Hi Brad
I've run out of time to comment, though I will later or tomorrow. I'm just about to watch IRobot with my wife first!
Propistional truth - can you tell me more about what you mean by that?
Cheers - Steve
First, precision on this would be for the philosophers and one might say my definition lacks clarity BUT this is what I mean.
By propositional truth, I mean the belief that knowledge can be codified and communicated in propositions or axioms. So "do word sentences have epistemic value." I would say that even if they have value in making approximations of the rules of life, they have value. I think as Christians we would say that the Word of God have the final authority in both description of real things through story from which we can derive axiomatic truth AND in delivering propositional or axiomatic truth. In other words, evangelicals will always refuse to give up clear axioms from scripture. For example, Paul articulates a logical arguement in Romans about the atonement. We cannot make clear statements that contradict Paul's claims to which evangelicals give authority. This is what Adrian is saying Steve Chalke is doing and why evangelicals must reject such theology.
Jesus say
cont.
Jesus says "No one comes through the Father but through me" This is an axiomatic proposition. Evangelicals by definition believe this claim. Therefore, evangelicals cannot accept and should not accept a theology that rejects modern commitment to axiomatic truth.
My post intends to say that the problem the emergent leaders are saying is true but their solution is wrong. The real problem is that Western Christians underestimate the church in God's program. This is a result of western individualism and not modern epistemology. If evangelicals can humbly address the ecclesiological problems with Western theology, then we can find a unified answer to a real problem which maintains the essential role of scripture as the foundation of our faith and practice that indeed holds Christianity together.
For example, see the church as a disciple-making machine that churns out sanctified individuals is not a proper view of the church. The church is an end in itself. It is the church
. It is the church itself that God is after. The witness of God’s glory in the community we call church is God’s program of redemption. Modern individualism is unable to understand community as an end in itself because of cultural issues NOT because we hold to a method that accepts propositions or because of conservative views of the atonement. Emergent thinkers have given the wrong solution to the right problem.
brad
I believe that is the main problem within the Emergent church. The Emergent church constantly disdains 'their father's church' and call their church 'a new approach to Christianity'.
To do this and reinforce that "God id doing a new thing", the Emergents have been found guilty of taking old concepts and literally change the names and terminologies of these concepts and re-wrapping them in new wrapping paper. It's bait-and-switch. It's false advertising.
Both sides need to learn respect for the work of the Holy Spirit in the last 2000 years of church history. I need to have more dialogue with people but I think they see the problem well but much of the solution is wrong. Let's keep up the dialogue.
brad
"Jesus is the way and the truth and the life." There are differences between treating this proposition as (1) true (which I agree is required for Christians); (2) as axiomatic (i.e. logically self-evident, which I do not think it is); and (3) as an axiom (i.e. as a premise for further logical deductions, which may or may not be appropriate depending on one's view of systematic theology).
There are many theories about the nature of truth. The correspondence/propositional theory defines truth as the agreement of the semantic value of a proposition and the world, e.g. "all swans are black" is true if all swans are black.
There may be serious inadequacies with this view from a Christian standpoint. When we are told that Jesus is "the truth" or that God is revealed most truly in Jesus, for example, it is hard to make use of this definition of truth. If we take "Jesus" as our definition of truth or the non-propositional revelation of God in Jesus as central, then "propo
Pensans,
This is good. I used the term proposition correctly BUT it looks like I did not use the term axiom or axiomatic correctly. This is good. I do not think axiom or axiomatic would be what I mean. I mean simply propositional. Also, I intentionally used "No one comes through the Father but through me" and not "I am the way and the truth..." because the former is a simpler poposition in that it does not involve what appear to be more difficult terms like "truth" or "life".
Good input. I will refrain from using axiom or axiomatic.
brad
Therefor the above comment should say, "No one comes through the father but through me" This is a proposition that evangelicals by defintion claim to be true.
brad
I hope this doesn't sound too blunt nor harsh. So here goes.
For many years I have thought along TotemtoTemple's line of thought. I've seen churches started basically out of rebellion. And of course they don't help their members at all.
In my study of revivals, those that were true tried to reform their churches but at times were thrown out of them. But they didn't leave out of rebellion, frustration or anger. Those that tried to separate and thumb their nose at their former churches failed. I see this in the cell church and emergent church movements. I have been on email discussion lists with these people and frankly, they are arrogant and hateful.
If they wish to reform the church, no problem. But perhaps they need more maturity and a better theological foundation?
For example, Paul articulates a logical arguement in Romans about the atonement.
Does he, though? His arguments are, to say the least, convoluted and strange, and I think this is one point at which I'd expect an emergent to grab on like a bulldog and keep shaking.
I gotta run out, but this is a very interesting topic, and an interesting post, so I'll have more to say after groceries are purchased.
Logical might not be the right word. My point is he uses propositions to make the argument. Evangelicals are evangelical because they (we) accept these sentences as being legitimate truths. Therefore, to come to better dialogue, I am proposing looking at ecclesiology not core doctrine (i.e. creedal dogma). I actually believe the solution is more rooted in ecclesiology anyway.
Example: The church as a "filling station" for grace. This is the sacramental model and I think it is limited yet prevalent. A better model of what is the church would be superior. For example, church as "model for kingdom human relationship". I believe the church is to be shine forth an apologetic based on the aesthetic beauty of the totality of our relationships.
I stand on the statement that Morally Beautiful Community which displays the moral attributes of God is the coalescing principle of our ecclesiology. AMEN!!!
brad
Diane and Bob,
I am strongly evangelical and am exhorting the evangelical side to make the first down statement of humility in the on-going discussions. The fight for the Glory of God in our generation is too vital for both groups who are passionate for Jesus to not find unity and learn to listen to each other and properly articulate a solution.
brad
Thanks Brad for the expansion of that.
I find it interesting that much of the debates in this area develop over things such as different views of the atonement, etc, most of which come from earlier periods in history.
Certainly there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides, and misunderstanding always seems to breed contempt, fear and hostility. Diane, I’m sorry you’ve experienced some of that hostility, your experience sounds unpleasant. I hope though that you take a pause before describing all members of the emergent church, however it is defined, as the same. I hope that were you to join our church one evening, you would find us welcoming and graceful, in about the same quantities as any church, though I would naturally hope more so!
Certainly I’ve experienced hostility myself the other way around, as well as grace and generosity. Speaking generally, I think it is always easier to see the judgementalism and arrogance in what we might call ‘the other side’, than it is
Certainly I’ve experienced hostility myself the other way around, as well as grace and generosity. Speaking generally, I think it is always easier to see the judgementalism and arrogance in what we might call ‘the other side’, than it is in our own, and I’m sure, being people as we are, that all sides have a fair helping of both of those.
Ctd…
The most striking thing about Adrian’s post is that he didn’t post anything written by the author or person themselves, rather descriptions that without some knowledge of the people themselves, would probably lead me to the same conclusion.
I think that those who are known as leaders in the emerging church are passionate about truth, and hold tightly to such statements as ‘no-one comes to the father but through me’, and the redemptive death of Jesus on the cross.
Statements such as: Whereas traditional evangelicals tend to see Scripture as the only source of theology, Grenz argues that we must also draw upon the theological heritage of the church and the thought-forms and issues of our historical-cultural context.
Are written so poorly. In fact what Grenz would suggest is that we must acknowledge that our own perspective is narrow, (all of us), and that we must draw upon our theological heritage, the church and understand how we ourselves see the world, as we draw upon script
This is such a poor description.. In fact what Grenz would suggest is that we must acknowledge that our own perspective is narrow, (all of us), and that we must draw upon our theological heritage, the church and understand how we ourselves see the world, as we draw upon scripture.
What I’ve written is quite different from what Adrian quotes, and has a very different implication.
Ctd…
In terms of propositional truth, - I would perhaps suggest that I am more limited in what I can propose as truth, than perhaps others would. Post-modernism is often linked with an entirely relativistic pov, which is increasingly inaccurate, definitively so in the church itself. Rather I would say that absolute truth exists, in the person of Jesus Christ, and it is through him, and through what he has provided that we come to know truth – in part.
Whether we, limited as we are can hold the truth of God is more difficult – we are inextricably bound to our culture, we see things differently than the church throughout history and some of what we hold dear, is relatively modern belief.
It’s not as clear cut as much of the mainstream evangelical position, but then much of that itself has developed as a reaction to the secular/scientific threat felt by the church as it grew.
Ctd..
After a break I’ve lost enthusiasm for the moment. I like what Brad has to say on this. I think we all need to learn more about grace, about accepting others as faithful followers of God, even when we don’t agree with each others positions, as we seek to understand them and understand why.
We need to learn to see past the extremes in all corners, and to avoid making judgments that ‘all people are x’. I really value all areas of the church. I don’t believe that the emerging church is about overturning anything else, but about offering an alternate view, as we have always had throughout church history. I find God in the midst of it, as much as I do in any church. I have a good theological education, and I find as much theological soundness as I do in most churches, which is to say some but not all!
I’ll look forward to carrying on this conversation.
Cheers - Steve
ps - Sorry for the messy continuation - I was erading the wrong number in word's word-count...
This is a rather disingenous point made by Steve who well knows that whilst in one post I may have made a poor job of quoting stuff which itself was taken from a book about emergents that I have in other posts quoted what Steve Chalke and Stuart Murray Williams have actually said.
I am more than happy for people to engage with me directly about specific individuals and what they do or dont believe. I dont claim to be able to identify an entire movement as liberal but there is no doubt that many emergents would hold to liberal positions on a number of issues.
Lets keep the discussion going in a godly direction and explore issues that grab us. This one will run and run- I suspect it will be one of the key subjects of my blogging for this year.
Adrian and Steve,
What about my perspective of looking at this issue as a call to come to agreement with respect the reforming our ecclesiology.
Please see the discussion at Gideon Strauss and Derek Melleby's blogs.
brad
I will brad
Adrian - I don't think this is disingenuous, as I was speaking about a specific post, from which you drew particular conclusions. I didn;t suggest a wider application.
Looking back it could be read as suggesting an intentionality there - I didn't mean to. I do think though that the quotes are unrepresentative of the positions and lives of the authors themselves. I heop you explore this more from the authors themselves.
Certainly there are those with liberal views and theology in the losley termed emergent church, much as there are those with incredibly right wing views in the rest of the evangelical church.
As you say though, I wouldn't suggest it as representative of the whole.
I'll coime back to you brad.
brad,
i'm looking forward to reviewing your promised future posts along these lines!
fwiw, I consider myself both evangelical and emerging (and I believe there's a lot of folks in the conversation like me) and my *primary* interest in the emerging church is its putting propositionality in its proper place. There must be a balance between the transpropositional and the propositional. We have to avoid the scylla of strict propositionalism *and* the charybdis of throwing out biblical information (i.e. an anti-propositionalism, which is not implied by the term "transpropositionality"). I honestly believe this balance can be seen in the spiritual mentoring practice of our Lord Himself.
blessings,
Stephen
Very good.I do think you are speaking of different ways of learning. I say this: "You don't learn gymnastics that way". Meaning it isn't by propositions or acaddemics that we learn a skill. Proposition or talking and writing becomes a means to "gymnastics". The skill is "love" and "grace" and how to display the moral beauty of God (i.e. the observable life).
brad
couldn't have said it better myself!
One of the things I've noticed in most of the emergent people's criticisms of evangelicalism is that they don't understand what they're criticizing. They tear down straw men or use terms in such a vastly different way that evangelicals hearing them may not understand what they mean. I believe this is why Tim Challies is so strong in his heresy hunt of them. I'm thinking I might just create an open post for comments and then have those with contacts in emergent church circles to advertize it so I can get a clear sense of what their criticisms are for better interaction. I suspect much of what they will say will be based on severe misunderstandings and misuse of philosophical terms, judging by what I've encountered so far.
Jeremy,
I do really think those educated in philosophy and that are evangelical can really help. Precision is needed. There is so much throwing out the baby with the bath water and over statements of positions. While at the same time, change is needed.
I hope we can get critical mass moving to where a unified and balanced voice wins the day.
brad
Hi Brad,
Thank you for introducing this matter. I look forward to hearing and learning more.
Check out this quotation:
"It is no exaggeration to say that the Christian church in our day is about to self-destruct because of its abandonment of biblical church government. How so? Because on the one hand, in the case of episcopacy, local congregations abound in number which have no recourse when an authoritarian churchman in high places forces his decisions upon them. The apostolic form of church government will deliver these churches from such hierarchical tyranny, for it is nothing short of tyranny when ecclesiastical bureaucrats lord it over local congregations and force unwanted priests or ministers on them or refuse them the priests and ministers they request. (Such practices happen regularly today.) The republicanism of biblical and early church government is the answer to ecclesiastical oppression."
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Dr. Robert L. Reymond, page 909.
I love the high ecclsiology. The problem is how we view the Church, not the individual, and so we need to seek to create morally beautiful communities--my Church's motto is "a joyful community of faith." I hope we live up to it.
What about the city set on a hill? Is it the Church or society. The purtains would ahve chosen both, and Ronald Reagan society. Is it both, or the the Church, alone, or the Church influncing society to be morally beautiful? And can we be morally beautiful in the current negative political atmosphere?
interest only mortgage loan texas interest only mortgage loan texas interest only mortgage loan texas. credit immediately loan personal poor credit immediately loan personal poor credit immediately loan personal poor.
Commenting by HaloScan
