I've taken a bit of a break from reading comments and posting on this blog over the last week. Some perspective has been good too :) So far I've been underwhelmed by coffee invitations from those who are concerned about the state of my eternal soul, but that just means that they don't read this blog. In just over a weeks time I'll be at a friend's wedding where there'll be many people I know - a lot of whom fall into the "we're worried about Rog" category and possibly some who believe I'm going to hell. So it'll be interesting to see how that dynamic works itself out in a social situation - something I'm strangely looking forward to (and it'll be good to see some old friends I've lost contact with).

But moving swiftly along. Cantrell strongly criticises the emerging church as people who reject clarity, speaking both of the "clarity of the gospel" and "the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture." According to him, the emerging church denies both and is therefore interested in confusing people about what the gospel actually is and what Scripture is actually saying. Here we have the core of his critique and this is what I'd like to talk about next. I'll deal with it in depth later, but for now let me say that the emerging church is not about trying to muddy the waters when it comes to the gospel or Scripture, but is in fact asking questions about what the gospel actually is and what Scripture is, in fact, saying - because we understand that these have already been muddied by, amongst other things, reductionist thinking which would claim to possess God in its descriptions of God.

Brian McLaren was asked, in his talk at TGIF in Johannesburg, what his response is to those who criticise him for rejecting the authority of Scripture. Brian's reply was illuminating:

I reject the authority of their interpretation of Scripture...I do not reject Scripture.

Of course, if someone cannot see that all reading of Scripture (and reality) is interpretive - and the question then shifts to, "Is this a faithful reading of the text?" - but rather claims that his reading is simply "this is what the Word of God says," he will strongly reject someone who questions his interpretation of the Gospel because, in his mind, to question the validity of his interpretation is to question Scripture itself. I believe there is a difference.

To those who say the emerging church is watering down the Gospel to appeal to a post-modern mind, Brian replied:

I am trying to show the ways in which the Gospel has already been watered down to appeal to a modern, colonial mind.

Dr Kenzo Mabiala says that theological work done in Africa has the imperative to differ from theology from the West, and must have the courage to denouce Western theology - which "came of age during the rise of colonialism" - as being used to seeing itself as the centre around which other theologies must orient themselves (in other words: theological arrogance which claims that Western theology is the only correct theology, and all other theologies need to understand themselves in relation to Western theology).

In other words, the Gospel and Scripture are central in emerging church thinking, and what I wish critics would understand is that asking a question about "What does this mean?" and "How do you know?" is not the same as rejecting the answer, or rejecting clarity. In fact, the emerging church is probably not going to come up with new answers to existing questions, but gives us a different way of understanding the the answers we already have.

Unlike those who would seek to offer a different set of answers to theological questions, those within the emerging conversation are offering a different way of understanding the answers that we already possess. In other words, those involved in the conversation are not explicitly attempting to construct or unearth a different set of beliefs that would somehow be more appropriate in today's context, but rather, they are looking at the way in which we hold the beliefs that we already have. This is not then a revolution that seeks to change what we believe, but rather one that sets about transforming the entire manner in which we hold our beliefs. In short, this revolution is not one which merely adds to or subtracts fro the world of our understanding, but rather one which provides the necessary tools for us to be able to look at that world in a completely different manner: in a sense, nothing changes and yet the shift is so radical that absolutely nothing will be left unchanged. - Pete Rollins, How (not) to speak of God, p7

In the next few weeks I'm going to posting a new series on "Clarity vs mystery" and explain an approach to these two which, far from seeing them as opposites, understands them as somehow related.

 

Technorati Tags: criticism, Emergent, Tim Cantrell, Brian McLaren, emerging church

--x--
This post is a part of a series of responses to an article in the August 2007 edition of Today Magazine written by Tim Cantrell (available online). The full series is:
Emergent or Divergent?
Part 2: When is misquoting someone and ignoring context ok?
Part 3: Tea break (and why I won't throw vegetables at Tim)
Part 4: Truth, Scripture and Clarity
Part 5: Rob Bell and denying the Virgin Birth
Part 6: Emergent, Emergent Village and the emerging church conversation
Part 7: Clarity vs Mystery

Hi
I am in 'discovery mode' about emergent church (asking questions!). I agree with what you have said about Scripture and its interpretation. How do we go about finding a standard new hermeneutic? Or is there no standard? Will the Christian church ever be able to agree? Not that it ever has, really, but it seems to be becoming more divergent. Is this a problem? Are our foundations on rock or shifting sands? I'm interested in ideas! Jenny

reply to this comment

Posted by: Jenny Hillebrand 07 Sep, 2007 - 16:12:39

FOr an extension to thsi conversation, one of the most incisive and inspiring writs on Interpretation of Scripture I have seen of late is "Sola scriptura and its pitfalls" by Steve Jones.

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 07 Sep, 2007 - 20:29:26

Hi Jenny

When it comes to hermeneutics, I think we always must realise that our hermeneutic is provisional - in other words, we constantly need to be going back to the Scriptures and asking, "What is the text saying?"

Historical work is essential - if you have a decent connection, download this talk in 10 parts where N.T. Wright talks about this necessity.

I'll also be posting soon on his "5th Act Hermeneutic" which gives us a way to read - and live - Scripture in a way which is faithful to the Biblical narrative (will be posted in the next 6 days - I promise!).

Will the church ever agree? Probably not. A good approach is this one: "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity."

I hope that we move away from seeking the FINAL "one hermeneutic to rule them all" SOLUTION and move beyond that, embracing a proper confidence in our faith, live and reading, and not trying to construct the ultimate, impenetrable systematic theology (for God is always bigger than the tools we use to describe Him).

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 08 Sep, 2007 - 17:40:07

Also check out Stephen's post about context within hermeneutics - it's pretty good :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 12 Sep, 2007 - 20:32:36

How about using a missional hermeneutic? Go to this page from Andy Rowell where he records the the following lecture:

"What would it mean to read the Bible with an explicit methodological starting point in an ecclesial location understood as fundamentally missional? Join us for our sixth annual session focused on such questions, as Princeton Theological Seminary professors Darrell Guder and J. Ross Wagner present their work on missional hermeneutics in the seminary classroom. We anticipate a thought-provoking and productive discussion."

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 15 Dec, 2007 - 14:04:38

<p>You will need to do a little bit of Prom Dressesand visit some Cheap Prom Dress to find out the important information you are not familiar with buying Prom Dresses 2010. It's always good to take the Prom Dress and check prices and see Prom Dresses 2010 you can afford. Everybody has a Cheap Prom Dresses taking some time out to check your local Plus Size Prom Dresses can really help you with your plan.Typically the type of <a href="http://www.wholesale-weddinggowns.com/plus-size-

reply to this comment

Posted by: 3333333333333 28 May, 2010 - 08:11:45

The Wholesale Wedding Gowns belonging to the an excellent high quality Wedding Gown needs to be colorless the clarity or Cheap Wedding Dresses, the capacity of the light to pass readily round the Low Price Wedding Dresses the cut will be the shape of the wholesale wedding gown the cut may also have an effect on the actual short wedding gown all appearance of the designer wedding gown.A poorly cut one will not casual wedding gown. The carat is the weigh from the formal wedding gownthat will have an impact the strapless wedding gowncost of the diamond.If you are trying to find diamond jewelry which simple wedding gown big and striking then a asscher or emerald cheap wedding gown is going to do.

reply to this comment

Posted by: wedding 28 May, 2010 - 09:19:12

Warning: Parameter 1 to NP_Captcha::event_FormExtra() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/futurech/public_html/old/admin/libs/MANAGER.php on line 319

Name:
Email / URI:
Remember Me

Subscribe for email updates updates

Click here to manage subscription