Bzzt. WRONG! “And the WORD became FLESH.”

Flesh!

You seem to be directly attacking the verse I quoted. Whatever happened to, “you shall know them by their love for one another”?

I am not saying propositional truth is useless or has no place. We communicate and create meaning (sociologically speaking) through language. (After all, I’m an English major. I should know this!) It is not, however, the only kind of truth. After all, if a person claimed Christ with their mouth, but failed utterly to live it out, how would their “truth” be sweet to anyone? It would only be a disgusting lie in the ear of the hearer. BOTH are necessary kinds of truths.

And excuse me, how is criticizing propositional truth not a direct attack on the Word of God found in the Scriptures?

Here’s a better question: How can truth be known without proposition? LIFE is lived out, Brittany; TRUTH is proclaimed by the mouth. Nobody can discern that I believe in the resurrected Christ just because I abstain from sex, watch my language, etc. etc. Only when I tell an observer, propositionally, what I believe, will my beliefs become sweet to them, because until a proposition enters the picture, my beliefs can only remain unknown.

In the beginning was the…? And the… was with God, and the… was God. Any of this ringing a bell?

You will find nary an emergent answering a question straightforwardly, which is why you had to qualify your assessment of “A Generous Orthodoxy” with, “…as I understand it.” It is merely a “wind of doctrine”.

Sorry Brett. Better to be up front about my position than tiptoe around it.

Is much appreciated and encouraging.

Emeth x

Re: Tommy Nelson: Would it be better if people just believed what others told them? Huh?

Also, what exactly is wrong with the phrase “generous orthodoxy”? I believe that McLaren is trying to address the problem of elaborate doctrinal checklists, not purporting universalism. As I understand it.

Brett, I’m glad to see that you’re engaging postmodernity openly. I think many of your assessments are right. It’s had many effects on the American church that I think are beneficial – questioning modern ecclesiology and missionology (is that a word?), an increased emphasis on the community over the individual and revitalizing the arts (hurrah!), just to name a few. The way I understand it, postmodernity (although there are many different forms and understandings of it – perhaps I should refer to it as “one of the postmodernities”) fought back against the modernist worship of propositional truth, and believed that there are other (equal, perhaps better) forms of truth. Truth is lived out, rather than declared by mouth.

Anyway, that’s my two cents.

And if you want a firm grasp of postmodernism, by all means, read postmodernists. But supplement that reading with some people who consider themselves outside the camp.

Modernism:
Man can know truth apart from divine revelation; e.g., reason replaces revelation. It began with the French Revolution and was carried on through the Enlightenment. It made atheism an intellectually valid option AFTER Christianity had taken the world by storm. Big names include Voltaire, Thomas Paine, all the founding fathers who were Deists, George Orwell, George Bernard Shaw, and Thomas (or is it Alduous?) Huxley.

Christian opponents include Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, and the oft-quoted C.S. Lewis.

Postmodernism: Not that man can know truth by divine revelation, but that man simply CANNOT know truth. Began in the 60’s with the drug culture (which only makes sense if you think about it). The relationship between postmodernism and ‘relative truth’ really is undeniable, I think. The emerging church is an attempt to reach out to this kind of people, but this kind of people simply will not be reached. You don’t cure insanity by becoming insane.

I don’t mean to be overly critical of the emerging church, but let me make this comment. I think everyone here has a high respect for Will Martin, don’t they? He’s the kind of guy who believes the right things and also “lives worthily” of it, isn’t he?

Well, I remember he was always talking about this study of the Song of Solomon put out by a guy named Tommy Nelson. This very Tommy Nelson happens to be preaching at a conference at school as I write these very words. Mr. Nelson made this remark concerning the emergent church:

“It consists of alot of people who just don’t want to be told what to do and what to believe.”

Considering the titles of such books as “A Generous Orthodoxy” and remarks in which a black, square-rimmed, glasses-wearing ‘preacher’ calls into question just how essential the virgin birth is to our religion, I think Mr. Nelson’s assessment is spot on.

Is there anything wrong with Calvin, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, A.W. Tozer, etc. etc.? These guys were prophets. Let’s read THEM along with the Word of God.

Frankly, I get tired of having always to be ‘relevant’. All I hear is, “That Hansel is SO hot right now.”