Simul appreciative et befuddled
One thing I appreciate about what is being called the emergent church is that its proponents stress the communal and relational aspects of the Christian life. They rightly point out that truth is to be lived out in and among the community that is the Body. The Church shouldn't be splintered as it is; we should be unified and live out our faith in meekness and humility with one another. They make much hay (good hay) about the 'one another' commands found in the Epistles. Arguments about lapsarianisms only serve to divide Christ's body; what we need to focus on is whether or not we love our wives and husbands and children in ways that pleases Christ.
But what truly befuddles and pains me is that the conclusion that is reached from the above premises is that propositional theology ought to be tossed out together. When it comes to lapsarian debates it's not as though they ought to be shelved in order to spend more relational time with each other, it's that lapsarian debates ought to be trashed and never brought up again. Those sorts of debates are frought with modern categories and modern categories ought to be jetisoned, ergo... What is happening is a tossing out of the baby with the bath water. It may be true that modernism has infected the church but postmodernism isn't the antidote and it is just as destructive. Maintaining that propositional theology ought to be done away with because it leads to idols doesn't entail that a lack of propositional theology frees us from idol making. Sure, we make idols out of our theologies. In my own tradition, men often worship the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of course they would abhor any such suggestion but when they gossip and bandy about the word 'heresy' (especially with regard to their Elders and brothers in Christ) they are appealing to their propositions rather than their Lord's words. But it doesn't (necessarily) follow from this that assenting to propositions leads to idolatry; it is the assent to propositions not derived from Scripture leads to idolatry. It is just as easy to make idols of wondering as it is to make them out of concepts (i.e., propositions). Catechumens make idols no matter what materials you give them; so, ceasing from catechizing doesn't answer the problem. We don't need wonder over concepts, we need concepts filled with wonder; both of which must be derived from Scripture.
But what truly befuddles and pains me is that the conclusion that is reached from the above premises is that propositional theology ought to be tossed out together. When it comes to lapsarian debates it's not as though they ought to be shelved in order to spend more relational time with each other, it's that lapsarian debates ought to be trashed and never brought up again. Those sorts of debates are frought with modern categories and modern categories ought to be jetisoned, ergo... What is happening is a tossing out of the baby with the bath water. It may be true that modernism has infected the church but postmodernism isn't the antidote and it is just as destructive. Maintaining that propositional theology ought to be done away with because it leads to idols doesn't entail that a lack of propositional theology frees us from idol making. Sure, we make idols out of our theologies. In my own tradition, men often worship the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of course they would abhor any such suggestion but when they gossip and bandy about the word 'heresy' (especially with regard to their Elders and brothers in Christ) they are appealing to their propositions rather than their Lord's words. But it doesn't (necessarily) follow from this that assenting to propositions leads to idolatry; it is the assent to propositions not derived from Scripture leads to idolatry. It is just as easy to make idols of wondering as it is to make them out of concepts (i.e., propositions). Catechumens make idols no matter what materials you give them; so, ceasing from catechizing doesn't answer the problem. We don't need wonder over concepts, we need concepts filled with wonder; both of which must be derived from Scripture.
posted by Josh at 5:53 PM
3 Comments:
js
It's interesting to think that we are all catechized. The emerging church/house church people all tend to think the same things/say the same things. Where are they getting this? The question is WHAT are we catechizing and are we at least cognizant of this phenomenon?
So many people are still griping about the mainline church who honestly have never even been in one. I think that the emerging church may be a backlash to the megachurch, the Willow Creek model, or to fundamentalism. I could be wrong.
Some interesting points here. I agree with both of you. The question is not whether, but which catechism we use.
propositions are not the real problem. but they are also not the "baby."
to the degree that propositions better enable us to love GOD with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, then they are useful and should be taught, believed, etc. to the degree that they distract from this call to love, they should be questioned and/or left behind.
it's not a question of modernism vs. postmodernism. it's not a question of enlightenment holdovers or german theologians. it's not about any of that. it's not about traditional vs. emergent, evangelical vs. mainline. all of that is missing the point.
do our propositions lead us to love? some may, some may not. do our catchisms lead us to love? some may, some may not.
why must it be more complicated than this?
Post a Comment
<< Home