The Christian Challenge to Philosophy

I recently came across several titles referencing Christian Philosophy or the Christian Challenge to Philosophy and would like to provide links for readers to explore these necessary areas of their 21st century faith.

As example (and I say this as much to myself as a point of note as to those reading this article), I think of the "Higher Criticism" disciplines of the Bible as falling into a number of research areas: from literary criticism (genre) to historical (fact versus fancy), from redactionary criticism (authorial/editorial/legacy description) to textual (manuscript transmission). 

And then, external to all of these critical endeavors comes the additional disciplines of anthropologic (cultural/societal), psychoanalytic (perception/awareness/identity), archaeologic (time, place, and event), philosophic (existential critique of either historical, mythological, or contemporary writers/readers), and theologic (theism and church history), to mention a few.

For example, is it fair to describe the gospel of John simply as an historical book or as a theological book. That is, how does the apostle John's singular descriptions of Jesus differ dramatically from the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? And because they do, does it disqualify his gospel from being qualified as historical? And if so, by the inference of "higher critical research" become perhaps an intentionally colloquial description of Jesus as John knew him, or as the early church knew Him?

In higher critical terms, this discipline might describe the difference between the gospels as one of bearing differences between the "historical Jesus" (as seemingly evidenced in the synoptics) as versus "the Christ of Faith" (as found in John's gospel via either John himself or through an early Christian liturgy, teaching, and confessions. But this latter could be said of the synoptics as well). And then, of course, you begin the subjective vs. objective" process of questioning the biography of Jesus as presented by John as perhaps created by an authorial largesse pandering to the early Christian religion of its day, if not by the early Christian fellowship during this time of transcript creation.

I

And so, there seems to be at least these several factors to consider why the gospel of John was written and to whom:

Firstly, sound, biblical theology is never separated from history - though many times history can be separated from theology through dissemination of denominational, sectarian, and cultic teachings. To say that John's gospel is without historical significance is to deny to any author of the bible their personal critiques of the "God event" they are witnessing or testifying to. That is, biographies should be considered every bit as historical as historical tracts might be labelled as novellas.

Secondly, Jesus is either an historical figure or not. And if not, then He has been lost to the church through its many varying claims of who or what Jesus is so that He becomes the "Christ of that believing group" though not necessary the Christ of the Bible. But this is where theology steps in to reclaim who or what Jesus meant then, as now, so that the church may continue in its traditions of homage and missional witness to God's redemptive event through Jesus both as an historical personage as much as what this God-event meant to us (the theology behind the historical event).

Thirdly, criticism has this built in lens of "negativity" within it. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it seems when it is connected to biblical studies its negativities almost always invalidates the reality of the God event - such as illustrated here in the testimony of John to his Lord. In doing so the discipline of higher criticism considers the Jesus of John's gospel as disqualified from the Jesus of the synoptic gospels. However, this artificial negativity (or attitude of disbelief) is not necessarily as helpful as it can be when lost within contemporary science's attitude of skepticism and disbelief. Hence, at least for myself, (higher) criticism has its place, but it must also be remembered in just what place criticism is to be used, why, where, when, and how.

II

Conversely, just as it is absurd to divorce theology from history and then make reckless claims of who Jesus was or was not, so too is it absurd to not think "higher criticism" cannot be helpful. What is required is a bit of common sense and the ability to step away from one's self, background, and personal judgments to be able to read Scripture in a sense that is different from the traditional vernaculars or popular sentiments of the day.

To help with this, one method is to utilize different academic disciplines as external tools of objective judgment in critiquing a text, teaching, or belief. But, like the disciple John, given all that we know we still must make way for a personal, subjective decision to whom and what Jesus was then for John himself and his early fellowship as well as for ourselves today set within our own fellowships. For John, Jesus was "very God eternal come to Redeem men." He had no dithering on this subject and felt compelled to describe the Saviour of man through personal insight and in relation to the theological teachings of his day.

Many times we must question ourselves and our motives as much as that of any other academic disciplines we intentionally enter into which promise truth and grace. Many times simple awareness of ourself and our objectives for undertaking a particular line of study can be as helpful in determining what we wish to accomplish as unhelpful in belying the truths we set out to discover. The disciple John may have been skeptical at first when meeting Jesus but after his conversion to his Lord he then spent a lifetime of service learning to disseminating what Jesus meant to his world around him as Christ's apostle as well as to the fellowships which moved towards his graceful teachings of Jesus.

Even so is this true for the church today. To learn to healthily critique itself and its doctrines so that it might better reflect the Christ of its faith to more truly correlate with the historical Jesus of time and event not only to early Christianity but to God's heart of intent towards mankind immemorial. For the church to critique itself can be as much helpful as it can be destructive, and yet, the trick is to pray for God's discernment through His Spirit in allowing any criticism of the Christian faith to build stronger communities of the Lord to the outreaching of God's will and word in Christ. For those uncaring to these "higher critical" endeavors "of spirituality" we may regard them as scholars but perhaps not as shepherds to God's children.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

June 15, 2015
edited June 17, 2015

Related Links:

The Christian Challenge to Philosophy, by W.H.V. Reade, S.P.C.K., 1951

Philosophy and Christian Theology, by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2002 (with substantive revision through 2012)

Analytic Philosophy & Christian Theism, by Klaas Kraay, April 2015

Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Essays in Tribute to George Christopher Stead, E.J. Brill, 1993

Christian Philosophy, by Wikipedia

Christian Philosopher, Alvin Plantiga

Scot McKnight - Who Owns Bonhoeffer? Or, How to Take Sides in Theological Disputes

Who Owns Bonhoeffer?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/10/16/who-owns-bonhoeffer/

by Scot McKnight

Oct 16, 2014

Comments

Bonhoeffer Author  Andrew Root

I have been with a wide variety of theologians and pastors who love Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In fact, Bonhoeffer seems to be on every one’s side. Is there a “real” Bonhoeffer beyond the ownership? We might wonder where he’d locate himself in our theological spectrum but that’s speculation. Andrew Root, in his new book on Bonhoeffer, called Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker: A Theological Vision for Discipleship and Life Together, sketches what Stephen Haynes called the “Bonhoeffer phenomenon.” That is, he sketched the various groups who thought they had ownership of that altogether interesting, if at times elusive, German theologian.

Three views of Bonhoeffer (plus one):

1. The Revolutionaries: “They pounced on certain phrases and thoughts in Bonhoeffer to support their own position. Most particularly, Bonhoeffer’s conception of “religionless Christianity” caught their attention, making Bonhoeffer the face of radical (anti-)Christianity. Haynes states, “For radicals Bonhoeffer is a ‘seer’—a man born out of time who perceived the future with uncanny prescience” (13).

When I was a college student Bonhoeffer and radical revolution was the name of the game, and I had more than one associate wonder aloud to me if Bonhoeffer did not become an atheist. I found myself amazed people would think like that of him. As a student I read his The Cost of Discipleship (now called more accurately Discipleship) and so the atheism theory jarred me. As a senior, however, I read The Letters and Papers from Prison and began to wonder what he was talking about when he spoke of “religionless Christianity” and “the world come of age.” So, this is one reading of Bonhoeffer: this view, I understand, is now advocated by Peter Rollins. (Root says this of Rollins’ view: “Perhaps the most popular of these is Peter Rollins, who so deeply misreads Bonhoeffer along these lines that he admits disdain for the earlier historical and intellectual elements of Bonhoeffer’s thought.” [13 n. 3])

The Bonhoeffer of Discipleship and Life Together is something Bonhoeffer himself abandoned; they were the early Bonhoeffer.

2. The Liberals: “This group was enamored with Bonhoeffer’s attention to social justice, exploring particularly Bonhoeffer’s resistance to National Socialism and his advocacy for the Jews. But, Haynes explains, these historical realities are not the central biographical lens through which they see Bonhoeffer. They instead draw on the themes of resistance, themes of resistance, advocacy, and the call for justice, centered on Bonhoeffer’s experience in New York City, and particularly in Harlem in 1930-31″ (14).

Root knows Bonhoeffer has roots in German Protestant liberalism; he was a student of Harnack, not to ignore also a family friend. But Root is right to point out that Bonhoeffer broke with liberalism as a student at liberal-theology-Berlin when he discovered Barth, and Seeberg his mentor at Berlin knew the tensions with Barth/Bonhoeffer at Berlin. Barth’s target of criticism was Berlin! And Bonhoeffer found Union Theol Seminary’s theology severely lacking. It was all justice and activism.

3. The Conservatives: If the revolutionaries like Letters and Papers from Prison, and the Liberals his spirituality in Negro spirituals, the conservatives have fastened onto his Discipleship and Life Together. “Bonhoeffer is a hero for conservatives because he not only spoke boldly of following Jesus but also did so—into the hands of his executor” (17). None other than [James?] Dobson saw in Bonhoeffer a path for evangelicals in the public sector.

Metaxas follows this line. Here is what Root says of Metaxas: “… which I find so flawed and earnest to paint Bonhoeffer as a conservative (not possessing the openness of Bethge’s work) that I cannot follow him in any way, for to do so would be to foreclose on one of the above interpretations” (18 n. 13).

4. Plus One: Root pursues Bonhoeffer not so much through his precise theological location on the spectrum but through his pastoral theology, and in particular, he traces Bonhoeffer through the lens of his youth ministry theological turn. I hope you read this book — it’s a good one on how pastoral theology is done.

Root is convinced readers of Bonhoeffer have ignored approaching him through the lens of his pastoral ministry to youth.

---

Addendum

At Relevancy22 we follow each of the trends listed above with a Christian "common sense realism" that might be applied to each group's grasp of the truth as they wish to see it and purvey it. Similar to a cluster of blind scientists trying to describe an elephant - one thinking the animal is all nose, the other all hide, and the third large ears, missing the animal itself, so too Bonhoeffer is drawn upon in this way by all parties involved.

So that, when coming to Radical Theology, we will admit to that aspect of Christianity that can (and should be) religionless realizing that our cultures can never attain this aspect, only aspire within its religions and denominations.

That when coming to Liberal Christianity we should pay attention to liberal scholarship's observations and statements of the Bible as scholars in their own right of academia just so long as they don't loose the tradition of the historic orthodox Christian faith in Christ Jesus. An orthodox faith which we here at Relevancy22 have intentionally been elevating and re-describing within today's postmodern, post-Christian contexts. Contexts that neither deny Jesus nor refuse to listen to the newer discoveries and observations made of the Christian faith and its religious foundations. A difficult tightrope to walk... but nonetheless we walk it without collapsing into a loss of faith in the God who loves. And loves us through His Son as the ultimate expression of His grace and truth.

And finally, when coming to conservative Christianity - one which this writer here (myself) has been birthed within and from - we seek its truths. But also wish to display its foibles, its bad theology, and fallacious dogmas. We would do the historic Christian faith no justice if we were not to examine all its foundations, its philosophies, its directions and bearing, lest we loose that precious faith itself to the false prophets of our day. Whether they be in the pulpits of the church or at the dais of the university lecture rooms. All who pretend to examine Jesus must proclaim Him Lord and King, Savior and God. Suffering Servant and loving Humanitarian.

Jesus is the conundrum of faith even as He can be all things to Radicals, Liberals, or Conservatives. Each group, each direction, each organization of thought has its own philosophical and religious lenses through which it chooses to see Jesus and the Christian faith. No less we here at Relevancy22 using a combination of all the above approaches without losing sight of the Lord's calling to be the mustard seed, the new wine, the lost coin of the Kingdom realm. Even the found faith of our days and times, years and appointments.

We wish to rupture the faith of the land. To disturb it, stir it, apply it, and re-examine it at every level of our thought and being, actions and attitudes. Even as the Lord Himself did during the times of His ministry to the lost generations of both believers and unbelievers alike. So be ye then salt, and light, and new wine, in the name of the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Taking Sides in Theological Disputes

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/10/13/taking-sides-in-theological-disputes/

by Scot McKnight

Oct 13, 2014

Comments

Every generation has its theological disputes. Some are much more significant than others, though some suggest that each of the debates concerns the most essential elements of the faith. Which translation to use is not as important as the Trinity but some of the voices in the former debate suggest apocalyptic doom if we get it wrong.

Rudolf Bultmann (see my post here) famously advanced his theories about de-mythologizing the New Testament because of the advances in science and technology, and one of his more famous lines was that one can’t believe in spirits and demons and use the radio. He saw himself stripping the NT of those mythological elements that prevented moderns from believing the more essential core of the gospel. And he pressed forward an existentialist gospel in Lutheran terms. From the decade of WWII and throughout most of his career Bultmann heard from, faced, and responded back to his many critics, including many established Lutheran pastors in the Confessing Church. [note: Dietrich Bonhoeffer (DB) was a Lutheran pastor during Bultmann's era. - re slater]

Taking sides was part of the theological dispute about Bultmann.

Bonhoeffer took sides and his position can be found in Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (English) 16. I’d like to trot out what DB said to illustrate in this post three things: first, that the Bonhoeffer many embrace is not the full Bonhoeffer (he was not only Barthian but in some ways Bultmannian) and, second, that the only way to know Bonhoeffer is to read him — not read about him in biographies. Third, it is nearly impossible not to take sides (unless one ignores an issue).

About a year ago I did a series on Mark Thiessen Nation’s book Bonhoeffer the Assassin? (here and here) in which he argues Bonhoeffer sustained his pacifism even during the war year all the way to his death. At the time I said I wanted to reconsider the so-called shift (or in Nation’s case, non-shift) in Bonhoeffer’s thinking but to do so I’d have to read Ethics again and Letters and Papers from Prison again, and along with that the correspondence in his last few years (which can be found in DBW 16). More of this at another time.

In that volume (DBW 16) I encountered his observations about the Bultmann controversy among the Confessing Church pastors. To professor-journal editor Ernst Wolf, 24 March 1942, Bonhoeffer said this:

I take great pleasure in the new Bultmann volume. The intellectual honesty of his work never ceases to impress me. Apparently Dilschneider recently disparaged you [Wolf] and Bultmann quite stupidly here at the Berlin pastors’ meeting; and, as I was told, the meeting came within a hair’s breadth of sending you a protest against Bultmann’s theology! And from Berliners, of all people! I would like to know if any of them has actually worked through the commentary on John
. This arrogance, which flourishes here—under the influence of several blowhards, I think—is a real scandal for the Confessing Church.

Barth took sides, too. One of the leading opponents of Bultmann’s work was Hans Asmussen, and Barth sized it up on 12 May in a letter to Otto Salomon:

From the same letter we became aware of the repercussions of the most recent Bultmann furor. It saddened me as well; but should the “pious Hans” truly desire to burn him at the stake over this, I would most likely join the other side. Oh, if only our dear friends in the Confessing Church would leave all that and would finally begin to rack their brains, five minutes before midnight, whether there is anything, anything, they could do to deal with the inexorable coming disaster! The demythologized New Testament is truly only the dotting of an i, that is, in comparison with all that the Germans have done and daily continue to do in the occupied regions, stirring up a cloud of wrath. But I am afraid that all their eyes are still closed and behind them they are only dreaming, dreaming….

Bonhoeffer, too, took sides in these terms:

Now as to Bultmann: I belong to those who welcomed his writing— not because I agree with it. I regret the twofold approach it takes (the arguments deriving from John 1:14 and from the radio should not be mixed together; I do consider even the latter to be a valid argument, but the distinction should be clearer) —in this regard perhaps I have remained Harnack’s student to this day. To put it bluntly: Bultmann has let the cat out of the bag, not only for himself but for a great many people (the liberal cat out of the confessional bag), and in this I rejoice. He has dared to say what many repress in themselves (here I include myself) without having overcome it. He thereby has rendered a service to intellectual integrity and honesty. Many brothers oppose him with a hypocritical faith that I find deadly. Now an account must be given. I would like to speak with Bultmann about this and open myself to the fresh air that comes from him. But then the window has to be shut again. Otherwise the susceptible will too easily catch a cold.

If you see Bultmann, please give him my greetings— Tell him that I would like to see him, and how I see these things. (To Winfried Krause, 25 July 1942.)

On the 13th of September, in a letter to Ernst Wolf, he said something similar:

As I hear from Marburg, the Council of Brethren there is presently in the midst of deciding about the expulsion of Bultmann from the Confessing Church! These theological hypocrites, so works-righteous! Were it actually to come to expulsion, the matter would have to go to the Conference of Regional Councils of Brethren. If the same thing happened here, I think I would have to have myself expelled as well, not because I agree with Bultmann, but because I consider the others’ attitude by far more dangerous than Bultmann’s.

Christopher H. Evans - American Liberalism Isn't What You Think It Is

Christopher Evans' book, Liberalism without Illusions, discusses the affective movement of Christian liberalism upon the Orthodox Church, writing of its more positive religious impact in an historical context across a broader, dissimilar spectrum of lives and cultures incapable of remaining stagnant in time and space as many may think or wish. As such, a liberalism that can cause older, more popular traditions to rethink themselves is a good thing, and one that may create contemporary relevancy in the Gospel witness of Jesus to men and society in need of new ways of hearing the Gospel.

For myself, I regard the wider word "liberalism" as a more helpful word filled with illuminating tendencies evoking human compassion, generosity, greater self-reflection and awareness, and tolerance for other societies and cultures dis-similar from myself. My older tradition would castigate the term and banish all who deem it constructive as unlike themselves and worthy of condemnation. To the mature in Christ, this way of thinking and behaving cannot accede with the dictates and anti-intellectual posturings by this more conservative segment of Christianity. It would be wrong to do so and unhelpful in the study of God's Word. Placing authority in the hands of men and not in the hands of Almighty God through discernment, prayer, contemplation, historical reflection, scientific discovery, and affective scholarship. I give two-thumbs up for Evans' newest book discussing regenerative roots of American liberalism.

R.E. Slater

January 13, 2013

Amazon Book Description

Publication Date: January 12, 2010

By the 1930s most mainline Protestant traditions promulgated the key tenets of liberalism, especially an embrace of modern intellectual theory along with theological and religious pluralism. In Liberalism without Illusions, Christopher Evans critiques his own tradition, focusing in particular on why so many Americans today want to distance themselves from this rich and vibrant heritage. In a time when attitudes about “liberal” vs. “conservative” theology have become the focus of the culture wars, he provides a constructive discussion of how liberalism might move forward into the twenty-first century, which, he argues, is indispensable to the future of American Christianity itself.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly - Starred Review. Evans (The Kingdom Is Always but Coming), a professor of church history at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School, makes no pretensions about the scope of his work. This book does not include a comprehensive view or extensive history of liberal theology-that can be found elsewhere, and in much larger tomes. Instead, he sets out to reclaim and rejuvenate this misunderstood, formerly vibrant, and ostensibly weakening movement in American Christianity. To rejuvenate any school of thought, that school must be understood, and here Evans is at his finest. He begins by immediately confronting the pejorative meaning the "culture wars" have attached to the word "liberal" and follows by proposing a new foundation on which to build a more historical, rather than hyped, understanding of liberal Christianity. Finally, Evans transcends the limits of stereotypical "ivory tower history" by offering more than just analysis. He offers solutions. The liberal Christian movement in America is not dead, he concludes, and history shows how to prevent it from dying. Anyone interested in 20th- and 21st-century American Christianity needs to read and consider the suggestions Evans has to offer.

Reviews

A strong argument for the appeal and relevance of a liberal theology. Evans brings the liberal and evangelical stories into a compelling conversation, making a case for a liberal theology that reclaims its evangelical roots and its place in the life and witness of the church. - Gary Dorrien, Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics, Union Theological Seminary, and Professor of Religion, Columbia University.

Evans transcends the limits of stereotypical "ivory tower history" by offering more than just analysis. He offers solutions.... Anyone interested in 20th- and 21st-century American Christianity needs to read and consider the suggestions Evans has to offer. - Publisher's Weekly, 1/26/2010 

Evans is an expert guide for the liberal Protestant tradition, showing us the lost treasure and nuggets of power and wisdom that can and should be harvested. This book is an antidote against those who separate piety and social action, levying a powerful argument that any adequate theology enables church leaders to inspire its members to love justice, seek mercy, and walk humbly in service to the world. It is a prophetic call and important reminder of the dangerous good news of an applied gospel waiting to be lived. - James K. Wellman Jr., author of Evangelical vs. Liberal: The Clash of Christian Cultures in the Pacific Northwest.

Product Details

Print Length: 234 pages 

Publisher: Baylor University Press (January 12, 2010) 

Liberal = Evangelical and Modern

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/01/10/liberal-evangelical-and-modern/

by Scot McKnight

Jan 10, 2014

Comments

What is liberal theology? When did it start? Who are its major thinkers? Let’s remind ourselves once more how Christopher Evans, in his Liberalism without Illusions, defines it:

Theological liberalism is a historical movement born in the nineteenth century that supports critical intellectual engagement with both Christian traditions and contemporary intellectual resources. As opposed to more traditional forms of Christian theology, liberalism has been characterized by an affirmation of personal and collective experience, systemic social analysis, and open theological inquiry (6).

Notice what’s at work here: a creative synthesis of the Christian tradition (evangelical) and modernism. The result focuses on both personal and collective experience, a clear emphasis on systemics, and a general disposition of opennness. In chps 2 and 3 Evans sketches the dominating voices of liberalism, and it is a sketch to which I will at times turn again.

Human reason matters, and here he dips into both Kant and Hegel, and he rightly (I think) sees the impact of Hegel on liberalism because of his more immanent approach to divine activity in history. God can be known through reason and in historical processes, and this all leads him to speak of the undeniable significance of Schleiermacher for understanding liberalism.

Now briefly:

1. American liberalism emerged out of New England Calvinism.

2. A leading influence can be seen in Charles Sheldon’s famous “What would Jesus do?” question and life. Christology was refashioned in exemplary terms and also in anti-Trinitarian ways with Unitarians (William Ellery Channing’s voice). Then comes Horace Bushnell and “new theology.” He saw Christianity as a historical religion and was one who helped create a more positive sense of human goodness (Christian nurture flowed from this) and he pushed for a sacrifice of his life on the part of Jesus against typical penal substitutionary theories.

3. The pulpiteers included Henry Ward Beecher (anti-slavery) and David Swing (4th Pres Chicago), and it was Swing who perhaps best articulated emerging liberal theology: OT criticism was embraced, as was Darwinian thinking, and cultural conditioned-ness.

4. Kingdom theology, and this means socialistic Christianity, or the application of Jesus’ compassion and justice to national and global problems.  Here he looks at Shailer Mathews.

5. All leading to his specialty: Walter Rauschenbusch and the social gospel and social Christianity. Salvation becomes more robust and the focus is on social problems with the church taking the initiative in justice issues. The social gospel gave important ideas to liberation theologies. He looks, too, at Washington Gladden and Howard Thurman. The social gospel is the most enduring legacy of Protestant liberalism and is in my view here to stay. It can tie hands with Kuyperian thinking to focus the energies of Christians on the public sector, on politics, and on social activism — though the two orientations (social gospel and Kuyperian thinking are hardly the same).

The arena of God’s work was history and society, Jesus’ moral vision and his humanity were central, and they tended to diminish theological centralities of orthodoxy as well as the church. This led in part to therapeutic emphases in the gospel as well as to pastoral care and prophetic theology. Social justice was combined with pastoral care for the folks in their local church (e.g., Ernest Fremont Tittle, from Evanston). It garnered interest in the ecumenical movement… but listen to this observation Evans summarizes from Sidney Mead: “the social gospel was a movement that did not lead to the creation of any new churches, and was largely consigned to the corridors of power within preexistent Protestant denominations” (76).

And it’s focus, even obsession, with economic concerns made it blind often to other concerns, like race and gender equalities.

The Propaganda Wars of Postmodern Neo-Conservatism re Liberal Thought and Theology

With all the propaganda wars going on within evangelicalism these days "liberal theology" is getting a "bad rap" from conservative Christians hearing only the negative, and not the positive, about Christian liberalism. When in fact, it is neo-conservatism that is now becoming the ugly twin brother smearing itself in patriotic zealotry and nationalism, irrational arguments, and anti-intellectualism.

 

To accuse a fellow Christian brother or sister with caustic, unjust words, and untrue, misleading labels is to behave like the father of lies, that old serpent of the garden, who used half-truths and deceptive accusations to dissuade God's Word from root and growth. This was especially observed by Jesus when issuing His most time-honored commands to not injure one's neighbor with lies and deceit from hearts darkly filled with hatred and murder abiding within. Which is exactly what is being done now when ignorant shouts of "liberalism" are being thrown upon non-conservative groups and organizations without really understanding what "good liberalism" is, why it formed, and what it stood for in the first place (historically, it was as a strong reaction to the Enlightenment and its progenitor of secular Modernism to come which today's one-sided conservative Christian groups refuse to appreciate).

 

Mostly, liberalism stands against any irrational, unkind, and thoughtless teachings, or policies, that may serve an individual's position or dogma rather than the community at large. Casting pejoratives upon competing policies rather than trying to understand the failures in one's present beliefs and policies. Seeking hedonistic power and money in place of selfless service and personal sacrifice. As such, a good rule of thumb is to listen to the negatives of an organization (or individual) so that by it's own accusations "ye shall know them by their words and works."

 

Truly, any theology that does not preach a Jesus-centered, incarnational Gospel, and authoritative Bible (rightly understood), is worthy of disregard, whether it comes from the left or from the right, making neo-conservative evangelicalism no less guilty. Which has lately become a religious political movement guilty of blind legalism and purposely using the deep, sacramental images of Christianity (prayer, worship, church, faith) to support ungodly political agendas steeped in pride and prejudice. Any Christian dogma that seeks agenda over Jesus, and neglecting His passion for people's welfare, is guilty of apostacism and God's rightful judgment - regardless of the name of the organization or its supposed Christian supporters, be it church-based or political.

 

And to all spectrums of Christianity caught in the middle between the hedgerows of a Jesus-less faith let us each be careful to listen to God's Word aright seeking the Spirit of God and the Christ who is glorified in its direction and proclamation. Seeking a spiritual humility evidencing better listening and discerning skills than what we see at present within the ranks of Christian Evangelicalism (as well as within the ranks of American government itself).

 

For a Christian brotherhood to fight amongst itself is one of the greatest tools of Satan seeking division and strife. Let the Church of God seek peace and unity over any disingenuous claims of right and wrong. This is the Spirit of Christ even as it can be the spirit of man's redemption borne of God's love and forgiveness, grace and mercy.

 

R.E. Slater

October 27, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

What Is “Liberal Theology?”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/10/what-is-liberal-theology/

 

by Roger Olson

October 8, 2013

Comments

 

During my career as a Christian theologian I have several times been accused of being either liberal or on the way to being liberal. The accusers clearly meant liberal as in “liberal theology”–not liberal politically (which I am). John Piper told me to my face that he perceived me as “on a liberal trajectory.” (I immediately pictured myself being shot out of a cannon like the stuntmen in the old circuses!) Most recently Gerald McDermott has claimed that I, and my fellow “meliorists” (I prefer “postconservative evangelicals”), are retracing the path that led to Protestant liberal theology. Like many others, McDermott seems to think “liberal theology” is a good label for any deviation from orthodoxy. That’s what I challenge here. [Meliorist - "the doctrine that the world tends to become better or, may be made better, by human effort." A spurious accusation used by some Calvinist groups to accuse Spirit-led Arminian Christians of humanism over sovereignty. - R.E. Slater]

 

I have made the study of liberal theology (including Catholic modernism) a career-long study. I have read numerous books by liberal Protestant theologians past and present, and engaged in liberal-evangelical dialogues. My forthcoming book The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (IVP) will explain and give case studies of liberal and modernist theologies.

 

My reliable guides in the study of liberal theology have been and are: Gary Dorrien (author of a three volume study of liberal theology), Claude Welch (author of numerous books on modern theology), Peter Hodgson, Donald Miller, Harvey Cox, William R. Hutchison, Delwin Brown, Bernard Reardon and many other theologians, historians and sociologists.

 

All of them make the same point–that “liberal theology” is not just any deviation from orthodoxy but an elevation of modern reason and discovery, the “modern mind,” to a source and norm for theology. [Thus, to accuse post-conservative evangelicals or postmodern emergent Christians as liberal is preposterous. By definition, such groups place themselves under God's Word and not over it. In other words, one may be liberal in their theology without being liberal as a theology. The former seeks a departure from conservative readings of the bible while the latter places human reason over (and not subjected to) the authority of the bible. - R.E. Slater]

 

Here are some influential definitions of “liberal theology” by leading scholars of that type of theology:

 

“Liberal theology is defined by its openness to the verdicts of modern intellectual inquiry, especially the natural and social sciences; its commitment to the authority of individual reason and experience…and its commitment to make Christianity credible and socially relevant to modern people.” (Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: ImaginingProgressive Religion 1805-1900, p. xxiii.)

 

“Liberal Christians have characteristically sought to understand their faith with reference to their experience within contemporary culture. … Liberal Christians view accommodation to culture as necessary and positive… They seek understand God and their moral responsibility in terms of the best available scientific knowledge and social analysis.” (Donald E. Miller, The Case for Liberal Christianity, p. 33)

 

Claude Welch (Yale University) defined liberal theology as “Maximal acknowledgement of the claims of modern thought” in theology. (Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century, I, 1799-1870, p. 142)

 

In Crossfire, his dialogue with Clark Pinnock, Delwin Brown several times emphasized that liberal theology grants normative status to “the best of modern thought” in such a way as to trump Scripture itself when there is a conflict. [That is, to trump man's errant interpretation of that Scripture when it is found to be out-of-bounds with God's love and intent - R.E. Slater]

 

To regard any deviation from, or attempt, to reform orthodox Christian tradition as “liberal” theologically is patent misuse of that category and label. In order for a theological proposal to be “liberal” it MUST be offered on the ground that modern thought requires it even though what is requiring it is not a universally recognized material fact (such as the earth moves around the sun). In other words, liberal theology makes modern thought in general a norming norm for theology–alongside if not above Scripture. [sic, whether liberal, or conservative, any theology that supplants Scripture is itself anathema. - R.E. Slater]

 

If we do not stick to this historical-theological definition of liberal theology (along with prototypes such as Schleiermacher, Ritschl, Harnack, et al.) we end up filling the category so full it becomes empty. [if effect, words only mean something if we use them as intended, rightfully and properly. - R.E. Slater]

 

 

 

Discerning the Christian Meaning of Targeted Words

Literally Changing What It Means
http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2013/08/22/literally-changing-what-it-means/

by Bo Sanders

August 22, 2013

Comments

 

Yesterday it came out that the definition of ‘literally’ was literally being changed in the dictionary. A CNN report said in places  as informal as Google and as official as  Mariam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries it is now “”Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling.”

 

The writer of the article was snarky:

Next thing they’ll be telling us that there’s no ham in hamburger, no egg in eggplant, a boxing ring isn’t round and tennis shoes aren’t just for tennis.

We’re literally over it.

The meaning of words drift, adapt and change over time. There is the famous example of “Thou” that Martin Buber brought so much attention to. The dictionary does not determine their meaning as much as it reflects their use.

 

Today an article appeared over at the Sojo blog by our beloved friend (and co-host of the Culture Cast) Christian Piatt who had a chance to interview Eric Elnes, author of Phoenix Affirmations: A New Vision for the Future of the Christian Faith and Asphalt Jesus, about the changing face Christianity in 21st America.

 

Elnes walked across the country:

  in 2006 with a group called CrossWalk America, which included a network of 150 churches from a dozen or so denominations and over 11,000 individuals. We walked to raise awareness that not all Christians are alike, and that large — and growing — numbers of Christians embrace a more “progressive” vision of Christianity than what one finds portrayed in the media. 

Part of what came out of that experience was an awareness of the need for some new labels and to modify the meaning of some old ones. In both classically liberal/mainline circles and, interestingly, in conservative camps as well.

I will let you read the article for the whole conversation.  The part that stood out to me (and to Geoff Holsclaw who pointed me to it) was the section related to the label ‘progressive’. For the past couple of weeks I have enjoyed a lively set of conversation here about the Liberal Label and ‘progressive’ among others. Elnes explains why he has moved on from simple ‘progressive’:

Don’t get me wrong when I back off of the word “progressive.” This has been my adopted label for years, and the walk was made in the name of Progressive Christianity. But I’ve had to come to terms with its weaknesses. For many Christians, “progressive” is just another term for classic Christian liberalism. They have adopted the label because it’s more publically acceptable than “liberal.” 

Christian liberalism was an important movement in America in the 19th and 20th centuries, and without it, Christianity would be struggling even more than it already does to embrace science and issues of social justice. But like any movement, liberalism has had a certain lifespan. We gleaned the best insights of liberalism and moved on long ago.

My favorite line is “ We also appreciate many of the fruits of liberalism, like social justice, inclusivity, and openness to other faiths. We affirm the positive role that doubt and uncertainty play in a healthy faith, recognizing that faith and science can be allies in the pursuit of truth.”

 

The reason I enjoyed the article so much was that it reflected some classic journeys about how people came to envision themselves as liberal, conservative, and progressive. I hear these stories all the time. I love these stories. Listening to people’s faith journey is one of my favorite things about what I do.

 

The problem is that I do not find myself in those stories – not exactly....

 

I grew up Evangelical with a hint of the charismatic. In my 20′s I went to Bible college was both emboldened in my charismatic leanings and horrified at the conservative nastiness I often encountered by those I shared the classroom with. People who grew up a little more fundamentalist or reformed than me had a very different experience of being Evangelical. There was some type of culture war … we were wrapped up in evangelism, missions, and issues of holiness – but without that culture clash. (in hind site, it was probably because we were allergic to politics).

 

After college I had a decade-long pastorate in an evangelical/charismatic church plant. I loved it. In the final years of that time I started reading N.T. Wright and then Brian McLaren – instead of Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias. I was warned by denominational leadership to be careful with that McLaren guy but by then I was on my way to George Fox Evangelical Seminary. I assumed I would study with Len Sweet until I met Randy Woodley.

 

Fast-forward 6 years and I am presently prepping for qualifying exams as a classically mainline grad school and ministering at a mainline church (albs & stoles – stained glass and lectionary). I never stopped praying however. I never went through that predictable thing that Elnes describes. Yes, I moved on from the superstitious elements of the tradition. Sure, I reformatted my cosmology and even adapted my metaphysics. I engaged Biblical scholarship which radically altered my view of scripture. I realized that politics wasn’t just permissible but, as Jesus modeled, was necessary.

 

All of that is to say that I stand by my posts of the past 3 weeks that we need to move on from the Liberal label and with Elnes we need to nuance ‘progressive’ in ways that are more clear.  I like his distinctions within progressive christianity. I know people in all of those camps.

 

I, however, am going to stick with “spirit-filled processy christo-centric hyperTheist” for myself.

 

 

... if by a liberal they mean

someone who looks ahead and not behind,

someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,

someone who cares about the welfare of the people -

their health, their housing, their schools,

their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties...

if that is what they mean,

then I am proud to be a liberal.

 

- President John F. Kennedy, 1960

 

 

 

 

 

What is a Liberal Christian? Parts 1, 2, 3, 4

Why I Am Not a “Liberal Christian”

PART 1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/why-i-am-not-a-liberal-christian/

 

by Roger Olson

February 7, 2013

Comments

Anyone who comes here regularly or has read any of my books knows I’m no fundamentalist. In fact, I struggle to get along with fundamentalists and pray for God’s grace to do it. I’m not proud of that fact, but I admit it. I’ve been burned by fundamentalism and seen the damage it does to individuals, churches and society.

 

Recently a friend asked me to look at some web sites of Christians who proclaim themselves “progressive”—sometimes using the label “un-fundamentalist.” Labels alone don’t really tell me very much about a group. I look beneath and behind the labels for ideas—convictions, presuppositions, commitments, attitudes.

 

Many people who call themselves “moderate to progressive” theologically are really just asserting their non-fundamentalism. Like me, they have rejected extreme biblical literalism, hostility to science and philosophy, separatism and legalism, extreme dogmatism. Yet, there are others who use labels like “moderate to progressive” who are out-and-out liberals theologically.

 

What makes the difference? When and how does one cross from non-fundamentalist evangelical, broadly conservative, into out-and-out theological liberalism? Ah, there’s no litmus test. Discernment of that is complicated and must be done cautiously.

 

A while ago I argued that “evangelical” is defined partly, at least, by prototypes—individuals and documents and events of the past (and perhaps the present) that stand out as epitomes of the “ideal type.” With evangelicals, at least since World War 2, there’s a fairly easy prototype to go by—Billy Graham. Not that all evangelicals are thrilled with everything about him, but he represents, in a general way, that “type” of Christian faith and life we call “evangelical.”

 

So it is with “liberal.” It’s a type of Christian faith and life defined at least in part by prototypes. Who are its prototypes? Friedrich Schleiermacher and Marcus Borg—to name historical-theological “bookends.” Sure, they don’t agree on everything, but they both, in their own ways, represent an approach to Christian faith that is fairly called “liberal.”

 

Historical theologian Claude Welch, author of a magisterial two volume history of nineteenth century theology, boiled it (viz., “liberal Christianity”) down to a phrase: “maximal acknowledgment of the claims of modernity” in theology. Gary Dorrien, professor of theology at Union Theological Seminary and author of a magisterial three volume history of liberal theology in America, defines liberal religion as rejection of any authority outside the self. However, when I read his three volume history of liberal theology in America I discern that all these theologians have one thing in common—recognition of the authority of “modern thought” alongside or above Scripture and tradition.

 

Liberal theologian Delwin Brown describes the essence of liberal Christianity as granting authority to “the best of contemporary thought” in his dialogue/debate with Clark Pinnock entitled Theological Crossfire. Ironically, fundamentalists and many “conservative evangelicals” accused Pinnock of being “liberal” theologically. But in that book Pinnock comes across as almost a fundamentalist—compared with Brown (a former evangelical). They agree that the “bottom line” difference between evangelicals and liberals is authority.

 

I find myself in broad agreement with some liberal Christians on some issues—especially over against fundamentalism. On the other hand, I agree with some fundamentalists more than with liberals on some other issues.

 

What do I look for in trying to discern whether a person or group is really theologically liberal?

 

First, I look at their overall view of reality. Do they think the universe is open to God’s special activity in what might be called, however infelicitously, “miracles?” Do they believe in supernatural acts of God including especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus including the empty tomb? If not, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

Second, I look at their approach to “doing theology.” How do they approach knowing God? Do they begin with and recognize the authority of special revelation? Or do they begin with and give norming authority to human experience, culture, science, philosophy, “the best of contemporary thought?” That is, do they “do” theology “from above” or “from below?” Insofar as they do theology “from below” I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

Third, I look at their Christology. Do they think Jesus was different from other “great souls” among us in kind or only in degree? Is their Christology truly incarnational, affirming the preexistence of the Word who become human as Jesus Christ, or is it functional only, affirming only that Jesus Christ represented God, was God’s “deputy and advocate” among men and women? Insofar as their Chistology is functional and not ontologically incarnational, trinitarian, I tend to think they are theologically liberal.

 

Fourth, I look at their view of Scripture. Do they believe the Bible is “inspired insofar as it is inspiring,” a wisdom-filled source of religious illumination and record of our “spiritual ancestors’” experiences of God? Or do they believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired such that in some sense God is its author—not necessarily meaning God dictated it or even verbally inspired it? Another way of putting that “test” is similar to the Christological one above: Is the Bible different only in degree from other great books of spiritual wisdom or in kind from them? Insofar as they view the Bible as different only in degree, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

Fifth, I look at their view of salvation. Do they believe salvation is forgiveness and reconciliation with God as well as being made whole and holy by God’s grace alone or do they believe salvation is only a realization of human potential—individual or social—by spiritual enlightenment and moral endeavor? Insofar as they think the latter, I tend to think they are theologically liberal.

 

Sixth, I look at their view of the future. Do they believe in a real return of Jesus Christ, however conceived, to bring about a new world of righteousness? Or do they believe the “return of Christ” is a myth that expresses an existential experience and/or social transformation only? Insofar as they believe it is only a symbol, myth or metaphor, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

The problem is that discerning whether someone is theologically liberal is not a black-and-white process. It’s not an “either-or.” Many people and groups are some kind of mixture, hybrid of conservative and liberal. But, in my book, anyway, a true liberal is one who for the most part leans toward the views I have labeled “liberal” above.

 

So what’s wrong with being liberal theologically in that way? I find it thin, ephemeral, light, profoundly unsatisfying. It seems to me barely different from being secular humanist. Sure, theological liberals (in the sense I have defined that type above) can be profoundly “spiritual,” but I don’t think they are profoundly Christian. Their commitment is greater to modern culture, the Zeitgeist of the Enlightenment, than to Christian sources. Their “Christianity” is barely recognizable if recognizable at all—compared with anything that was called “Christian” before the Enlightenment. Ultimately, I believe, theological liberalism robs Christianity of its distinctiveness, the “scandal of particularity,” its prophetic edge and makes it easy, respectable and dull.

 

I have come to the conclusion over the years that most people who are theologically liberal grew up fundamentalist and are simply in deep reaction to it—throwing the baby out with the bathwater of an overly legalistic and literalistic Christianity.

 

I have no problem with Christians who struggle with traditional belief; my problem is with those who “reinterpret it” so radically that it isn’t recognizable anymore. They say, for example, that they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but when pressed to explain it, what they really believe is that the disciples came to a realization of the continuing relevance of the message of Jesus or Jesus’ ongoing “spiritual presence” among them and us. They don’t mean that the tomb was empty and that Jesus’ dead body was transformed to a new mode of eschatological life.

 

If I ever wake up and find that I think like a true theological liberal, I hope I will be honest enough to stop calling myself “Christian.”

 

Now, having said that, harsh as it sounds, believe me when I say I am not judging liberals’ salvation. Their salvation is up to God, not me or any other human being. Can a person be truly liberal theologically, as I have defined it above, and be saved? I honestly don’t know. I hope so. But it would be in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

 

 

 

What is a Liberal anyway?

PART 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/02/11/what-is-a-liberal-anyway/

 

by Scott McKnight

Feb 11, 2013 @ 0:05

Comments

 

Roger [Olson] lists paradigmatic theological liberals as Schleiermacher and Marcus Borg, I’d add Harvey Cox as another example.

 

One observation: over the years I’ve seen lots of evangelicals “drift” into liberalism. Quite often they refuse to admit they are liberals. What happens is that they absorb evangelicalism’s denunciation of liberals as non-Christians while simultaneously both embracing liberalism and thinking (and knowing) they have not left the Christian faith. Evangelicals have successfully made “liberal” a pejorative term. So today many liberals call themselves “progressives.” Is there any difference?

 

 

 

What is a Progressive?

PART 3

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/02/18/what-is-a-progressive-anyway/

 

by Scot McKnight

Feb 18, 2013 @ 5:06

Comments

 

This post is by Bo Sanders [from Homebrewed Christianity], a self-confessed progressive who will sketch how he distinguishes progressive from liberal:

 

Questions: Who are the progressives? Who are the liberals? Do liberals see themselves as progressives?

 

Roger Olson caused some ripples last week when he posted “Why I am not a Liberal Christian”. Then Scot McKnight went and took it even farther with “What is a Liberal Anyway” and said: “Evangelicals have successfully made “liberal” a pejorative term. So today many liberals call themselves “progressives.”

 

My contention is that saying progressives are really just liberals who don’t like the ‘L’ word is like saying that athletes and baseball players are really just the same thing. While baseball players are athletes, not all athletes play baseball. It’s an inexact statement. They aren’t exactly the same thing.

 

There is as big a difference between liberal and progressive as there is between evangelical and emergent. There may be some overlap, but to equate the two is unhelpful.

 

Here is the most basic definition I can provide – it comes from John Cobb, the greatest living American theologian:

• Liberal simply means that one’s experience is a valid location for doing theology.
 
• Progressives are liberal folks who have learned from Feminist, Liberation and Post-Colonial critiques. *

 

We all read Roger Olson’s 6 point definition last week, but when it comes to liberals there is something more categorical that would be helpful for our current distinction. Liberal is simply a constellation of positions and answers to questions that were established in the Enlightenment. Liberal is a settled matter. It has accepted the basic inherited framework to be the as-is structure and conceded the basic ground-rules as given.

 

Progressive on the other hand is to question, to wrestle, and to push. Progressives don’t necessarily think that all progress is good and certainly don’t think that history is inevitable.

 

Liberals are predictable - because the matter is settled. If one takes the basic considerations handed down from enlightenment concerns, liberals are just the other side of the coin from conservatives. Take any issue – miracles, Biblical authorship, other religions, etc. – you know exactly what you are going to get from both conservatives and liberals.

 

They have been doing this dance with each other for a long time. One takes the high road and the other takes the low. One makes a move right. The other secures the left. This is why they are both easy to pigeon hole and caricature.

 

Maybe an example would be helpful. Let’s take economics.

 

Capitalism is the default economic theory of the Western (liberal) society. While conservative and liberal Christians would believe different things within a capitalistic framework (tax brackets, incentives, government programs, and social involvement) what is not in question is capitalism itself. The system is both beneficial and unquestioned to both teams. Like Yankees and RedSox fans stress how much they dislike each other and the opposing team’s tactics, what is never in question is the goodness of baseball in the first place. That is assumed.

 

Progressives call the system into question and call out a different set of concerns. Issues of globalization, free trade, deregulation and disparity come in.

 

Liberals want a slightly nicer, kinder, more equitable, more accessible version of capitalism than conservatives do. Progressives question the whole enterprise and may go so far as to say that the ethical teachings of Jesus about how we are to treat other humans are incompatible with the workings of the capitalist machine.

 

We could do this with any number of issues. My only point is that progressives are not liberals shying away from the ‘L’ word because it has been made a pejorative. [Rather they embrace it and run with it - res]

 

So even if you just want to say that progressives are aggressive liberals, that would be more accurate. Liberals concede the rules of game, they just want to pick the better of the provided options. Progressives question the as-is possibilities of the given structures. This causes progressive to engage in critical examination and to re-evaluate both the road ahead and the road that delivered us here.

 

* He said this during a Homebrewed Christianity interview for episode 101.

 

*res - r.e. slater

 

 

 

Can An Evangelical Be Progressive?

PART 4

 

by R.E. Slater

February 18, 2013

 

What if an evangelical were to call themselves a progressive evangelical? Are we to then infer that that person is a liberal, or more rather, a progressive liberal?

 

Or, is the usage of the term progressive a descriptively different term than its noun-form?

 

But rather than imply that a progressive Evangelical is liberal it might imply that that evangelical wishes to move to the left of the conservative elements within his religious affiliation.... By embacing social issues; by questioning existing religious structures, conventions and practices; by mitigating harsher words of judgmental Christianity for kindlier words of grace and peace; and for any number of other reasons.

 

An evangelical may thus wish to move left of a perceived hardline mentality fraught within their own evangelicalism. And we might describe an evangelical as one who might be conservative, moderate, progressive, or even leftist. But still, that description hangs as to what how an evangelical interacts with his/her own evangelicalism.

 

So too may a liberal be conservative, progressive, or leftist, in relationship to their liberalism. To use the adverbial form of the term "progressive" is meaningless without its context.

 

Ironically, this same situation also occurred within Fundamentalist Christianity birthing its more liberal, or progressive, twin - that of Evangelicalism. But one would not consider Evangelicalism as liberal much less than Fundamentalism as being non-Christian. However, each Christian group has their own distinctives, creeds, religious formulas, practices, and ministerial themes.

 

So then, to use the term liberal, or progressive, must be to use the terms intelligently, or coherently, within their greater context of literary meaning, and not as simply pejorative labels.

 

To be a progressive evangelical then is unlike being a progressive liberal. They are two different belief structures (or, world-and-life philosophies). The former holds to some form of Roger Olson's 6-point outline, the latter to some form of its opposite. They are unlike each other even though each uses the same label of progressive.

 

Furthermore, an Emergent Christian is one that has moved to the left of Evangelicalism, for the same reasons that an Evangelical had moved to the left of Fundamentalism. Moreover, an Emergent Christian may be the same as a progressive Evanglical, but it is hoped that the term Evangelical is dropped for the more positive description of Emergent (or Emerging) Christianity.

As example, both Roger Olson and Scott McKnight would describe themselves as postconservative Evangelicals (which means that they are progressive Evangelicals as I understand it). A confounding term to say the least. But, based upon their careers, and school affiliations, wisely used in these days and times of firings and public slanderings. Bo Sanders, on the other hand is an Emergent Christian, as am I.

So then, just what is an Emergent / Emerging Christian? It is the one we have been writing about for these past two years here at Relevancy22. And just what is an Emergent / Emerging Theology? It too is in various stages of development and expression and can likewise be found here at Relevancy22.

 

In terms of Christian labeling, an Emergent Christian is one that has left Evangelicalism or, has moved to the right from Mainline Denominationalism's progressive liberalism. However, an Emergent may also be a former traditional Catholic wishing to contemporize their Catholic faith by following the reforms of Vatican II that have become stillborn by its more conservative constituents and theologs. Or, perhaps an Emergent is one that was either liberal, or without any religious affiliation, wishing to re-express their atheism, hedonism, natural theology, and so on, to that of a biblical theology that is both postmodern and contemporary.

 

But to any Christian wishing to remain Christian, or biblically theological, Roger's 6-points are good qualifiers for a Christianity that is always orthodox, regardless of its religious expression down through the ages. Whether it was that of an early Jewish Christianity, or that of an Hellenistic extract, or pre-Medieval, Medieval, Reformational, Enlightened, Modern, or Postmodern.

 

Regardless, Orthodox Christianity will observe all 6 points - to which I'm sure we could add a few more.... Throughout all, God will be God, and a God who has not left us to our own selves. Who actively pursues us in all endeavors despite sin, this lost world, or our lost souls. Who wishes to redeem us and bring us into active fellowship with Himself. And His will, as it expands outwards throughout His creation, as a greater spiritual Kingdom unstoppable and unrelenting.

 

1. A God who is Creator-Redeemer
2. A Special Revelation that is supernatural in origin
3. A Christology that is Incarnational and Trinitarian
4. Scriptures that are Inspirational and Authoritative
5. A lost humanity requiring God's salvation
6. A future that looks to Jesus Christ's return