Mapping the Conversation
39 comments | Permalink
Michael Patton--whose posts are always worth reading--tries to map the emergers.
Here are the graphs--but of course, read the whole thing for explanation.
Here are the graphs--but of course, read the whole thing for explanation.
Update: I should clarify two things: (1) I'm not sure why Patton would put some of fundamentalism outside of orthodoxy--unless he's thinking of the hardcore legalistic types. (2) I'm not sure on what basis McLaren is considered more orthodox than, say, Jones.
Perhaps Patton will provide further clarifications in his upcoming installments.
posted by JT at Friday, February 15, 2008
39 Comments:
I appreciate what Mr. Patton has tried to accomplish here, and applaud his effort at pinning jelly to the wall, but I just have to say that I disagree with the bounds of his "orthodox Christianity."
I don't have a library of arguments ready to defend where I think each person falls or how wide the orthodox circle should be drawn, but just to put my cards on the table, I think it should be smaller.
Now I imagine there are some people who will love this assessment. But in the case that there are people who are a bit less familiar with all this stuff and think this is the be-all-end-all in mapping the "conversation," I think it should be known that this doesn't go down easy for everyone.
Where is Rob Bell? And why in the world is Brian Maclaren so close to the orthodox circle?
This post has been removed by the author.
It seems to me like there are some obvious men missing like C.J. Mahaney (good man), Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, and I agree that Rob Bell should have been on the map.
Also, is seems like John Burke should have been in the emergent camp.
Oh don't forget Tony Campalo, Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis.
I kind of doubt he was trying to include every well-known leader. Looks to me like he meant to be giving examples. Although I was a little surprised not to see Rob Bell placed somewhere.
I agree with Mike Riccardi. Patten said in the comment thread on his blog that he was not as familiar with Rob Bell and so didn't feel compelled to include him. He was only seeking to be representative not all-inclusive.
if Mclaren is orthodox, then Hell is going to be empty
Yeah, having a hard time seeing McLaren on the boundary of orthodoxy. Seems to be overly "generous".
But rather than critiquing specific placements of the names on the chart, or those that are lacking - the more fun exercise is for each of us to try to discern where WE land on the map. Hmmmm?
Chris,
I can't believe you would make such a heretical statement! What is your problem? If you have that attitude then you're the one who's going to be in hell. That comment made me sick, as if you're holy and pious and McLaren is going to hell like he's some big heretic. That comment absolutely disgusted me, and you should repent of it.
Luke,
I'll put it in other terms, McLaren is not orthodox at all and is a heretic.
Joel,
Well that's funny that a reformed theologian puts him on the border of orthodoxy then isn't it?
Also, I would like to ask you, have you read any of McLaren's works? Or do you just believe whatever the staunch conservative writes in a book review?
Heretic is a strong word my friend, and you better be dang sure before you attribute that title to anyone. Also, who determines the grounds for orthodoxy? The Westminster Catechism? Desiring God? Institutes?
I dare say that McLaren is much more "orthodox" than nearly all of us because he is taking actions against the injustices of this world, while we sit here on little academic blog criticizing brothers and sisters and seeing how many angels can dance on the head of pen.
Luke,
I seems as though you are defending McLaren as being non-heretical.
I am not sure if the gentleman you are in dialogue with here has read McLaren's books, but I have.
And yes, he is a heretic and may we pray that he repents and returns to a biblical understanding of hell, judgment, justification, the kingdom of heaven, etc.
Yes, McLaren has admirable concerns when it comes to geo-political issues and Christians should care about those things.
However, is it not possible to be faithful to scripture in your doctrine and have a heart for the issues McLaren speaks to like poverty, justice, 'colonialism', etc.
It is the true Gospel, when preached, that changes lives.
Jesus and the Apostle Paul both said, if I may paraphrase, that the saving of souls is the most important. What are the means by which that is accomplished, the preaching of the Word.
Shane
My problem isn't so much the size or location of the orthodox circle (or what Hank H would call the "pale"). My problem is that the circle keeps moving and growing and shrinking.
Lucas Defalco
Oh brother -- you can't list everyone in one diagram.
But that said, there's are arcs missing in the diagram -- the non-orthodox evangelicals like Osteen, Benny Hinn and T.D. Jakes.
I realize he was actually trying to lay out parameters for comprehending the emergent church, but it seems to me that the errors of Osteen turn out to look a lot like the errors of a Doug Pagitt in a different vocabulary or technical language. Osteen appeals to achievers and republicans; Pagitt appeals to the "art" class and democrats.
IMO.
Luke,
Yes I have read some of McLaren. I do appreciate some of the questions that he asks and therefor some of the issues that he is dealing with that we have ignored for far too long. However, just because of those things, I cannot give a man a free pass on many of the issues that Shane pointed out. And I too pray that he will return to or come to a biblical unterstanding of these great truths.
As to why Patton puts him on the edge of his orthodox circle, I can only say that as I understand orthodoxy, I could never put him in my circle...if i ever even had the guts to publish my own version of such a thing. I respect Patton, but disagree with him on this point.
Where would C.S. Lewis fit on this map?
Hi Justin. You are right, I was thinking about the more radical fundamentalism, not traditional fundamentalism, much of which assumed into evangelicalism in the last fifty years.
As for McLaren, it may be right that he would be better placed completely outside the circle. My thoughts were centered around soteriology. He seems more of an inclusivist than a universalist or a pluralist. It seems that the others are heading in that direction, while I am not sure that McLaren has definitely crossed that line. I could be wrong.
While I am uncomfortable with inclusivism (that Christ is the only way, but one does not necessarily have to have knowledge of Christ), it does not cross the line the way a more pluralistic stand does (that all forms of religion, epistemic or ontologic, are equally valid.
My main point is that there are many who take the name emerging and identify with the group who are definitely within the historic Christian faith.
Hope that makes sense.
OK, I give up. I've read the Patton article and all the Comments here. What is the definition of "emerging" and "emerging" in this context?? All I know is that I got turned on to Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll from this blog and he's Reformed, just like me. What else do I need to know (and the short answer is not champagne parties. Thanks in advance.
whoops, I meant to say "emerging" and "emergent" as in "what's the definition of "emerging" and "emergent" in this context"?? I also meant to close the parens, but I'll let that one slide.
Jesus and Paul never said that the saving of souls is the most important. In fact, Jesus said the most important thing is that we love God and our neighbor. Any my goodness, you're telling me just because the guy doesn't believe in a literal hell where people burn up, that he's a heretic. Give me a break! What's the big deal? You know what that tells me about McLaren? That tells me that he loves people so much that he doesn't want to see anybody go to this mythological place that Christians often describe. He has so much love for human beings, unlike 99% of us on here who seem to rejoice that people are going to hell.
I don't give a crap if he doesn't believe in a literal hell or not. And no, that is not grounds for calling him a heretic. The "true Gospel that changes lives," well what does that mean? What's the true Gospel? Reformed theology doesn't have the "true Gospel" wrapped up in it's essence. And no, the "true Gospel" doesn't all have to be preach in order for lives to be changed. We can forget some aspects in the "true Gospel" and lives can still be changed. Take hell for example. If we tell somebody about Jesus and what he has done for us, the life he lived, the love he has, etc., and that person comes to know God...but we forget to tell them about the horror of hell, then that person's life can still change.
And Hell is not a "great truth". Hell is a terrible truth, and I wish no human being ever went there. What else does he not believe in? The kingdom of Heaven? Well crap, there are a lot of people that don't even know what that means. What does he think about it?
You guys have a domino view of doctrine and it is simply unhealthy. McLaren is a Christian, he's not a "heretic", and he's doing more for the kingdom of God than all of us combined. We will be standing before Christ one day and be awakened about all the people we claimed as "heretics" (Bell, McLaren, etc), and yet they're in Heaven with Christ and Christ will ask us why we slandered them so much.
Can you tell me what McLaren believes in that is not "orthodox"? I mean, an unbelief in hell does not classify somebody as unorthodox for me, so sorry. And many people have differing views on justification than traditional Lutheran people. I'm just not seeing your "unorthodox" and "heretic" claims. You haven't provided me with near enough proof.
Luke:
You said this --
[QUOTE]
Jesus and Paul never said that the saving of souls is the most important. In fact, Jesus said the most important thing is that we love God and our neighbor.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the crazy thing is that Paul did in fact say
So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."
and he also said
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
So the idea that Paul "said that the saving of souls is the most important" is, frankly, uninformed.
As to Jesus, he was the one who said we shouldn't fear the ones who can punish the body, but that we should fear the one who can punish both body and soul; he was the one who said that his work of the Cross was the meaning of being "Christ".
Now, with that in mind, the view that somehow soteriology is the lesser doctrine and obedience to the law is the higher doctrine, frankly, undoes the Christian faith. It simply makes man's life a moral piggy bank which one hopes has more good pennies in it than bad.
Moreover, I think that it's at least as important to have the systematics of the thing lined out right, otherwise you wind up with something that sort of abominable and unworkable. That's not to say someone needs a fully-orbed systematic to be saved or sanctified -- I'd be willing to say that someone who doesn't have any theology but 1 Cor 15:1-4 in their theological workbook has a pretty good theology. It's when someone starts denying the undeniable or affirming the utterly untenable that they fall off the apple cart, if they were ever on it at all.
Michael --
dunno if you're still reading this thread, but I think you have wrongly-judged MacArthur. I think he falls a lot closer to the center than you chart him, even if his trajectory is from the fundamentalist side. I think his repudiation of legalism is clear, and his demand for sanctification -- which is where the lefties all go haywire -- is utterly sound.
Of course, I am influenced in that by my friends. :-) I'd be interested to see you do 150 words (you know: or more; you don't have to make a hobby out of it, however) in reply on that matter.
Luke,
I think most people on this site would define orthodox as holding to the historical documents of the Christian church such as the Apostle's and Nicene Creed, Chalcedon statement, and if you want to talk about protestant orthodoxy they would add some statements from reformation documents that required belief in salvation by grace through faith in Christ as an only means of salvation. That would be a statement about historical orthodoxy, and yes just denying the existence of hell would automatically put you outside the bounds of what Christians have believed for the past 20 centuries.
I think a more helpful question is what you personally think it means to be orthodox. If we are allowed to throw away such a foundation doctrine as hell and remain orthodox, what about belief in the virgin birth, trinity, ascension, forgiveness of sins, etc. Histroical orthodoxy is pretty easy to identify, we can just look at what our forebears believed, your version of orthodoxy, or McLaren's for that matter is much more difficult for us to understand since it apparently has no, or limited connection with what has been considered orthodoxy for 2000 years. I really would appreciate a list of things you thought someone needed to believe/teach to keep from being a heretic, or at least an admission that you don't believe orthodoxy and heresy are even valid categories and we can teach whatever we want as long as we "help people"
Frank, I do like MacArthur quite a bit. He is a strong voice and needed within conservative evangelicalism. The chart was meant to say that he tends more toward a conservative fundementalistic stand on most issues, not only in doctrine but attitude.
I don't believe he is legalistic, at least not in the proper sense where the Gospel is concerned. Yes, extremely conservative, a bit more than myself, but not in a way that denies or compromises the Gospel.
While I sometimes disagree with his methodology and question his integrity with how he goes about combating issues, I appreciate him very much. After all, he is a calvinistic dispensationalist!
You speak as if I'm arguing for works salvation, which I'm not. But I believe we are so vehement about a non-works salvation that we neglect works in the process, thus taking the opposite extreme. Need I remind you that faith is worthless without works. I don't know why we're so afraid to speak about doing good things and helping people. And helping people does not mean helping them to believe right theology.
You say it's easy to determine orthodox theology, well, not so much. You pick and choose who you claim as orthodox when you say that. In every generation the belief of Pelagianism has been present every bit as much as Augustinianism. So what do we do with that?
My orthodoxy comes from the biblical text, not from historical theology. If "orthodox" historical theology has always believed in complementarianism, then "orthodox" historical theology has gotten it wrong. "Orthodox" historical theology has never argued for inerrancy, so is that orthodox?
I am not going to write you a doctrinal statement claiming what I view as orthodox. However, I could assure that the list would be short and small. I'm arguing that living right is much more important than "orthodoxy", which Erasmus stated quite clearly...and I believe he's right. Now, go ahead and say I'm advocating that the Buddhist who lives well and doesn't follow Jesus is going to Heaven...which I never stated or implied. Also, even if belief in hell is "orthodoxy", then does that mean you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in hell? Come on...seriously, give me a break. It's easy for white, middle-class American evangelicals to vehemently affirm this, but go ask the Indian Dalit and see what he/she says about this.
Slippery slope arguments are immature and dead wrong 99% of the time. I'm saying if we are "orthodox" and neglect the least of these, then our orthodoxy is in vain and worthless. Sadly, evangelicalism is so concerned with orthodoxy, that they have neglected orthopraxy in the process. And I'm saying it's wrong for us to sit on a blog and try to figure out who's "orthodox" and argue about who is and who's not, when probably nearly all of our orthopraxy doesn't line up with our orthodoxy.
Centurion, Paul also said the law is summed up by loving your neighbor as yourself. Paul also said if we don't have love then everything is worthless. So your obscure proof-texts really do not prove the point at all.
Our soteriology is proven by how we live. And, although most reformed folk might have good soteriology (which I don't think they do), their lives don't back it up at all. Why are we afraid to say that living right and living good is essential to being a Christian? How you live determines where you will spend eternity...not how you believe. You can have the best theology on the planet, and if you neglect to live it out, then it's worthless.
Luke, I nominate your latest comment for Worst of the Year honors.
Hey Luke why not cool it with drawing a false dichotomy between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. You continue to impugn the motives and orthopraxy of many on this blog without knowing their hearts or lifestyles.
I do not think you would find one person here who would disagree with the idea that being a Christian means we will do good works as well (Jas. 2:14-26). Jesus was pretty emphatic that a good tree would bear good fruit, and a bad tree would bear bad fruit.
The point of many is that the full counsel of scripture, including the teachings of hell, are important to our theology.
You can continue to shill for McLaren all you want, but stop with the false either/or contrasts you keep drawing. Especially with your Christology being as reductionstic as to think that Jesus was simply a social activist or reformer, he was of course but he was all so much more. So as the God-man who atoned for our sins so that we might have peace with God (2 Cor. 5:21).
The concept of orthodoxy can be a little bit fuzzy. If it's absolute truth we're talking about, the Bible is clear on such things as hell, sin, the sovereignty of God, the Deity of Christ, etc. It is only slightly less clear about such as the particulars of compatibilism, the theology of baptism, etc. However, other areas are more debatable within orthodoxy like eschatology and principles of corporate worship.
My point is that the actual truth would be a point somewhere on this chart, but in an effort to get there, we're going to circle it with errant beliefs in an effort to get to the truth. I would say that there are some areas where we need to agree in order to be orthodox such as scriptural authority, the deity of Christ, the atonement, etc. But there is also a line that must be drawn where it is recognized that simply arguing for the truth with the correct orthodox presuppositions does not necessarily equate to true assurance of salvation. That's gotta be a tougher chart to draw.
Interesting. I'm curious too about the distinction between fundamentalism and evangelical faith is. I was talking with an Anglican friend of mine about this and what constitutes orthodoxy. I'd love to see a little more explanation along with the map as to what the distinctives are within these traditions. I know that's a little hard with the emergent folk.
How you live determines where you will spend eternity...not how you believe.
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. -- Rom 9:16
Seems like Paul thought the issue of one's eternity depended on God.
If that's true, we've got to understand how God determines to bestow eternal life on people, and how he withholds it. The Bible is pretty clear that that's faith and not by keeping law, whether the Mosaic or otherwise, also known as "living right."
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. -- John 6:40
I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. -- John 12:46
Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. -- Acts 10:43
and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. -- Acts 13:39
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. -- Rom 1:16
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. -- Rom 10:4
Notice how "everyone who believes," shows up so much. Notice also how this is contrasted with observing or keeping the law. Notice how Jesus and Paul exalt Christ as the sufficient one, and declare ourselves insufficient to "live right" enough to get into eternity.
Nobody is suggesting that we can just check off a list of doctrines that we superficially assent to and get into heaven. Nobody thinks that you can have cold orthodoxy and live a life that doesn't act like you believe in any orthodox doctrine. Certainly faith expresses itself through love and good deeds.
But the idea that we can just live our way into heaven, helping people along the way, without believing in essential doctrines is absolutely foreign to the teaching of Scripture. The greatest commandment is to love God. The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. The second is impossible without the first. The ultimate act of love is showing someone the glory of God. The ultimate act of hatred is obscuring the glory of God. We know that unbelievers cannot see the glory of God (1Cor 2:14). So the most loving thing to do, i.e., the way to live out the second greatest commandment, is to labor for the salvation of my neighbor's soul above all else.
This is not saying I neglect serving him in other capacities, but it is saying that all those other acts of service are subservient -- mere handmaidens, to use the language of MLJ -- to the preaching of the Gospel, because no matter how great his earthly needs, his greatest need is spiritual. He need fear not the one who can kill the body, as our Lord says, but the One who destroys both body and soul in hell (Lk 12:4-5). His greatest need is to see the glory of God in its fullness. And that doesn't depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy on everyone who believes.
I'm really being misrepresented on here. Note in my last post I said "how" you believe...not "if" you believe. Faith is the foundation to Christianity, I have no doubt about that. However, faith without living right is worthless. I was also talking about "how you believe" in the context of Christianity, not world religions. So you all can just keep attributing to me beliefs that I don't have and words that I don't say and make me look like I'm dead wrong. You're just misreading me, probably like you misread Bell, McLaren, etc.
So I know many people who believe themselves to be devout believers but they don't do anything for the kingdom of God. What does this mean? It basically tells me that their faith is faulty, because faith should drive us to action.
However, I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more people who emphasize orthopraxy in Heaven than their will be people who emphasize orthodoxy.
Was that a false dichotomy? Well, it's nothing short of what I read 90% of what you guys write on here and other conservative blogs all the time.
I wonder if someone like John Stott who, from my understanding, also does not believe in a literal hell would be "outside orthodoxy".
I'd love to hear thoughts on this.
Ryan Sather,
My understanding is that John Stott has admitted that the only reason he denied the doctrine of hell was that his mother was an unbeliever and he couldn't stomach the implications...I believe he has since said that he no longer believes this because he knows it is unbiblical.
Luke you continue with the false dichotomy even in this statement:
"However, I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more people who emphasize orthopraxy in Heaven than their will be people who emphasize orthodoxy."
A right understanding of these two does not seek for any separation. As James says when speaking of Abraham, that his faith and works were working together (Jas. 2:22). The two are so entirely intergrated and connected that a Biblical mindset of saving faith does not distinguish between the two. Once again highlighting what Jesus meant when he said "a good tree bears good fruit." By its very ontological nature that is what a good tree does, it makes good fruit.
So to continue to propose that in Heaven or anywhere else there will be a higher emphasis on one or the other is a false dichotomy.
Hear me well on this point. whether you are a crazy legalist who only emphasizes right beliefs but there is no fruit; or a liberal quasi-Christian activist who bags right doctrine and faith, in favor of good works, you have missed the synergy that is supposed to take place between our orthopraxy and orthodoxy.
So my point still stands quit trying to separate the two. And be more careful in assuming that "conservative/reformed" people are somehow less concerned with living out their faith than guys like McLaren and other Emergent fellows.
Ryan,
I agree with what you say. I totally agree that faith and works go hand in hand. However, often times people do not do it this way, or there would be no need for James to bring it up. I understand what you're saying...both should be emphasized equally and you cannot or should not dichotomize them. I say "amen brother" to you.
My only concern with associating things I've been saying to reformed people is this: I grew up and attended a reformed southern baptist church for 15 years (8-23 yrs). I know for a fact that the staff and most of the congregation only cared about and emphasized orthodoxy and doctrine instead of orthopraxy. I know they should not be separate, but they were. They didn't give a crap about loving their neighbor or showing mercy to others, they only cared about articulating the Trinity and hypostatic union correctly. It is this that I see a trend with in some (not all) reformed circles...and this is Pharisaism, period. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
Thanks for writing me back
Luke,
I think everyone that posts on this blog would agree with your last comment. I think most of us would all say also that an orthodox person with no evidence of fruit is probably cursed just like the liberal social activist that thinks Jesus is a mythological creature like a centaur. The key thing is that they are both cursed because they have not loved and trusted Jesus. It shows up for one in his false life and the other in his false beliefs.
Just like your church emphasize one for the sake of the other we could all cite "Liberal" or possibly "Emergent" churches that have swung the pendulum the other way. I encourage you to take a look at some churches who tackle both relatively well, or at least are trying to tackle both well despite innate sinfulness. I appreciate Redeemer Presbyterian in New York, Piper's Church, and Driscoll's out in Seattle. They all seem to be very serious about both loving their neighbor and telling the truth.
I would add that there is no love without truth. If you propagate lies unwittingly, that's one thing. But if you know the truth and deny it, keeping it from those who need it, then you do not love.
Luke,
I think you and I are in more agreement than disagreement. Truth is I come from a context exactly opposite of yours. I grew up in a large western city, that leaned liberal and had little concern for Jesus or the Bible. I did not grow up in a church environment, nor have I ever experienced one like which you describe from your upbringing.
I do understand what you are saying, and my only real point is that I have seen people on both sides of stressing orthoprxy or orthodoxy go astray. And in both cases I would be quick to point out to either side that they are in error and have done violence to the concept of loving God with all of our mind, body, and spirit. You do not get to pick just one, this is a true all or nothing in my understanding.
Thanks for hanging in there, and being willing to keep posting on this issue.
Ryan and Robin,
Thank you for your words. I appreciate coming onto a reformed conservative blog and being able to dialogue peacefully with a brother and sister even though I do not line up theologically or politically with you all.
I guess I tend to emphasize orthopraxy more because of where I came from. I totally understand and agree that both should be emphasized, but where I came from (reformed southern baptist) and where I'm at (a conservative somewhat reformed seminary) cause me to emphasize the "doing" more than orthodoxy. You all have certainly helped me see a balance between the two, and I hope I have with you as well (this is what the diverse body of Christ is about!).
I understand some people and churches swing to the extreme opposite of what I am describing, and, you're right, they are not much better. The Gospel should clearly be presented, but we should use our good works as a foundation to share that Gospel. A lot of places might do it this way, but I have not encountered many. They are just all about getting "souls saved" and then leaving them alone. This, as I'm sure we all agree, is unacceptable, as is doing a good deed for a neighbor and not sharing with him the love of Christ.
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the evangelical church needs to come to grip with the fact that we do not live in the 1920s anymore where they were counter reacting against liberalism. The liberals were emphasizing good deeds and no Gospel, the conservatives were emphasizing Gospel. In the process, evangelicals lost good works emphases and liberals lost Gospel emphases. Both sides need to grow up and realize that both are of equal importance, and we can't really practice one without the other.
I think another reason is that since we are children of the reformation, we tend to emphasize grace, grace, grace, while de-emphasizing works, works, works. Again, in the process, we have become somewhat afraid of good works because we don't want to lose the Gospel in process.
It's sad that it is like this in some circles, and it's great that it's not like this in others.
Thank you all for continuing to dialogue with me with humble spirits. I have appreciated and benefited from our conversation very much!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home