Different Theological Views Within the Conversation
I have question: how do you all feel about different theological views within the emerging church conversation? I know that the emerging church doesn't have a specific detailed list of doctrines, but I've noticed that a lot of my peers are deeply influenced by Spong and Borg, and I don't always agree with them. I personally have a trinitarian view of Jesus. And when it comes to Easter, I side more with N.T. Wright than Borg; I believe the empty tomb changes everything.
After talking with some of my friends, my impression is that it's good to have different theological views, as long as no one says, "My theory of atonement is better than yours."
After talking with some of my friends, my impression is that it's good to have different theological views, as long as no one says, "My theory of atonement is better than yours."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Griffith on -
An Episcopal priest friend of mine asked a very good question of the "Emergent" a few months ago concerning what he reads and hears from many people in the Conversation: How is this any different than what was going on in the 1970's with the Mainline churches?
I've been a bit surprised of the number of folks I've heard that seem to be moving in the same direction of many Mainliners back in the '60's and '70's. Is this portion of the Conversation going down the same path or is there substantial difference? Does Borg or Spong work the same in Postmodernism as they did in Modernism?
-
Permalink Reply by Steve K. on -
Travis,
Speaking as someone in the EC conversation coming from a firmly evangelical background, I think there's quite a few people like you (and me) who still feel more comfortable with N.T. Wright than Borg or Spong. It's interesting (to me, anyway) that you sense the conversation has shifted so far away from that evangelical space into more of a mainline Protestant space that this is even a question!
FWIW, I agree with you - "it's good to have different theological views" in the conversation, as long as we can all learn to play well with each other (and others outside of the "Christian" camp entirely, as well).
Thanks for posting this question! I hope it sparks a good discussion here.
-
Permalink Reply by Jonathan Brink on -
Travis, I think the defining ethic (as opposed to doctrine) of the EC is love. And that means working it out in the spaces of belief, where there is obvious tension and argument. Can we stay in the midst of love and disagree. I think it is only possible to reach a space of agreement when we stay in the conversation. Unfortunately we're so good at defending our positions that conversation becomes very limited to small groups.
One of the real joys I always experienced in my cohort was the ability to live in that tension. We held it really well. And it led to some great conversations and new ideas.
-
Permalink Reply by Travis Mamone on -
I think part of me is still concerned with having the right doctrine. Maybe not to the point of being a heresy hunter (if I ever get that bad, shoot me!), but I've still got a discerning eye. Which I don't think is entirely a bad thing, except if I start saying things like, "My theory of atonement is better than yours." Plus, I forget that the emerging church isn't a series of doctrines that you HAVE to believe in. Sometimes I'm worried that I might not be "emerging" enough.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Sutherland on -
I'm new to the "emerging" discussion and to TransFORM. However I have been digging into Borg quite a bit lately. And I am currently wrapping up "The Last Week: A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus's Final Week in Jerusalem" by Borg and Crossan.
In it, after sharing their parabolic interpretation of Easter, they went on to say that they didn't think there was anything wrong with having a literal belief in the resurrection. You can believe it as literal or not, however what is more important is what it means to you.
For example, the well-known parable of the Good Samaritan is equally true and of great value whether the event actually happened or not. So as it is with other events in the Bible, both those that take them literally and those that doubt them can equally be robbed of the stories value, if the belief/non-belief is not accompanied by a deeper life changing meaning. So as of recently, this is the approach I've been taking with all of the Bible's more fantastical stories.
Don't know if that helps. I just wanted to get involved in a conversation :) Thanks for the opportunity!
© 2013 Created by Steve K..
Powered by
