True???
While pretending to ignore Bill's truth question, I thought we needed this graphic since we have the word 'emerging' in our title.Is this a severe oversimplification, or are these apt descriptions for these words? And whether they are "true" or not, is the PERCEPTION accurate? And... which would be worse - to question everything, to question nothing, or to answer everything...yet nothing?
via
posted by dan at 10:54 AM
6 Comments:
As an emerging Christian myself, I'd say the Emerging one is correct. I think questioning everything is good and necessary. Of course one should recognize 1) that you can't question everything all the time, or all at the same time. And 2) questioning is not the same as rejecting. We can question everything and yet still come back to some of the same answers we started with in the end.
The Fundamentalist one seems pretty accurate too.
I'm not sure about the Evangelical one. It's not that evangelicals don't question, it's just that, as my almost-atheist friend Helen would say, for most evangelicals there is a "Range of Acceptable Answers". You can ask the questions, but you'd better land on the right answers or else. Questioning is okay, but differing opinions on "essential" issues really is not accepted within most of the evangelical world in my experience. (Though what is considered "essential" will differ among evangelicals - anything from core doctrine to worship styles to political opinions.)
Dan,
As Mork from Ork would say, "Ah, humor. Ar ar!"
Good one.
Thanks.
My friend Brian Miller taught me some time ago to make a distinction between "emergent" and "emerging."
The characterization of the emergent person certainly is accurate. One critique of emergents is that they seem to like the game of questioning so much that questioning becomes an end it itself to the point that they choose questioning human things over actually seeking Jesus.
Bill,
I am often guilty of using humor as a defense mechanism. It is also sometimes a good way to defuse a tense situation though, and allow everyone a chance to breathe again. Occasionally it can even slap us upside the head.
This cartoon was probably an attempt at all three. I guess I wanted to acknowledge your question about truth, without having to give an answer. It's not that I haven't been thinking about it - it's a great question. It's more that I don't know exactly how to answer it (not even for you, but for myself). And I don't know that it's even because I don't have an answer, but maybe more that I'm afraid to be pidgeonholed. Hmm. Does that make me a postmodern?
That's why I think this cartoon is so good. It's funny, but the more I think about it, the less funny it gets.
I believe it is important for us to define truth. But I am afraid that what we sometimes do is define people more by our "perception" than by the actual reality.
Anyway, I'm glad you didn't take this as a knock against you - it wasn't. The finger points at all of us.
Dan,
So, the result of my post was to cause you to resort to a defense mechanism.
Hmmmm.
Interesting.
Guess that blows my "lukewarm" theory to pieces--at least as far as you are concerned.
Is it your belief that I am so wrong about the lukewarmness that the real issue is that those who participate here are so convicted by what I've written that they are incapable of expressing their thoughts?
I hope you understand that my intention was to provoke a conversation, not to condemn.
Dan Kimball has stated on this blog that he bases his theology on the Nicene Creed. The whole Radical Orthodoxy movement addresses the issue of truth by looking to theological foundations that come before the Reformation.
I was suggesting that in the CGGC we can address the issue of truth by looking to our own pre-modern or, at least, earlier sources.
What do you think about that?
Do you support Lew's suggestion that we create a forum for the discussion of this issue?
Bill,
No, I don't believe you are wrong about our "lukewarmness" at all. You convicted me of mine, and I believe you probably have done so to some others - I don't know.
In regards to a forum... I honestly don't know how well that would go over. How much conversation is generated by this kind of thing just on this blog?
I am not saying you were wrong about anything. But maybe it takes awhile for some of us to "warm up to" certain conversations.
Also, I agree with your suggestion that in the cggc we can address the issue of truth by looking to our own pre-modern or, at least, earlier sources. I think we SHOULD!
I don't think I fully understood what you were saying.
hey guys,
i just happened to stumble across this page, growing up in a central PA coG, and I have to say this is a good thing to get people thinking, but not correct.
The emergent part i think is dead on, questioning everything. the evangelical is a big of an exaggeration, like mike said, but i'd have to agree that laypeople in the Church could take some advice from the folks in berea (acts 17).
my main argument is the fundamentalist one. now this does depend on your definition of a fundamentalist. i generally hear it used as someone who takes the Bible as inerrant and literal, except in those cases where Christ is blatantly speaking in parable. if this is your definition, i would argue that the true fundamentalist is in the middle of this cartoon, yet the exact opposite of the evangelical. a real fundamentalist would not say "i answer everything", but "i have the answers to everything, though there are many i don't understand". a true fundamentalist, which i would say the 'radical orthodoxy' movement and those like it are made of, would question everything, but seek the answers to these questions in Scripture.
the way i think this cartoon could be corrected: emergent - i question everything and don't accept answers, at least not at face value. evangelical - i question little, and accept what is fed to me. fundamentalist - i question everything, and study the Word to find the answers, because It has them all.
that's my 2 cents anyway. God bless you all.
Post a Comment
<< Home