tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post7990944043441056101..comments2024-01-27T13:13:38.405-05:00Comments on Biblical Theology: "Living the Life of Jesus," the Emerging Church, and Redemptive HistoryMatthew S. Harmonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17506399043911656897noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-31664255807860078582008-03-07T05:13:00.000-05:002008-03-07T05:13:00.000-05:00Here is a quote by Brian Mclaren regarding the cro...Here is a quote by Brian Mclaren regarding the cross and Hell. Make up your own minds..<BR/>"[T]his is one of the huge problems with the traditional understanding of hell, because if the Cross is in line with Jesus' teaching, then I won't say the only and I certainly won't say ... or even the primary or a primary meaning of the Cross ... is that the Kingdom of God doesn't come like the kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes thru suffering and willing voluntary sacrifice right? But in an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no, that's not really true. At the end God get's his way thru coercion and violence and intimidation and uh domination just like every other kingdom does. The Cross isn't the center then, the Cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-75245118422893202322008-03-07T05:08:00.000-05:002008-03-07T05:08:00.000-05:00Regarding Brian McLaren and his taking "a Girardia...Regarding Brian McLaren and his taking "a Girardian line of thinking" on the cross. Brian McLaren doesn't believe that the Bible is the inerrant an authoritative Word of God, so why would you expect him to have any understanding on the central and most important event in the bible and in human history - the cross of Jesus Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-14154188521912360232007-08-04T21:10:00.000-04:002007-08-04T21:10:00.000-04:00In my experience (and I consider myself emerging-f...In my experience (and I consider myself emerging-friendly, but not emerging/gent), perhaps part of what Matt is observing has to do with multiple theories of atonement. I know of one emerging church in particular that prides itself on not limiting itself to "merely" a substitutionary view. While many in the EC are not likely theologically astute enough (not a jab, it's just my considered opinion) to articulate, for example, theosis, I find most are open to other atonement theories. Maybe this is one cause of the phenomenon Matt's observed? <BR/><BR/>Also, in the interest of fairness, I'm not sure Gibbs and Bolger represent the street version of emerging terribly well (at least not the American variety). It's my hope that the Kimballs, Driscolls, and McKnights of the world will win the day in their insistence on <I>both</I> orthopraxis <I>and</I> orthodoxy. <BR/><BR/>NathanHatushilihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744812804293984501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-13875504872410356692007-08-01T12:48:00.000-04:002007-08-01T12:48:00.000-04:00I don't think Scot (or myself, I hope) said not to...I don't think Scot (or myself, I hope) said not to criticize; I think it was more of a warning about using as broad a brush as Matt was doing—something I am very guilty of myself. It is necessary to be wary and discerning of the theology of all movements, especially our own traditions!<BR/><BR/>I fail to see how the emergent/emerging is more guilty of watering down the cross than a seeker church; in fact, I suspect they are less guilty. For example, I know of a seeker church that has a big US flag in front of their church, but not a single cross in the building. They even use the lack of a cross as a selling point! Now <B>that</B> is hard for me to swallow as good theology.<BR/><BR/>Jamesjpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017353888045816159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-89664781782450251712007-07-28T19:01:00.000-04:002007-07-28T19:01:00.000-04:00This is so typical of every conversation on the em...This is so typical of every conversation on the emerging church. An observation is made and right out of the box, someone points out that they are not all the same. <BR/><BR/>We get the fact that they are not all the same. Dr. Harmon is, however, raising a very serious issue about some of them and what appears to be a stream in that movement. It needs to be addressed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-77104697502196189522007-07-27T17:16:00.000-04:002007-07-27T17:16:00.000-04:00I agree that we need to be careful in the way that...I agree that we need to be careful in the way that we speak of the emerging/emergent movement, because theologically speaking it is not monolithic. But I do think it is necessary to raise appropriate concerns at the theological direction that many in the movement are headed. And I must confess that I do not see many (there are some) who are willing to publicly come out and say of other emergents: "Nope, too far, that is not faithful to the Scriptures" and then distance themselves from those in error.<BR/><BR/>As for the comparison to the Jesus movement, a similar outcome may play itself out for emergents. But in the mean time I think it is necessary to raise theological concerns when the gospel itself is at stake, and given what I have read from at least some in the emergent movement the gospel itself is at stake.<BR/><BR/>Lord willing I will post again on this subject, probably to my own peril :)Matthew S. Harmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17506399043911656897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-12799294168276124702007-07-27T16:07:00.000-04:002007-07-27T16:07:00.000-04:00Matt,Having lived through the interesting days of ...Matt,<BR/><BR/>Having lived through the interesting days of the early-mid 1970s, I think Scot is onto something. If someone were to try to write a summary of the theology of the "Jesus Movement" they would have been very hard pressed to find a consensus at the time. There was no doubt that God was moving; there was also no doubt that the enemy was moving, too.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that when we look back on the "Emerging/Emergent movement" in 10-15 years, we will see some of the same phenomena which we now recognize from the "Jesus Movement."<BR/><BR/>What do you think?<BR/>Jamesjpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017353888045816159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-75160212520296047952007-07-26T10:11:00.000-04:002007-07-26T10:11:00.000-04:00Thanks brothers.I did not read Anderson's book car...Thanks brothers.<BR/><BR/>I did not read Anderson's book carefully, but it is an attempt to show how emerging churches in the NT worked things out.<BR/><BR/>You are right, I'm sure: some minimize the cross. And it needs to be a warning. I just think we need to be careful when talking about "the emerging movement/church" and then summarize it all in some kind of theological point. It just doesn't work -- yet. Perhaps in five or ten years this will all be clear. I feel the way we did at the beginning of the Jesus movement in the late 60s and early 70s. They were wild at times; they settled down into something like the Calvary Church movement!<BR/><BR/>Girard sees a scapegoat mechanism at work in history and societies; rivalries crush scapegoats to deal with their tensions; the tension is gone. Jesus identifies with the scapegoat; God indentifies with the victim; scapegoat mechanism is ended in Jesus' cross. There's something here; Brian seems to be close to this in his Secret Message. It is not enough, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-44273322974238340192007-07-24T23:09:00.000-04:002007-07-24T23:09:00.000-04:00i don't think you've been unfair. you stated you w...i don't think you've been unfair. you stated you weren't posting about everyone in the whole movement.<BR/><BR/>however, i do think this is a concern. i regularly get the comment that i have just not read enough to know the movement. i read more and check things out, and i keep getting comments that it's not enough.<BR/><BR/>when we're talking about the cross, we shouldn't have to read a lot. and in my opinion simply using the word cross, speaking of the cross, or even acknowledging Christ died on the cross for us does not make a lot of sense unless you explain why.<BR/><BR/>i'm not going to say they don't talk about the cross, but i would say it's fair to claim they don't talk enough about it.danny2https://www.blogger.com/profile/13010556674654842010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-41117438939683487502007-07-24T12:48:00.000-04:002007-07-24T12:48:00.000-04:00Scot,Thanks for stopping by. Your question is fair...Scot,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by. Your question is fair, and if my post implied that ALL in the emergent conversation miss the mark on this, that was a failure on my part to communicate clearly. I have not had an opportunity to read your book on Jesus and his death, and look forward to your forthcoming work on atonement theory.<BR/><BR/>As you well know, reading even a fraction of the material out there is a significant challenge. My comment was not intended as a definitive statement that none of the emerging movement voices speak of the cross (its centrality to the NT is such that it can hardly be avoided). Perhaps I could have been more careful and targeted in my post.<BR/><BR/>So let me give one example. In his book, "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches," Ray Anderson barely mentions the cross in his chapter on Christology. In fact, he makes the puzzling statement, "Pentecost is the beginning point for a theology of Jesus Christ because the Holy Spirit reveals to us the inner life of God as the Father of Jesus and of Jesus as the Son of the Father" (48). Pentecost? I just find it discouraging that in a whole chapter on Christology that the cross is barely mentioned.<BR/><BR/>I know Anderson does not speak for everyone in the emerging movement, but this is a troubling omission. And I do not find Anderson to be unique in this omission of the cross. Or perhaps it is better to speak of pushing the cross to the side at best of the discussion of who Jesus is and what he did.<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps clarify my thoughts. I am still sorting through this web. You are a welcome visitor.<BR/><BR/>P.S. If you don't mind, perhaps a short explanation of a Girardian view of the atonement would help. I assume you are not referring to the former Cubs catcher, former Marlins manager, and current commentator Joe Girardi :) (I figured you would appreciate the reference being a Cubs fan and all).Matthew S. Harmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17506399043911656897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-31493672891224868212007-07-24T11:47:00.000-04:002007-07-24T11:47:00.000-04:00Thanks for the contribution, Dr. McKnight. What e...Thanks for the contribution, Dr. McKnight. What exactly do you mean when you say that McLaren and the rest have written on the "cross"? If you mean that they have written about living a life <I>modeled</I> on the cross, I've certainly seen what some of them have said on this.<BR/><BR/>But is there a place where McLaren (or the others you mention) writes or speaks at length on the atonement? He always seems so elusive on this question, and I honestly just want to know exactly where he comes down on the issue and whether he creates a "canon within a canon" in his application of Scripture to the question (as those outside the emerging movement so often seem to be accused of).<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your input, and my apologies, Matt, for not commenting on your post qua post, but instead shamelessly (ab)using your blog as a way to get at Dr. McKnight!Bryan C. McWhitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17041068865631893392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-73693211753634444472007-07-24T11:13:00.000-04:002007-07-24T11:13:00.000-04:00Thanks for this Matt.I will say this: I've written...Thanks for this Matt.<BR/><BR/>I will say this: I've written one book on Jesus and his Death and another on atonement theory is coming out in a month. I'm not only part of the emerging movement, but I was recruited for an emergent village series to write on the cross.<BR/><BR/>Brian McLaren has written on the cross, and seems to be taking now a Girardian line of thinking on the cross.<BR/><BR/>Grenz and Franke and Shults and Volf are each, to one degree or another, emerging theologians -- and plenty of cross in their writings. Dan Kimball doesn't shy away from the cross.<BR/><BR/>So, I want to ask: Who are you talking about? <BR/><BR/>Some in the emerging movement or as a whole?<BR/><BR/>Scot McKnightAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25676168.post-63980172976888047962007-07-24T09:53:00.000-04:002007-07-24T09:53:00.000-04:00Hey Matt!You are not being unfair. It has always ...Hey Matt!<BR/><BR/>You are not being unfair. It has always struck me as odd that there was little talk of the uniqueness of Christ and his life and mission on earth. <BR/><BR/>On the cross issue, I do think it depends from church to church on this one. In fact on Sunday I was at an emerging church here in Philly and there was a time after the "sermon" for the members of the group to talk about what's going on in their lives. Someone spoke up and mentioned the cross and following Christ in sacrifitial love every day. As you said, one example does not negate your point, but I do think it depends from church to church. I do know that many seem to equate "following Jesus" with "helping the poor." Certainly this is a major aspect of Jesus' life on earth and what we should be doing, but it is not everything. <BR/><BR/>Just my thoughts....wish I could be there for the class. <BR/><BR/>For His Glory!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com