mission initiatives arising out of the charismatic traditions, have begun describing themselves as new monastic communities. They again draw on a combination of the Mystical Communion Model and Sacramental Models, with a core concern to engage with the question of how we should live. The most successful of these have experimented with a combination of churches centred on place and network, with intentional communities, cafes and centres to practice hospitality. Many also have a rhythm, or rule of life to express what it means to be Christian in a postmodern context.[65]

Communitarian or egalitarian ecclesiology

Proponents of the movement communicate and interact through fluid and open networks because the movement is decentralized with little institutional coordination. Because of the participation values named earlier, being community through participation affects the governance of most Emerging Churches. Participants avoid power relationships, attempting to gather in ways specific to their local context. In this way some in the movement share with the house church movements a willingness to challenge traditional church structures/organizations though they also respect the different expressions of traditional Christian denominations.[66]

International research suggests that some Emerging Churches are utilizing a Trinitarian basis to being church through what Avery Dulles calls 'The Mystical Communion Model of Church'.[67]

  • Not an institution but a fraternity (or sorority).
  • Church as interpersonal community.
  • Church as a fellowship of persons – a fellowship of people with God and with one another in Christ.
  • Connects strongly with the mystical 'body of Christ' as a communion of the spiritual life of faith, hope and charity.
  • Resonates with Aquinas' notion of the Church as the principle of unity that dwells in Christ and in us, binding us together and in him.
  • All the external means of grace, (sacraments, scripture, laws etc.) are secondary and subordinate; their role is simply to dispose people for an interior union with God effected by grace.[68]

Dulles sees the strength in this approach being acceptable to both Protestant and Catholic:

In stressing the continual mercy of God and the continual need of the Church for repentance, the model picks up Protestant theology... [and] in Roman Catholicism... when it speaks of the church as both holy and sinful, as needing repentance and reform...[69]

The biblical notion of Koinonia, ... that God has fashioned for himself a people by freely communicating his Spirit and his gifts ... this is congenial to most Protestants and Orthodox ... [and] has an excellent foundation in the Catholic tradition.[70]

Creative and rediscovered spirituality

This can involve everything from expressive, neocharismatic style of worship and the use of contemporary music and films to more ancient liturgical customs and eclectic expressions of spirituality, with the goal of making the church gathering reflect the local community's tastes.

Emerging church practitioners are happy to take elements of worship from a wide variety of historic traditions, including traditions of the Catholic Church, the Anglican churches, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and Celtic Christianity. From these and other religious traditions emerging church groups take, adapt and blend various historic church practices including liturgyprayer beadsiconsspiritual direction, the labyrinth, and lectio divina. The Emerging Church is also sometimes called the "Ancient-Future" church.[71]

One of the key social drives in Western Post-industrialised countries, is the rise in new/old forms of mysticism.[72][73] This rise in spirituality appears to be driven by the effects of consumerism, globalisation and advances in information technology.[74] Therefore, the Emerging Church is operating in a new context of postmodern spirituality, as a new form of mysticism. This capitalizes on the social shift in starting assumptions from the situation that most are regarded as materialist/atheist (the modern position), to the fact that many people now believe in and are searching for something more spiritual (postmodern view). This has been characterised as a major shift from religion to spirituality.[75]

So, in the new world of 'spiritual tourism', the Emerging Church Movement is seeking to missionally assist people to shift from being spiritual tourists to Christian pilgrims. Many are drawing on ancient Christian resources recontextualised into the contemporary such as contemplation and contemplative forms of prayer, symbolic multi-sensory worship, story telling and many others.[76] This again has required a change in focus as the majority of unchurched and dechurched people are seeking 'something that works' rather than something that is 'true'.[77]

Use of new technologies

Emerging-church groups use the Internet as a medium of decentralized communication. Church websites are used as announcement boards for community activity, and they are generally a hub for more participation based new technologies such as blogs, Facebook groups, Twitter accounts, etc. The use of the blog is an especially popular and appropriate means of communication within the Emerging church. Through blogs, members converse about theology, philosophy, art, culture, politics, and social justice, both among their local congregations and across the broader Emerging community. These blogs can be seen to embrace both sacred and secular culture side-by-side as an excellent example of the church's focus on contextual theology.

Morality and justice

Drawing on a more 'Missional Morality' that again turns to the synoptic gospels of Christ, many emerging-church groups draw on an understanding of God seeking to restore all things back into restored relationship. This emphasises God's graceful love approach to discipleship, in following Christ who identified with the socially excluded and ill, in opposition to the Pharisees and Sadducees and their purity rules.[78]

Under this movement, traditional Christians' emphasis on either individual salvation, end-times theology or the prosperity gospel have been challenged.[79][80] Many people in the movement express concern for what they consider to be the practical manifestation of God's kingdom on earth, by which they mean social justice. This concern manifests itself in a variety of ways depending on the local community and in ways they believe transcend "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal." This concern for justice is expressed in such things as feeding the poor, visiting the sick and prisoners, stopping contemporary slavery, critiquing systemic and coercive power structures with "postcolonial hermeneutics," and working for environmental causes.[81]

Parallels in other religions

Drawing on the success of Christian emerging church movements, a 'Jewish Emergent' movement has come into being, often conducting dialogue with evangelical Christian emergent movements. Synagogue 3000 describes its mission as "challenging and promising alternatives to traditional synagogue structures"—participants in the movement conduct worship outside of a traditional synagogue environment and attempt to engage with non-practising Jews.[82][83][84]

See also

References

  1. ^ Lillian Kwon (March 14, 2009). "Catholics join Emerging Church conversation"christiantoday.com. Retrieved August 27, 2011.
  2. ^ "ReligionLink.org : Emerging Church trend expands, diversifies"religionlink.org. Archived from the original on February 6, 2009. Retrieved August 28, 2011.
  3. ^ Kreider, Larry (2001). "1"House Church Networks. House to House Publications. ISBN 1-886973-48-2. Archived from the original on 2005-04-10.
  4. ^ Pam Hogeweide (2005). "The 'emerging church' comes into view"cnnw.com. Christian News Northwest. Archived from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved August 28, 2011.
  5. ^ Stuart Murray, Church After Christendom, (London: Paternoster Press, 2004), 73.
  6. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church: How are they authentically Church and Anglican, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 20
  7. ^ Kowalski, D. (2007). "Surrender is not an Option: An Evaluation of Emergent Epistemology." Apologetics Index. Retrieved on: August 28, 2011.
  8. ^ McKnight, S. (February 2007). "Five Streams of the Emerging Church." Christianity Today. 51(2). Retrieved on 2009-07-11.
  9. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Driscoll, Mark (2006). "A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church" (PDF)Criswell Theological Review. 3/2 (Spring 2006) 87-93. Retrieved Oct 18, 2012.
  10. ^ Kwon, Lillian (February 27, 2008). "Mars Hill Pastor Ditches 'Emerging' Label for Jesus"The Christian Post. The Christian Post Company. Retrieved May 13, 2014.
  11. ^ McKnight, Scot (2010-02-26). "Review: Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity"Christianity Today. Archived from the original on 2011-06-05. Retrieved 2010-04-04.
  12. ^ Falsani, Cathleen. "The Emerging Church Brand: The Good, the Bad, and the Messy – Shane Claiborne | God's Politics Blog | Sojourners". Blog.sojo.net. Archived from the original on 2011-10-21. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
  13. ^ B Larson, R Osbourne, The emerging church, (London: Word Books, 1970), 9-11.
  14. ^ Compare: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=emerging+church%2C+emergent+church&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cemerging%20church%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cemergent%20church%3B%2Cc0
  15. ^ Johannes Baptist Metz, The Emergent Church (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981)
  16. ^ Borg, Marcus J. (2003). The Heart of Christianity. HarperSanFrancisco. pp. 6, 13ISBN 0-06-073068-4.
  17. ^ "Alternative worship & emerging church – The same or different?". Alternativeworship.org. Archived from the original on 2010-01-15. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  18. ^ Tony Jones The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008) 53
  19. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 23-24.
  20. ^ Stuart Murray, Church After Christendom, (as above), 69-70.
  21. ^ Stuary Murray, Church After Christendom, (as above), 74.
  22. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 24.
  23. ^ E Gibbs, R Bolger, Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures, (London: SPCK, 2006), 44-5.
  24. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008),65-82.>
  25. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London:Moot Community Publishing, 2007).
  26. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007),54-60
  27. ^ Ian Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing), 28-29.
  28. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Cambridge: YTC Press, 2008), 98-101.
  29. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 15-18, 32-35, 37-62.
  30. ^ McLaren, Brian, Finding our Way Again (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2008). ISBN 978-0-8499-0114-0. dedication.
  31. ^ Stuart Murray Post Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strangle Land (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004) 83-88.
  32. Jump up to:a b Stuart Murray Post Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strangle Land (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2004) 83-88, 200-202.
  33. ^ "> reflection > ianmobsby". emergingchurch.info. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
  34. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007) .
  35. ^ Perry, Simon. "Emerging Worship". Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  36. ^ Perry, Simon (2003). What is So Holy About Scripture. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  37. ^ Richard Sudworth, Distinctly Welcoming, Oxford: SUP, 2007.
  38. ^ "E Gibbs, R Bolger, Emerging Church: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, (USA: Baker)". GenerousGiving.org. 2009-02-09. Archived from the original on 2009-02-09. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  39. ^ MacArthur, John. "MacArthur: The Emergent Church is a Form of Paganism". Retrieved 26 September 2012.
  40. Jump up to:a b Paul HiebertAnthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (1994).
  41. ^ Phyllis TickleThe Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books (2008).
  42. ^ Frost, Michael (2007-09-14). "Intriguing Michael Frost video"Michael Frost, Founding Director of Centre for Evangelism & Global Mission at Morling Theological College in Sydney, speaks to authenticity as bringing a "living among them" type of Christianity rather than cross-cultural absolutes regarding salvation and conductArchived from the original on 2021-12-12. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
  43. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008),97-111.
  44. ^ M Percy, The Salt of the Earth: Religious resilience in a Secular Age, (London, Continuum, 2002), 165.
  45. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 113-132.
  46. ^ Winston, D. (2006). Religious Progressives: The Next GenerationLos Angeles Times, February 5.
  47. ^ The Emerging Synagogue? Out of Ur (blog).
  48. ^ "Emergent Embraces Ecumenism - UPDATED." Provocations and Pantings (blog).
  49. ^ Flaccus, Gillian. (2006.) Disillusioned Jews, Christians share ideas on 'emergent' faith. (Associated Press.) Orange County Register, January 21.
  50. ^ Haji, R., & Lalonde, R. N. (2012). Interreligious Communication. In Giles, H. (Ed.). The Handbook of Intergroup Communication. Routledge. The Handbook of Intergroup Communication, p. 285..
  51. ^ Landres, J. S.; Bolger, R. K. (2007). "Emerging patterns of interreligious conversation: a Christian-Jewish experiment". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science612 (1): 225–239. doi:10.1177/0002716207301563.
  52. ^ Jones, Tony. (2008). The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier. Jossey-Bass.
  53. ^ Chia, L. (2010). Emerging faith boundaries: bridge-building, inclusion, and the emerging church movement in America (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri--Columbia).
  54. ^ Webber, Robert, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Karen M. Ward, and Mark Driscoll. Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007) p. 102. ISBN 978-0-310-27135-2
  55. ^ Griffiths, Rev Dr. Steve (2007-01-30). "An Incarnational Missiology for the Emerging Church"Rev Dr. Steve Griffiths speaks about the Emerging Church and how they view and approach missions. Archived from the original on 2008-07-04. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
  56. ^ SB Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, New York:Orbis, 2002),3-46.
  57. ^ SB Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, New York:Orbis, 2002),81-96.
  58. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007),28-9.
  59. ^ BA Harvey, Another City, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 14.
  60. ^ SB Bevans, Contextual Theology, (New York:Orbis, 2002),1.
  61. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 67-82.
  62. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London:Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 28-32.
  63. ^ "Notes of John Franke at the Emerging Church Forum". 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-11-12. Retrieved 2008-04-05.
  64. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTCPress, 2008), 65-82.
  65. ^ Ian Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 30-1.
  66. ^ and a significant number of emerging church proponents remain in denominationally identified communities. There is also a significant presence within the movement that remains within traditional denominational structures. (Missional) "Emergent Village: Values and Practices". Archived from the original on 2008-09-19. Retrieved 2006-08-09.
  67. ^ A Dulles, Models of Church, (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Ltd, 1991).
  68. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London: Moot Community Publishing, 2007), 54-5.
  69. ^ A Dulles, Models of Church (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1991) 46
  70. ^ A Dulles, Models of Church, 50-1.
  71. ^ Webber, Robert, John Burke, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Karen M. Ward, and Mark Driscoll. Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2007) Appendix 2
  72. ^ E Davis, Techgnosis, (London:Serpents Tail, 2004).
  73. ^ J Caputo, On Religion, (London:Routledge, 2001).
  74. ^ I Mobsby, Emerging & Fresh Expressions of Church, (London:Moot Community Publishing, 2007), Chapter Two and Three.
  75. ^ Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2008), 14-15.
  76. ^ I Mobsby, The Becoming of G-d, (Oxford: YTC Press, 2008), 83-96.
  77. ^ Barry Taylor, Entertainment Theology, (Grand Rapids:Baker, 2008), 96-102.
  78. ^ "'Emerging church' seeks the justice Jesus sought". ContraCostaTimes.com. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  79. ^ "Brian McLaren in Africa". Brianmclaren.net. Archived from the original on 2007-10-20. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  80. ^ McLaren, Brian. "Everything must change". Amazon.ca. Retrieved 2012-06-27.
  81. ^ Brian McLaren "Church Emerging: Or Why I Still Use the Word Postmodern But with Mixed Feelings" in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope eds. Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2007), 141ff. ISBN 0-8010-7156-9
  82. ^ "The Emerging Synagogue?"Parse, Christianity Today. 9 May 2008.
  83. ^ "'Emergent Jews' consult evangelicals on staying relevant". The Jerusalem Post. 22 January 2006.
  84. ^ J. Shawn Landres; Ryan K. Bolger (July 2007). "Emerging Patterns of Interreligious Conversation: A Christian-Jewish Experiment". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science612: 225–239. doi:10.1177/0002716207301563JSTOR 25097938.

External links