Review: Norm Geisler "Emergence or Emergency?"

I have submitted  a review of an earlier course lecture given by the evangelical professor, Norm Geisler, in 2008, stating the perceived errors of the emergent Christian movement. This, and similar courses, may be found in one fashion or another throughout evangelical colleges and seminaries espousing similar arguments and innuendos. Further, the more popular books and articles in contemporary evangelical religious literature continue to play out to these erroneous fears, objections, beliefs, and barbed rhetorical volleys (sic, David Platt, Justin Thaylor, Kevin DeYoung, Mark Galli, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Francis Chan, Albert Mohler, etc).


But because the Emergent movement had shortly begun in the late 1990s it is submitted by this writer that these fears seemed a legitimate treatment of the then current understanding of emergent Christianity in its interplay with a newer unrecognized cultural dynamic by modernistic evangelical Christians. And because we as Christians are so use to seeing sectarian and cultic error arise so frequently it was considered within evangelicalism that this new movement would be little different.


And this was my considered response as well and it wasn’t until emergent Christianity better proposed itself and enunciated its beliefs did I more fully understand their “alarming” doctrines as being less alarming and ringing more true than I had at first believed. But it took a decade to decipher this new branch of Christianity, known as Emergent Christianity, and all the while this "movement" worked hard to define its beliefs and practices - helped, as it were, by the offsetting trends of global postmodernism on display. The further the 21st Century progressed, the further emergent Christianity would be illuminated by it. In effect, modernistic evangelicalism little understood postmodernism and the resultant emergent Christianity that was arising as an orthodox Christian response to it. But so too could the same be said about evangelical Christianity as it grew in response to the modernism of the mid-20th Century before a fundamentalist Christianity still holding on to the 19th Century.


Moreover, the earlier advocates of emergent Christianity perhaps were too eager to point out the shortcomings of evangelical Christianity and fire-bombed precious "traditional" truths with a vigor that quickly put evangelicalism on the defensive. And religion being what it is, shortly betrayed itself as a holy war by both sides out to crucify and condemn each the other side… disappointingly so. If we know anything, it is that change comes slowly, and where religion is concerned, its comes all too painfully slowly, especially when the truth and rightness of God’s word has been grossly mis-defined and limited by holy practices and beliefs.


And yet, emergent Christianity continues to define itself within its culture of postmodernism (much like evangelicalism had continued to define itself within its own modern era) as we are seeing better and better arguments and more patient teaching against the earlier fears and analysis of evangelicalism's much pronounced veracities. Further, it has been because of the pronouncements and verdicts from evangelical pulpits, papers, and seminaries like the one recorded below that emergent Christian “doctrines and practices” have arisen in better response and highlight.


For as such, these charges whether true or not, have helped open-minded Christians re-examine their modernistic faith and to elevate it beyond the confines of the industrial, scientific enlightenment era which many of our creedal beliefs and examinations have arisen in the past centuries by well-meaning men and women of God.


Christianity can never be defined within a box, and much like Schrödinger’s very famous quantum box (of cats) has shown, our doctrinal certainties can slip away into quite another type of box as easily and without our permission! Partly, language and self-limiting human understanding is to blame, and partly too is our need for absolutes and assurances. But God knows all this and because he is our Creator will give us the language, the understanding, the absolutes, the assurances, the faith and the hope to know him as Savior, Lord and God. This we can be sure of, and sure too that regardless of our blindness he while patiently remove the scales from our eyes and hearts to see him correctly, truly, fully, assuredly. For he is the God of light and truth, love and grace.


For man is not unreachable despite our sin and our ill-faith and ill-hope in the divine. God is as surely revealing himself to us today as he has to all men in all places and at all times of human society. This too we can be sure. And thus, my submittal of Norm Geisler’s anti-Emergent paper and very brief responses to it. Curiously, the very stated responses Geisler makes of emergent luminaries I found to be better arguments than the evangelical ones he had devised and quoted.


For these early Emergents were struggling to better express their faith to like-minded people questioning Evangelicalism’s short-sighted and sometimes false-inferences of God. And paradoxically, this very same “course paper” that would expose emergent Christianity has exposed itself in showing evangelicalism’s own shortsightedness and self-proclaimed deficiencies. Curious indeed.

RE Slater

July 2011

**********

The Emergent Church: Emergence or Emergency?
Copyright by Norman L. Geisler 2008

http://www.normgeisler.com/

I - The Background of Emergence Stated

There is one key influence on the Emergent Church movement—postmodernism. While not all Emergents accept all premises of post-modernism, nonetheless, they all breathe the same air. Post modernism embraces the following characteristics:

1) The “Death of God”—Atheism;
2) The death of objective truth—Relativism;
3) The death of exclusive truth—Pluralism;
4) Death of objective meaning—Conventionalism;
5) The death of thinking (logic)—Anti-Foundationalism;
6) The death of objective interpretation—Deconstructionism; and,
7) The death of objective values—Subjectivism.

RE Slater – To be clear, Emergents are not atheistic, have not relativizedEmergents have rejected not the Scripture’s, but evangelicalism’s, conventionalism and its foundationalism through the method of de-construction aimed primarily towards the Reformation's 500-year hold on doctrine through denominational traditions,  creedal formulas, missional statements and self-understandings.

And most definitely the idea of “objectivity” lies in the mind of the beholder as we tussle with the definition of whose “objectivity” we wish to espouse and believe. An Emergent may more believe that it is the Evangelic that is being subjective and non-objective, especially as regards evangelicalism's religion and faith practices.

It is better to know that believers from whatever faith-walk will always scrutinize their religion rather than to accuse each other of not performing to these charges. And it is definitely regressive of either side to declare “I am a better Christian than you” or “My side is more right than yours”. The house of God knows no distinctions within itself, for we are all one body regardless of its parts. (July 2011)




From post-modernism Emergents devise the following key ideas - They consider themselves:

1) Post-Protestant;
2) Post-Orthodox;
3) Post-Denominational;
4) Post-Doctrinal;

5) Post-Individual;
6) Post-Foundational;
7) Post-Creedal;

8) Post-Rational; and,

9) Post-Absolute.

RE Slater – sic, previously answered above.

It is noteworthy that “post” is a euphemism for “anti.” So, in reality they are against all these things and more.

Brian McClaren, one of the leaders of the emergent church stressed the importance of the postmodernism influence upon the movement when he wrote:

“But for me…opposing it [Postmodernism] is as futile as opposing the English language. It’s here. It’s reality. It’s the future…. It’s the way my generation processes every other fact on the event horizon” (McLaren, The Church on the Other Side, 70).

“Postmodernism is the intellectual boundary between the old world and the other side. Why is it so important? Because when your view of truth is changed, when your confidence in the human ability to know truth in any objective way is revolutionized, then everything changes. That includes theology…” (McLaren, COS, 69).

II - Basic Works by Emergents Listed

There is an ever increasing flow of emergent literature. To date, it includes the following:

Brian McLaren,
The Church on the Other Side
A Generous Orthodoxy
A New Kind of Christian
Everything Must Change

Stanley Grenz,
A Primer on Post-Modernism
Beyond Foundationalism
Revising Evangelical Theology

Rob Bell,
Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith
Love Wins

Doug Pagitt & Tony Jones, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

Tony Jones, The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier

Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz

Steve Chalke and Allan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus

Dave Tomlinson, The Post-Evangelical.

Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor, A Heretics Guide to Eternity

See also: www.emergentvillage.com


III - Basic Beliefs of Emergents Examined

Of course, not all Emergents believe all the doctrines listed below, but some do, and most hold to many of them. And since they associate with others in the movement that do, it is proper to list all of them.

Anti-Absolutism

McClaren insists that “Arguments that pit absolutism versus relativism, and objectivism versus subjectivism, prove meaningless or absurd to postmodern people” (McClaren, “The Broadened Gospel,” in “Emergent Evangelism,” Christianity Today 48 [Nov., 2004], 43).

This is a form of relativism. Lets reduce the premise to its essence and analyze it by showing that it is self-refuting.



RE Slater response to Geisler’s analysis – “This is not a form of relativism but a form of expanding evangelical absolutism beyond its self-limiting boundaries of God and all things God. Which religious statements were developed in the enlightenment era of scientific absolutism and can no longer hold true under postmodernism’s era of expanded re-thinking of all boundary setting and quantified truths of the past two centuries.” (July 2011)




1 - Relativism Stated: “We cannot know absolute truth.”

2 - Relativism Refuted: We know that we cannot know absolute truth.


Anti-Exclusivism (Pluralism)

Pluralism is another characteristic of the emergent movement. McClaren claims that “Missional Christian faith asserts that Jesus did not come to make some people saved and others condemned. Jesus did not come to help some people be right while leaving everyone else to be wrong. Jesus did not come to create another exclusive religion” (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, 109).



RE Slater - Rob Bell’s book Love Wins succinctly states and buttresses McClaren’s arguments. Evangelical Christianity has self-reinforced its own exclusive arguments to the projection of a smaller remnant of converts than there may be, and thereby have limited God’s love by his own truth and justice. Pitting his own attributes against him in order to create a less-than-biblical view of God, his atonement and his redemption. This would thus be the emergent’s argument with evangelicals. (July 2011)



In brief,

1 - The Claim of Pluralism: “No view is exclusively true.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: It claims that its view (that no view is exclusively true) is exclusively true.


Anti-Foundationalism

Foundationalism in the philosophical sense may be defined as the position that here are self-evident principles at the basis of all thought such as:

1. The Law of Identity (A is A).
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not non-A).

3. The Law of Excluded Middle (Either A or non-A).

4. The Laws of rational inference.

Inferences take several forms:

Categorical  inferences includes the following necessary inference: a) All A is included in B; b) All B is included in C. Hence, c) All A is included in C.

Hypothetical  inferences include the following: a) If all human beings are sinners, then John is a sinner; b) All human beings are sinners. c) Therefore, John is a sinner.

Disjunctive inferences are like this: a) Either John is saved or he is lost. b) John is not saved. c) Therefore, John is lost.

One of the fore-fathers of the Emergent movement was Stanley Grenz who wrote a whole book against Foundationalism entitled: Beyond Foundationalism.

McClaren contents that: “For modern Western Christians, words like authority, inerrancy, infallibility, revelation, objective, absolute, and literal are crucial…. Hardly anyone knows …Rene Descartes, the Enlightenment, David Hume, and Foundationalism - which provides the context in which these words are so important. Hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extra-biblical words and concepts to justify one’s belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority” (McLaren, GO, 164).

So, the claim and refutation of anti-foundationalism can be states like this:

1 - The Claim: “Opposites (e.g., A is non-A) can both be true.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: They hold that the opposite of this statement (that opposites can both be true) cannot be true.


Anti-Objectivism

Another characteristic is the denial that our statements about God are objectively true. Grenz declared: “We ought to commend the postmodern questioning of the Enlightenment assumption that knowledge is objective and hence dispassionate” (Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism, 166).

1 - The Claim of Anti-Objectivism: “There are no objectively true statements.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: It is an objectively true statement that there are no objectively true statements.


Anti-Rationalism (Fideism)

Most Emergents have a strong doze of fideism. Grenz chided “Twentieth-century evangelicals [who] have devoted much energy to the task of demonstrating the credibility of the Christian faith…” (Grenz, Primer on Post-modernism, 160).

“Following the intellect can sometimes lead us away from the truth” (Grenz, PPM, 166). One might add, that not following basic rational thought will lead you there a lot faster!

McLaren adds, “Because knowledge is a luxury beyond our means, faith is the best we can hope for. What an opportunity! Faith hasn’t encountered openness like this in several hundred years” (McLaren, The Church on the Other Side, 173).

“Drop any affair you may have with certainty, proof, argument—and replace it with dialogue, conversation, intrigue, and search” (McLaren, Adventures in Missing the Point, 78).

Donald Miller confessed that “My belief in Jesus did not seem rational or scientific, and yet there was nothing I could do to separate myself from this belief” (54). He said, “My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect…. I don’t believe I will ever walk away from God for intellectual reasons. Who knows anything anyway? If I walk away… I will walk away for social reasons, identity reasons, deep emotional reasons…” (103).

“There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I understand them. A statement like this offends some Christians because they believe if aspects of their faith do not obey the facts of reality, they are not true” (201).

So the basic claim of anti-rationalism goes as follows:

1 - The Claim of Fideism: “There are no reasons for what we believe.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: There are good reasons for believing there are no good reasons for what we believe.

1 - The Claim of Fideism: “Knowledge is a luxury beyond our means.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: We have the luxury of knowing that we can’t have the luxury of knowing.


Anti-Objectivism (of Meaning)

Anti-Objectivism deals not only with truth (above) but with meaning (called conventionalism). Emergent embrace both. All meaning is culturally relative. There is no fixed meaning. Meaning is not objective.

1 - The Claim of Conventionalism: “There is no objective meaning.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: It is objectively meaningful to assert that there is no objective meaning.


Anti-Realism

Strangely, some Emergents claim there is no objective world that can be known. Rather, “the only ultimately valid ‘objectivity of the world’ is that of a future, eschatological world, and the ‘actual’ universe is the universe as it one day will be” (Grenz, Renewing the Center, 246).

1 - The Claim of Anti-Realism “There is no real world now that can be known.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: We know it is really true now (i.e., true in the real world now) that there is no real world now that can be known.


Anti-Infallibilism

Not only can we not know absolute truth, but there is no certain knowledge of what we do claim to know, even of biblical truth. McClaren insists: “Well, I’m wondering, if you have an infallible text, but all your interpretations of it are admittedly fallible, then you at least have to always be open to being corrected about your interpretation, right?... So the authoritative text is never what I say about the text or even what I understand the text to say but rather what God means the text to say, right?” (McLaren, NKC, 50).


RE Slater - A postmodernist would understand the difficulties inherent in the use of limited human language to describe God’s thoughts and intents – thus the constant parsing and re-parsing of the divine word of God until it can approximate some degree of truth to that generation’s psyche and soul that would compel the human mind and heart towards conviction, truth and love of God, his design, will and salvific mission. (July 2011)




1 - The Claim of Anti-Infallibilism: “My understanding of the text is never the correct one.”
2 - The Self-Refutation: My understanding of the text is correct in saying that my understanding of the text is never correct.


Anti-Propositionalism

Emergents, along with post-moderns, opposed propositional truth, that is that true can be stated in propositions (declarative sentences) that are either true or false.

Grenz wrote: “Our understanding of the Christian faith must not remain fixated on the propositional approach that views Christian truth as nothing more than correct doctrine or doctrinal truth” (Grenz, PPM, 170).

“Transformed in this manner into a book of doctrine, the Bible is easily robbed of its dynamic character” (Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 114-115).

1 - The Claim of Anti-Propositionalism: “Our view of the Christian faith must not be fixed on propositional truth (doctrine).”
2 - The Self-Refutation: We must be fixed on the propositional truth that we should not be fixed on propositional truth.

1 - Another Claim of Anti-Propositionalism: “Doctrinal truth is not dynamic.”

2 - The Self-Refutation: It is a dynamic doctrinal truth (of the Emergent Church) that doctrinal truth is not dynamic.

They fail to recognize that doctrine is dynamic! Ideas Have Consequences! For example, Einstein’s idea that “energy equals mass times the speed of light squared”had consequences—the atomic bomb! Likewise, Hitler’s idea (Nazism) led to the holocaust and the loss of multimillions of lives.

RE Slater - It is unfortunate that Geisler would unconsciously think that Emergents are Hitler-like; it feels like the egg calling itself the yolk when all along it may be guilty of the very charges of being “authoritarian police of religious rhetoric and beliefs” itself.  I will assume a polite retraction of this word-linkage and overlook an over-eager statement made too quickly, and too-quickly grounded in its own assurances rather than its own introspections. (July 2011)

Anti-Orthodoxy

The emergent movement is post-orthodox. Dwight J. Friesen suggests it should be called “orthoparadoxy.” He claims that “‘A thing is alive only when it contains contradictions in itself ….’ Just as he [Moltmann] highlights the necessity of contradictions for life, so I declare that embracing the complexities of contradictions, antinomies, and paradoxes of the human life is walking the way of Jesus” (in Pagitt ed., An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 203).

“Jesus did not announce ideas or call people to certain beliefs as much as he invited people to follow him into a way of being in the world…. The theological method of orthoparadoxy surrenders the right to be right for the sake of movement toward being reconciled one with another, while simultaneously seeking to bring the fullness of conviction and belief to the other…. Current theological methods that often stress… orthodoxy/heresy, and the like set people up for constant battles to convince and convert the other to their way of believing and being in the world” (Friesen, in EMH, 205).

1 - The Claim of Post-Orthodoxy: “We should not insist on being right about doctrine.”

2 - The Self-refutation: We insist on being right in our doctrine that we should not insist on being right in our doctrine.

Anti-Condemnationism (Universalism)

Many Emergents are not merely pluralist, but they are universalists. McClaren affirmed that: “More important to me than the hell question, then, is the mission [in this world] question." (McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, 114).

Rob Bell believes that Jesus reconciled “all things, everywhere” and that “Hell is full of forgiven people.” So, “Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making” (Bell, Velvet Elvis, 146).

“So it is a giant thing that God is doing here and not just the forgiveness of individuals. It is the reconciliation of all things” (Bell in “Find the Big Jesus: An Interview with Rob Bell” in Beliefnet.com).




RE Slater – Though poorly stated, both McClaren and Bell are speaking not to the emergent idea of hell but to the evangelical idea of hell, one that is too crowded with the justifiably condemned. But whether this is true or not, what they are attempting to say is that Evangelicalism too often preaches Jesus as Judge and their faith as the escape-route from hell.

What Emergents wish to say is that Jesus is love (while not denying the judge aspect) and that heaven here on earth (as well as in heaven later) is the real reason to come to God. Why would we not race to this image of Christ in the Now rather than wait for its “Latter” realization in heaven? And wouldn’t this be a more appealing reason to come to Christ than because of pure condemnation for the crimes of our sin and its sure judgments in hell?

Of course, a true understanding of love in its many aspects of truth and justice should not be lost, as any parent can tell you. But learning to love and to accept love is much harder than the too-easily administration of subjective human judgments. (July 2011)




Let’s analyze the claim of universalism:

1 - The claim: “All persons (free agents) will be saved.”

2 - The Self-refutation: But this is self-defeating for it is claiming that: All persons (free agents) will be saved, even those who do not freely choose to be saved.

C. S. Lewis pinpointed the problem with universalism when he wrote: “When one says, ‘All will be saved,’ my reason retorts, ‘Without their will, or with it?’ If I say, ‘Without their will,’ I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say, ‘With their will,’ my reason replies, ‘How, if they will not give in?’” (The Problem of Pain, 106-107). - Amen, RE Slater

Anti-Inerrantism

Most emergent leaders are not inerrantist. They believe that “Incompleteness and error are part of the reality of human beings” (McLaren, COS, 173).

“Our listening to God’s voice [in Scripture] does not need to be threatened by scientific research into Holy Scripture” (Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 116). “The Bible is revelation because it is the [errant] witness to and the [errant] record of the historical revelation of God” (Grenz, ibid., 133).

McClaren rejects the traditional view that: “The Bible is the ultimate authority…. There are no contradictions in it, and it is absolutely true and without errors in all it says. Give up these assertions, and you’re on a slippery slope to losing your whole faith” (McLaren, GO, 133-134). He adds, “Hardly anyone notices the irony of resorting to the authority of extra-biblical words and concepts to justify one’s belief in the Bible’s ultimate authority” (GO, 164).




RE Slater - The charge of “Inerrancy” has been previously addressed in this web blog (see the Calvinism section). Suffice it to say that the “doctrine of inerrancy” is a late addition doctrine to Evangelicalism in the 1970s that was self-imposed to better tighten Evangelicalism’s self-limiting boundaries to their religious beliefs.

There are many Evangelics who did not subscribe to its imposition then nor will they now and yet, they are still perceived as Evangelics, just not dyed-in-wool Evangelics. Emergents have this same understanding and do not feel the need to further define the bible’s authority with additional adjectives and propositions. Believing God’s word to be authoritative Emergents question our “errant” human understanding and the human language used to describe it. This is not to say that past orthodox doctrines are incorrect, just that they can be updated and re-applied to today’s postmodernistic jargons and mindset.

As science has loosened up its own ideas of classic vs. quantum sciences, so too is theology permitted to loosen up the rigors of its past languages and understandings. Thus allowing greater fluidity and dynamic application of the Scriptures to postmodern man’s dark demise. In a sense, Scripture is being “carefully re-evaluated and updated” by Emergents though many Evangelics are falsely stating that Emergents are “re-interpreting the Bible”. As testimony to this fact, there are more publications of commentaries and Bible versions than ever before, and evangelicals are the greater perpetrators of these volumes!  (July 2011)




In brief, the problem with the errantists view is this:

1 - The Claim of Errantists: “No extra-biblical words or ideas should be used to support the Bible.”
2 - The Self-refutation: It is a truth (of Post-Modernism) that no extra-biblical words or ideas (like Post-Modernism) should be used to support the Bible.

Yet this is self-defeating for If “No human writing is without error,” then emergent human writing is not without error when it claims that no human writing is without error.

Inerrancy is built on a solid foundation: 1) God cannot err. 2) The Bible is the Word of God. 3) Therefore, the Bible cannot error. To deny this, one must deny either: a) “God cannot error,” or- b) “The Bible is the Word of God,” or - c) both a and b.

However, God cannot err: Jesus declared: "Your Word is truth." (Jn. 17:17). Paul said, “Let God be and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). Indeed, “It is impossible for God to lie: (Heb. 6:18). And he Bible is the Word of God "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken." (Jn.10:34-35) “Laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the traditions of men…, making the word of God of no effect through your traditions.” (Mk. 7:8, 13) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God…."(2 Tim. 3:16) “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect.” (Rom. 9:6) “’It is written’…by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” (Mt. 4:4). St. Augustine's dictum is to the point: “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either [1] the manuscript is faulty, or [2] the translation is wrong, or [3] you have not understood.” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus 11.5)




RE Slater - As can be seen in Geisler’s own quotations, Evangelicalism limits itself by its own definitions and as long as you subscribe to those definitions you are an “Evangelic”. Emergents tend to recognize this apriori assumption, and as such, this is one apriori that is not subscribed to, and thus all resultant arguments are thrown out as valid. (July 2011)




IV - Emerging Problems with the Emergent Church

Other Errors of the Emergent Movement

In addition to all the above self-defeating claims of emergence, there are some other crucial doctrinal and practical errors. Here are some of them:

Anti-Substitutionism

Steve Chalke speaks of the Cross as “a form of cosmic child abuse” which contradicts the Bible’s claim that “God is love” and ‘makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies” (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, 182-183).

Anti-Trinitarianism

“I asked him if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one” (Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz 202).

Anti-depravity (Pelagianism)

Some (like Chalke and Tomlinson) reject depravity. The former said, “Jesus believed in original goodness.” (The Lost Message of Jesus, 67). The latter said it is “biblically questionable, extreme, and profoundly unhelpful” (The Post-Evangelical, 126).

Anti-Futurism (Amillennialism)

It has an overemphasis on the present spiritual kingdom to the neglect of Jesus’ future literal kingdom—an over realized eschatology.

Anti-Vapitalism (Socialism)

It has a social Gospel, not a spiritual Gospel with social implications. It adopts the agenda of the political left. Tony Jones said on David Chadwicks show that he and most of the Emergents he knew were voting for Barack Obama (6/22/08).

Ecumenism

The Emergent movement is a broad tent which includes numerous heresies (see above), embracing Catholicism, and even pantheism (by some). Spencer Burke said, “I am not sure I believe in God exclusively as a person anymore either…. I now incorporate a pantheistic view, which basically means that God is ‘in all,’ alongside my creedal view of God as Father, Son, and Spirit.” (A Heretics Guide to Eternity, 195).




RE Slater – Many of these additional charges may or may not be true, however, it is a legitimate charge laid to Emergents to better speak their faith (and, whether they like it or not, “indoctrinate it” – probably as loosely as is possible, without saying nothing, while retaining its antecedent orthodox Christian structure).  As in Evangelicalism, Emergent Christianity will have different flavors and colours within it.

For myself, I claim none of the above and have spoken to some of these issues as clearly as possible. For example, Pelagianism is a false charge and Amillennialism is too. This blog leans more to Arminianism than to Calvinism (and rightly so!) and teaches Inauguration Eschatology as a form of Realized Eschatology. But many of these issues can be further found on the Emergent web blog - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/ .

Suffice it say that Norm Geisler is lumping too many aberrant issues into the Emergent camp based upon the assumption that a few select Emergents speak for all Emergents. (July 2011)




Difficulties with the Emergent Movement

There are many difficulties with the Emergent movement. Here are some of the main ones:

1. Its central claims are all self-defeating.

2. It stands on the pinnacle of its own absolute and relativizes everything else.

3. It is an unorthodox creedal attack on orthodox creeds.

4. It attacks modernism in the culture but is an example of postmodernism in the church.

5. In an attempt to reach the culture it capitulates to the culture.

6. In trying to be geared to the times, it is no longer anchored to the Rock.

7. It is not an emerging church; it is really a submerging church.

Answering an Anticipated Objection

Some Emergents may wish to claim that: No self-defeating truth claims are being made. These are straw men set up by critics. In response we would reply that: Either they are making such truth claims or they are not. If they are, then they are self-defeating. If they are not, then why are they writing books and attempting to convince people of the truth of these views, if not always by affirmation, at least by implication?

While directed to another view, C. S. Lewis made a insightful comment that applies here as well: You can argue with a man who says, ‘Rice is unwholesome’: but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, ‘Rice is unwholesome, but I’m not saying this is true.’ I feel that this surrender of the claim to truth has all the air of an expedient adopted at the last moment. If [they]…do not claim to know any truths, ought they not to have warned us rather earlier of the fact?

For really from all the books they have written…one would have got the idea that they were claiming to give a true account of things. The fact surely is that they nearly always are claiming to do so. The claim is surrendered only when the question discussed…is pressed; and when the crisis is over the claim is tacitly resumed” (Lewis, Miracles, 24).

To re-cast the Emergent Movement, using titles from its own books:

It is not “The Emergent Church” but “The Submergent Church.”

It is not “A Manifesto of Hope” but is “A Declaration of Disaster.”

It is not “Refocusing the Faith” but “Distorting the Faith.”

It is not “Renewing the Center” but “Rejecting the Core.”

It is not “Repainting the Faith” but “Repudiating the Faith.”

The Emergent movement is not “A Generous Orthodoxy” but “A Dangerous Unorthodoxy.”

It is not the “Church on the Other Side,” but it is on the “Other Side of the Church.”

It is not “A Primer on Post-Modernism” but “A Primer on the New Modernism.”

It is not going to “Produce a New Kind of Christian” but a “New Kind of Non-Christian.”

In short, the Emergent Church is the New Liberalism As Mark Driscol wrote: “The emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity” (Mark Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformation REV, 21).


To put it to poetry:

The Emergent Church is built on sand
and will not stand.
Christ’s Church is build on Stone,
And it cannot be overthrown.
(Matt. 16:16-18)

RE Slater – All of the above is an evangelic summary of improper charges falsely and/or harshly claimed of Emergent Christianity as earlier pointed out throughout Geisler’s course paper. Contemporary books written against Emergent Christianity are commonly constructing these same false arguments. It is the prayer of this believer that Evangelicals spend more time better understanding Emergent Christianity than they currently are criticizing it. To accept it and be more open-minded to it. It certainly would be a help to this new movement to have well-grounded and conversant theologs as part of its congregational body.

However, if it took a decade for me to come-around to this topic, I suspect it may be too much to ask of many Evangelicals. I then pray Paul’s words that we all learn to get along and remember the fight is with the world and sin and devil, and not with each other. For we are speaking the same thing but to different audiences and in different (but similar) fashions. Ours is to the more global audience of postmodernism and not to the older structures of modernism. So be at peace then, my brothers and sisters, and let us love one another.  (July 2011)

Works Evaluating The Emergents Movement

Several works are emerging on the Emergent Church. The following is a select list containing valuable criticisms of the movement.

Adler, Mortimer. Truth in Religion.

Carson, D. A. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.

Carlson, Jason. “My Journey Into and Out Of the Emergent  Church”
(www.Christianministriesintl.org)

*DeYoung, Kevin and Ted Kluck. Why We’re Not Emergent.

Driscoll, Mark. Confessions of a Reformation REV.

Howe, Thomas ed., Christian Apologetics Journal of Southern Evangelical Seminary (Spring, 2008,

www.ses.edu)

Kimball, Dan. The Emerging Church.

Rofle, Kevin, Here We Stand.

Smith, R. Scott Truth and The New Kind of Christian.

Geisler, Norman. “The Emergent Church” DVD (InternationalLegacy.org).

MJ@InternationalLegacy.org


Conclusion

Of course, not all emergent beliefs are bad. De Young and Kluck summarize the situation well. They “have many good deeds. They want to be relevant. They want to reach out. They want to be authentic. They want to include the marginalized. They want to be kingdom disciples. They want community and life transformation….”

However, “Emergent Christians need to catch Jesus’ broader vision for the church—His vision for a church that is intolerant of error, maintains moral boundaries, promotes doctrinal integrity, stands strong in times of trial, remains vibrant in times of prosperity, believes in certain judgment and certain reward, even as it engages the culture, reaches out, loves, and serves. We need a church that reflects the Master’s vision—one that is deeply theological, deeply ethical, deeply compassionate, and deeply doxological” (Why We’re Not Emergent, 247-248).

NYT Review - "Half the Sky," Kirstof and WuDunn

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/books/review/Manji-t.html

By IRSHAD MANJI

Published: September 17, 2009

An ancient Chinese proverb goes that women hold up half the sky. Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn want that to be appreciated — on the ground. In the opening pages of this gripping call to conscience, the husband-and-wife team come out swinging: “Gendercide,” the daily slaughter of girls in the developing world, steals more lives in any given decade “than all the genocides of the 20th century.” No wonder Kristof and WuDunn, whose coverage of China for The New York Times won them a Pulitzer Prize, declare the global struggle for women’s equality “the paramount moral challenge” of our era.

HALF THE SKY

Turning Oppression Into Opportunity For Women Worldwide

By Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn

Illustrated. 294 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $27.95

Related

Times Topics: Nicholas D. Kristof

The Book’s Web Site

Multimedia

Their stories in “Half the Sky” bear witness to that bold claim. Kristof and WuDunn describe Dalit women, Indian untouchables, who swarmed, stabbed and emasculated a serial torturer and murderer — in a courtroom. Further north, Mukhtar Mai, the victim of a Pakistani gang-rape, did the unthinkable for a Muslim village woman. Not only did she expose her assailants, but she incurred the wrath of her country’s president, Pervez Musharraf, endured abduction by his henchmen, started a school and even made an ally of her resentful older brother.

“Half the Sky” tackles atrocities and indignities from sex trafficking to maternal mortality, from obstetric fistulas to acid attacks, and absorbing the fusillade of horrors can feel like an assault of its own. But the poignant portraits of survivors humanize the issues, divulging facts that moral outrage might otherwise eclipse.

Men, for example, aren’t always the culprits. “In Meena’s brothel,” Kristof and WuDunn report of an Indian girl forced into prostitution, “the tyrant was the family matriarch, Ainul Bibi. Sometimes Ainul would beat the girls herself, and sometimes she would delegate the task to her daughter-in-law or to her sons.” The narratives respect nuance, revealing both the range of barriers and the possibility for solutions.

Throughout, Kristof and WuDunn show faith in the capacity of ordinary citizens, including Americans, to initiate change — gutsy at a time when many Westerners who voice concern are ritually accused of interfering. Mingling tales of woe with testimonials to people power, the authors explain how tragedy can spawn opportunity. Their hope: “To recruit you to join an incipient movement to emancipate women.”

Little-known Westerners — doctors, teachers and students — serve as role models. Harper McConnell is a University of Minnesota graduate. Fresh out of college, she broke up with her boyfriend and entered the dating desert of Congo to oversee her church’s relationship with a hospital for women. “At the age of 23, Harper became the principal of her own school,” Kristof and WuDunn write about this young American who “jabbers away in Swahili.”

But “Half the Sky” prescribes some tough medicine: To be effective on behalf of invisible women overseas, Americans must “bridge the God Gulf.” That is, secular humanists will have to forge common cause with religious believers, emulating an era “when liberal deists and conservative evangelicals joined forces to overthrow slavery.”

Kristof and WuDunn repeatedly invoke the abolitionist project. Besides stirring emotions, the antislavery lens permits Americans to see an urgent obligation. When the West cares as much about sex slavery as it does about pirated DVDs, India “will dispatch people to the borders to stop traffickers,” they predict. “We single out the West because, even though we’re peripheral to the slavery, our action is necessary to overcome a horrific evil.” As proof, they detail how American diplomats and Congress spurred the Cambodian police to crack down on brothel owners. “Simply asking questions put the issue on the agenda.”

So it comes as a disappointment when Kristof and WuDunn seem to cut short their own questions. They entitle one of their chapters “Is Islam Misogynistic?” Their answer: Because ultraconservative Saudi Arabia has outlawed slaves, the Koran must be open to progressive interpretations on other human rights issues, like women’s equality.

The trouble is, laws ring hollow if they’re not enforced, something Kristof and WuDunn robustly recognize about female genital mutilation in Africa. Why not acknowledge the same about Saudi Arabia’s often appalling treatment of female domestic workers, whose condition Human Rights Watch has deemed ­“slavery-like”? Could their silence be traced to the “scolding” that Kristof received from a group of Muslim women in Riyadh?

One of them insists to him that Saudi Arabia’s ban on female drivers, and the related effects of a profoundly patriarchal culture, “are our problems, not yours.” Kristof doesn’t appear to question her. Yet later, he and WuDunn link “the boom in Muslim terrorists” to “the broader marginalization of women,” recalling that the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers cited a teaching about well-endowed virgins awaiting male martyrs in heaven.

Clearly, a connection can be drawn between global security and certain cultural customs in the Middle East. In that case, Muslim women’s problems are everyone’s problems. Despite all their reminders of our interdependence as humans, Kristof and WuDunn miss an excellent chance to help fellow progressives build backbone.

Perhaps a different encounter should be arranged for the two authors — with a Muslim woman in Sweden who hides immigrant Arab girls threatened by honor killings. She told me that many Western feminists condemn her because, she believes, they care more about looking tolerant than about saving lives. In confronting the failings of multiculturalism, secularists could move forward with evangelicals, as abolitionists did almost 200 years ago. Imagine the potential for progress.

Irshad Manji, a scholar with the Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service at New York University, is the author of “The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith.”

Christian Imagery in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One

The Lord of the Hallows

Christian Symbolism and Themes in Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, and Narnia

by phoenixweasley

posted November 27, 2010

I.

Christian Symbolism in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One: Missed Opportunities

I have seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One twice now–first on opening day and again yesterday–and there is something that has been bothering me about the film for a week now. I am profoundly disappointed by the absence of the two Biblical quotations Rowling included in the novel and which were left out of the theatrical version of the film. The first was from Matthew 6:21.

Harry stooped down and saw, upon the frozen, lichen-spotted granite, the words KENDRA DUMBLEDORE and, a short way below her dates of birth and death, AND HER DAUGHTER ARIANA. There was also a quotation: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows page 325)

This inscription is from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 6, verse 21, which should be examined in the context in which it appears in the Bible: This quotation is from Christ’s “Sermon on the Mount.”

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:19-21, NRSV)

We know that the tomb of Kendra and Ariana Dumbledore was designed for the film; a photo of it was published in the book Harry Potter Film Wizardry.

The quotation from Matthew 6:21 is visible at the bottom of the tombstone.

In an earlier blog post I explained the significance of the quatrefoil and the IHS which appear at the top of this grave marker. Here’s a quote from this earlier post:

http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/christian-imagery-in-deathly-hallows-film-photos-of-godrics-hollow-churchyard/

 

Quatrefoil: ubiquitous in Gothic architecture, the quatrefoil symbolizes the four evangelists, as do the Winged Man (Matthew), Lion (Mark), Ox (Luke), and Eagle (John) — the four beasts of Ezeckiel and the Apocalypse.

IHS: dating from the 8th c., this is an abbreviation for “IHESUS,” the way Christ’s Name was spelled in the Middle Ages (despite popular belief, the monogram stands neither for “Iesus Hominum Salvator” –”Jesus Saviour of Men” — nor for “In His Service.”) Popularized by St. Bernardine of Siena, the monogram was later used by St. Ignatius of Loyola as a symbol for the Jesuit Order.

I really missed seeing this Christian imagery in the theatrical version of the film. I also wanted the film makers to include more information about Dumbledore’s background and personal tragedies. Perhaps this need for more exposition in the film is the reason that the tomb of Kendra and Ariana was not shown in the theaters. Dumbledore felt a great deal of guilt about their deaths, a burden that he had to bear for the rest of his life.

I think that Dumbledore learned a lesson that Voldemort had not been able to comprehend: his “treasures” were not possessions or objects of power, but the people that he loved. If they had included this Biblical quotation in the film, it could have been made to tie in nicely with Ron’s return. The light from Dumbledore’s deluminator went into Ron’s heart and then guided him back to the one he loves most: Hermione. Where your treasure is there will your heart be also.

The “heart” can also serve as a metaphor for the human soul. Where Voldemort’s “treasures” (the Horcruxes) are hidden is where Harry, Ron, and Hermione will find the Dark Lord’s “heart”– that is, the fragments of his torn and mutilated soul. They will be the thieves that break into Gringotts to steal the cup Horcrux in order to destroy it in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two.

The tombstone with the quotation from Matthew 6:21 is discussed briefly in the video game based on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One. (Harry remarks that he did not know that Dumbledore had a sister.) You can see a video of this part of the game in the blog post that I made yesterday: http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/deathly-hallows-part-one-video-game-walk-through/ The Biblical quotation from Matthew 6:21 is not visible in the game walk-through however.

In the video game, Harry reads aloud the words inscribed on his parents’ grave marker–the second Biblical quotation Rowling included in the novel.

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

This is a quotation from 1 Corinthians 15:26. The quote can be seen on the Potters’ tomb in the theatrical version of the film but it is not discussed by Harry and Hermione as it was in the novel.

These photos of the Godric’s Hollow churchyard are from the Panini sticker book.

This is Rowling’s description of that scene which was omitted from the film:

Harry read the words slowly, as though he would have only one chance to take in their meaning, and he read the last of them aloud. “ ‘The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death’…” A horrible thought came to him, and with it, a kind of panic. “Isn’t that a Death Eater idea? Why is that there?”

“It doesn’t meaning defeating death in the way the Death Eaters mean it, Harry,” said Hermione, her voice gentle. “It means…you know…living beyond death. Living after death.” (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows page 328)

The theme of death and of life after death was one of the most important themes in the Harry Potter series. The omission of these lines from the film was a huge thematic flaw in my opinion.

II.

Christian Symbolism in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One: What They Got Right

The theatrical cut of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One did have a certain amount of obvious Christian imagery, which was very well done. Early in the film, when Hermione has erased her parents’ memories of her and leaves home, she walks down the street in the direction of a building which may be a church. (This is a scene that was not in the novel.)

When Harry and Hermione arrive in Godric’s Hollow, the sound of a church bell tolling can be heard as they walk down the street. When they arrive outside the graveyard we do hear the sound of singing inside of the little village church. The congregation is celebrating Christmas Eve. When Harry looks through the iron fence at the church graveyard and asks Hermione if she thinks his parents are in there, she assures him with confidence that they are. Once inside the churchyard there many are cross-shaped gravemarkers that are visible. There is no mistaking it: James and Lily Potter are buried in hallowed ground.

Then there’s the Sword of Godric Gryffindor:

The scene is as I described it in The Lord of the Hallows: Christian Symbolism

and Themes in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter.

It is on the day after Christmas that Harry and his friends begin to make real progress in accomplishing their mission to defeat Voldemort. Just as King Arthur’s knights followed the white stag through the forest to find the Grail Chapel, Harry followed the silver doe to a frozen forest pool where he saw a shape like “a great silver cross” (DH 367). It was the Sword of Gryffindor hidden beneath the ice. The sword is one of the most fundamental Christian symbols:

The Cross is God’s sword, held at the hilt by the hand of Heaven and plunged into the world not to take our blood, but to give us His. (Kreeft 224)

Harry, while wearing the locket, tried to retrieve the sword, but the Horcrux around his neck began to choke him. It was when Harry began to drown that Ron returned to save his life. Proving himself to be a true Gryffindor, Ron pulled the sword from the water and severed the locket’s hold on Harry.

Voldemort, like Satan the Father of Lies, made a desperate effort to claim Ron as his own, and Ron, like the weasel who strikes against the venomous serpent, was able to strike the first fatal blow against Voldemort by destroying the locket Horcrux with Gryffindor’s sword.

This quote was from page 81 of The Lord of the Hallows. The quote within the passage above which describes the Cross as God’s Sword is from Peter Kreeft’s wonderful book Catholic Christianity. J. K. Rowling herself described the Sword of Godric Gryffindor as being shaped like “a great silver cross” in the novel on page 367, (emphasis mine).

I gave chapter 8 of The Lord of the Hallows the title “Belief in God in the World of Harry Potter.”

Here’s an excerpt:

“How in the name of heaven did Harry survive?” asked Professor McGonagall at the beginning of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. (SS 12) This is the first of many examples of how the language of Christianity is used throughout the series.

In book one there is a reference to the concept of sin in the warning given to those who would steal from the Gringotts goblins: “Enter stranger, but take heed of what awaits the sin of greed.” (SS 72) Harry, Ron, and Hermione even manage to escape from a deadly plant called the Devil’s Snare. (SS 277-278)

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Mr. Weasley asks, “Good lord, is it Harry Potter?” (CS 39) Draco refers to Harry as “Saint Potter, the Mudbloods’ friend.” (CS 223) Dumbledore even leads the Hogwarts students and faculty in “a few of his favorite carols” at Christmastime. (CS 212)

In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban the manager of Flourish and Blotts says “thank heavens” (PA 53), Draco Malfoy says “God” (PA 113), Hagrid utters “Gawd knows.” (PA 274), and Remus Lupin says “My God.” (PA 363) Lupin also helps Harry learn the difference between losing one’s life and losing one’s soul. (PA 247) In these numerous references and in many others, there is evidence of a belief in the Christian God in the world of Harry Potter. (The Lord of the Hallows pages 69-70)

In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Rowling’s use of Christian references and images becomes more obvious than in the previous novels. Good wizard characters say “thank God” (Harry on page 74, Molly on page 78, Ron on page 142), and there are jokes about a wizard being “saint-like” or “holy” (George on page 74). That George Weasley would call himself “holy” (“hole-y”) refers to his missing ear, which was cursed off during a battle with the Death Eaters. St. George was a Christian saint, who, according to pious legends, was a dragon slayer, taking up arms against Satan, who appeared to him in the form of a mighty serpent. (The Lord of the Hallows pages 72-73)

George’s “holy” joke is in the film, in a particularly well-acted scene between the Weasley Twins. I also noticed two exclamations of “Oh my God!” in the movie. The first was uttered by Ron Weasley when he is in disguise as Reg Cattermole at the Ministry of Magic. The second exclamation was made by Hermione Granger in the tent when she makes the realization that the Sword of Godric Gryffindor can destroy Horcruxes.

The Deathly Hallow known as the Resurrection Stone is also mentioned by Xenophilius Lovegood after Hermione reads aloud “The Tale of the Three Brothers.” I loved the animation which accompanied her narration, particularly the appearance of the Angel of Death who ascends to Heaven with the third brother at the tale’s conclusion. We have seen the Angel of Death in a Harry Potter film prior to this one, in the graveyard scene in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Yes, there are action figures.

Is this the “Harry Potter and the Angel of Death” playset?

I am eagerly looking forward to the Christian themes and imagery that inevitably will be present in the film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two. If you are interested in the topic of Christian symbolism, imagery, and themes in the Harry Potter series, please consider reading my book, The Lord of the Hallows, which is available from www.outskirtspress.com/thelordofthehallows.

Five Things We Can Learn from Severus Snape

 

 

[Spoiler Alert: If you've not read Deathly Hallows

or watched the final movie, you should go and do that,

and then come back and read this post.]

http://newwaystheology.blogspot.com/2011/07/5-things-we-can-learn-from-severus.html

by Mason Slater

posted July 15, 2011

Last night, as I sat waiting for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to begin, I was looking forward to one character's story more than any other.

It wasn't Harry's, or Ron and Hermione's, or even Voldemort's.

No, the story I wanted to hear was the story of Severus Snape.

By the end of movie 7 part 1, the audience has been set up to hate Snape, and with good reason. Always a shadowy figure with questionable loyalties, in Half Blood Prince Snape kills Dumbledore. Soon after, with the rise of the Dark Lord, he is placed in charge of Hogwarts. As headmaster he oversees a brutal and oppressive school which lacks any of the light and magic of earlier years.

Yet things are not as they seem, and in Deathly Hallows we learn the true story of Snape. The story of a man who was tormented by lost love, who played his role for the greater good, and who was in the end one of the greatest heroes of the story.

Didactically, I think Snape's story provides a sort of traction that some of the others do not, and I want to look at five things we can learn from Severus Snape.

__________________

1. Our judgments about people are often wrong. In almost every book Harry and his friends suspect Snape is in on whatever evil is threatening them, all the more so after he kills Dumbledore. As it turns out he was on their side all along, and did more to protect and aid Harry than almost anyone else.

2. Rough exteriors are not the whole story. Admittedly, Snape is my favorite character in the Harry Potter series [so I was glad to see him vindicated when I read book 7]. But that isn't to say I find him to be a pleasant person, quite the opposite really. We learn some of why that is later on, but from beginning to end Snape is cold, short tempered, and at times rather cruel. Yet this exterior hides a person who dedicated his life to defeating the forces of evil.

3. Sometimes heroes are silent. At the moment of his death, the only person who ever knew how good Snape really was, was Dumbledore, who Snape had killed. He died as an enemy of all that is good in the world of Harry Potter, and it was only after he could no longer be thanked that the true story was revealed - why he betrayed Voldemort, how he did the difficult thing no other wizard could have done and deceived the Dark Lord, how he gave his life selflessly for people who might never know what he had done for them.

4. True loyalty comes at great cost. Sure, we all want loyalty and put forth some effort to be loyal to others, but we rarely consider the cost. For Snape, loyalty to Dumbledore meant living a double life, sacrificing everything he held dear, and even killing Dumbledore when Dumbledore commanded him to. In the end we find out that he was never a traitor, but instead had played his part perfectly to the very end.

5. Love changes everything. Snape was originally a Death Eater, a true servant of Voldemort. We learn in these last chapters that what drove him to Dumbledore was love, love for Lilly Potter. He had loved Lilly since childhood, and though his personality and obsession with the dark arts had driven her away, he never stopped loving her.

When he learned that Voldemort was searching for the Potters, he went to Dumbledore in an effort to protect Lilly. When she died, he spent the rest of his life ensuring her son was safe. The redemption of Severus Snape was, like so much in Harry Potter, because of love. In the end his one request was to look into Harry's eyes, because he had his mother's eyes.

__________________

- Have you seen the final film? What did you think of it?

- Who is your favorite Harry Potter character? Why?

- Be honest. Did you trust Snape?

__________________

The Bravest Man I Ever Knew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl7MW8u31u4&feature=related

Severus Snape's Farewell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S73dWB_Qt7o&feature=related

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Requiem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLozcBo8TxY&feature=related

 

 

Pastor: Clergy can love Harry Potter epic tale of good vs. evil

J.K. Rowling’s tale correlates to Ephesians  6

http://chronicle.augusta.com/things-do/entertainment/2011-07-15/guest-column-harry-potter-good-vs-evil

 

 

by the Rev. Cynthia Taylor

Guest Columnist

Friday, July 15, 2011

It seems as if the whole world has been holding its breath in glorious expectation until they could once again enter into the magical world of Harry Potter. Advance ticket sales for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two, reached more than $25 million.

It seems as if the only enemies in the world that Harry has are Lord Voldemort and the Death Eaters. But that hasn’t always been the case. It wasn’t all that long ago when not everyone was wild about Harry.

When the first Potter movie came out, The Augusta Chronicle was flooded with letters to the editor denouncing the Boy who Lived. Why? Because there was concern that reading or watching Harry Potter would lead countless scores of people into the dark arts.

The movie was denounced as anti-Christian and a bad influence on children with its portrayal of magic and sorcery. Passages from the Bible were quoted to bolster the argument that to enter the world of Harry Potter was to enter the world of the devil. It’s hard to imagine now, but whether a Christian should see the movie or read the books was a real controversy in evangelical circles.

Fast forward 10 years and the biggest controversy is to decide whether to brave the opening-weekend crowds or wait a few days to see the final film.

So, what has changed? For those of us who have always loved Harry, even amongst us clergy, there was always the understanding that this was an epic tale of good vs. evil.

At one point in The Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry asks his godfather, Sirus Black, if he (Harry) is a bad person. Sirus replies that Harry is a very good person to whom bad things have happened. It’s the goodness and courage of Harry in the face of evil that has made him so attractive.

Not long after The Sorcerer’s Stone was first released, America faced pure evil with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. You didn’t need to enter a magical world to face a power that did not wish us well; it was right here in our own back yard.

For many, especially children, Harry was the face of resistance against evil; it didn’t matter how young you were, you still had the power to fight darkness and win.

Ephesians 6 says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against … the powers of this world … against this present darkness. Therefore take us the full armor of God that you may be able to resist in that evil day.”

That was the fight of Harry, Ron and Hermione and remains the struggle for each of us today.

What might be the biggest controversy with Harry today? That it is the last installment and the deep wish that J. K. Rowling would go to her keyboard, unleash her talent and once again lead us into the magical world of Harry Potter.

The Rev. Cynthia Taylor is pastor of Church of the Holy Comforter, an Episcopal congregation in Martinez.

Things I Have Learned from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

A film publicity image release by Warner Bros. Pictures showing

Daniel Radcliffe in a scene from "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2."

[SPOILER ALERT]

That J.K. Rowlings writes wonderfully and that her movies were enjoyable good fun;

That J.K. Rowlings has a wonderful imagination;

That movie goer geeks love to dress up for a good movie;

That there will always be evil in the world to stand up against;

That sometimes evil wins but sometimes it can be defeated;

That childhood is a traumatic event for children;

That childhood responds enthusiastically to respect and love, challenge and wrong;

That childhood requires the closeness of friends in order to get through it;

That our darkest days and our most light-filled moments can be found in childhood;

That there are cowards in life, and those with weak wills, who can easily be influenced by fear and uncertainty;

That those seeking world power and domination get killed;

That those lusting for world power and domination are ruthless and always want more;

That those who hate and do bad things harm not only themselves but everyone around them;

That the concept of justice is an untiring theme in the world in which we live in;

That might does not make right;

That survival is the most right thing that can be imagined in times of evil;

That Harry Potter has two very good friends;

That Harry Potter was both severely misunderstood and doubted, but never doubted himself;

That Harry Potter later proved to be a tremendous inspiration to many;

That an eighth book by J.K. Rowlings was mercifully never written because its too hard to wait for it to be published;

That all sagas begin with good, a struggle with evil, and have a big war in the end;

That Disney has played this plot line for 75 years from cartoons to movies and has made a lot of money from it;

That light and darkness, truth and lies, pure hearts and evil spirits are always a constant;

But, personally, I liked J.R.R. Tolkien's Hobbit & the Lord of the Rings (LOTR) series infinitely better (my excuse? It was read earlier in my youth and I loved the legends and complexities!);

And, that I personally like the ending of the Hobbit and the LOTR infinitely better (though J.K. Rowling's series conclusion was quite acceptable);

And finally, that J.R.R. Tolkien's sagas, like J.K. Rowlings series, were both influenced by Christian themes and large world events (sic, WW2 and world-wide terrorism respectively).

(Oh, and great fictional saga authors use multiple initials in their names, and that their first names always begin with the letter "J" ! ).

- skinhead

[SPOILER ALERT]

J K Rowling: 'Christianity inspired Harry Potter'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/fictionreviews/3668658/J-K-Rowling-Christianity-inspired-Harry-Potter.html

by Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent

posted 20 Oct 2007

The pope may have condemned the Harry Potter books, but J K Rowling has now revealed that Christianity has been one of her major inspirations.

Breaking her silence on the much-debated question as to whether religious themes permeate her books, Rowling confirmed that they echoed her personal struggle with faith.

Speaking in America this week, she was open about the Christian allegories in her latest book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

The author said that she had always deflected questions on the issue in the past to avoid disclosing the direction in which the books were heading.

"To me, the religious parallels have always been obvious," Rowling said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

At the end of her latest and final installment in the series, there are specific references to Christianity and themes of life after death and resurrection.

At one point Harry visits his parents' graves and finds two biblical passages inscribed on their tombstones.

"They are very British books, so on a very practical note, Harry was going to find biblical quotations on tombstones," she said.

"But I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones ...they sum up, they almost epitomise, the whole series." (for more see - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/07/christian-imagery-in-harry-potter-and.html)

However the author, who was brought up an Anglican and is now a member of the Church of Scotland, said she still wrestled with the concept of an afterlife.

"The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It's something I struggle with a lot.

"On any given moment if you asked me if I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes - that I do believe in life after death.

"But it's something I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books."

Christians have been divided about the books, with some claiming that their popularity should be exploited to spread the Christian message.

Others, however, have demonised them for what they claim to be occult content, and Pope Benedict XVI described them as "subtle seductions" capable of corrupting young Christians.