|
 |
|
|
|
We continue to be amazed by the enthusiastic interest in the work of emergent, a conversation and friendship of which we are a small part. This conversation is bringing together a wide range of committed Christians and those exploring the Christian faith in wonderful ways, and many of us sense that God is at work among us. As would be expected, there have also been criticisms. A number of people have asked us to respond to these criticisms. These ten brief responses will, we hope, serve to clarify our position and suggest ways for the conversation to continue constructively for participants and critics alike. It is our hope and prayer that even our disagreements can bring us together in respectful dialogue as Christians, resulting in growth for all concerned.
First, we wish to say thanks to our critics for their honest feedback on our books, articles, speeches, blogs, events, and churches. We readily acknowledge that like all human endeavors, our work, even at its best, is still flawed and partial, and at its worst, deserves critique. We are grateful to those who help us see things we may not have seen without the benefit of their perspective. We welcome their input.
Second, we have much to learn from every criticism – whether it is fair or unfair, kindly or unkindly articulated. We pray for the humility to receive all critique with thoughtful consideration. Where we think we have been unfairly treated, we hope not to react defensively or to respond in kind, and where we have been helpfully corrected, we will move forward with gratitude to our critics for their instruction and correction. We especially thank those who seek to help us through cordial, respectful, face-to-face, brotherly/sisterly dialogue. As we have always said, we hope to stimulate constructive conversation, which involves point and counterpoint, honest speaking and open-minded listening. As a sign of good faith in this regard, we have invited and included the voices of our critics in some of our books, and as far as we know, have always treated these conversation partners with respect. [1] We have also attempted to make personal contact with our critics for Christian dialogue. Even though most of these invitations have not been accepted, we hope that the friendly gesture is appreciated.
Third, we regretfully acknowledge that in our thought, writing, and speech, we have at times been less charitable or wise than we wish we would have been. Whenever possible we will seek to correct past errors in future editions of our books; when that is impossible, we will make other forms of public correction.
Fourth, we respect the desire and responsibility of our critics to warn those under their care about ideas that they consider wrong or dangerous, and to keep clear boundaries to declare who is “in” and “out” of their circles. These boundary-keepers have an important role which we understand and respect. If one of your trusted spiritual leaders has criticized our work, we encourage you, in respect for their leadership, not to buy or read our work, but rather to ignore it and consider it unworthy of further consideration. We would only ask, if you accept our critics’ evaluation of our work, that in fairness you abstain from adding your critique to theirs unless you have actually read our books, heard us speak, and engaged with us in dialogue for yourself. Second-hand critique can easily become a kind of gossip that drifts from the truth and causes needless division.
Fifth, because most of us write as local church practitioners rather than professional scholars, and because the professional scholars who criticize our work may find it hard to be convinced by people outside their guild, we feel it wisest at this juncture to ask those in the academy to respond to their peers about our work. We hope to generate fruitful conversations at several levels, including both the academic and ecclesial realms. If few in the academy come to our defense in the coming years, then we will have more reason to believe we are mistaken in our thinking and that our critics are correct in their unchallenged analyses. [2]
Sixth, we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history – and we honor the church’s great teachers and leaders from East and West, North and South; yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus; no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors; no, we do not endorse false dichotomies – and we regret any false dichotomies unintentionally made by or about us (even in this paragraph!); and yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We regret that we have either been unclear or misinterpreted in these and other areas.
But we also acknowledge that we each find great joy and promise in dialogue and conversation, even about the items noted in the previous paragraph. Throughout the history of the church, followers of Jesus have come to know what they believe and how they believe it by being open to the honest critique and varied perspectives of others. We are radically open to the possibility that our hermeneutic stance will be greatly enriched in conversation with others. In other words, we value dialogue very highly, and we are convinced that open and generous dialogue – rather than chilling criticism and censorship – offers the greatest hope for the future of the church in the world.
|
My heart has been blessed. I was developing a debilitating phobia regarding evangelicals, though that is an important part of my own heritage growing up in the Evangelical Mennonite Conference. However, if these emerging church guys are evangelical I am greatly relieved, and I can once again humbly wear the evangelical moniker with pride. Thanks guys, for your concern for Truth and the church, and for your integrity in taking a strong stand for truth over rationalism. I firmly believe you are the best hope for the future church. Lived truth is more malleable than objective universal absolute smash-your-head-against-a-rock truth, but it also has a longer life span (wonder why?). God bless you.
If you all indeed find 'great joy and promise in dialogue and conversation' and affirm that 'truth' is of the utmost importance, you will address my proposition that the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on either the Old or the New Testaments.
You write "Seventh, we have repeatedly affirmed, contrary to what some have said, that there is no single theologian or spokesperson for the emergent conversation."
Then my question is "Who exactly does this article represent?"
I would very much appreciate an answer! Thank you! Brian
brian,
please note the 7 names of the co-authors who represent a wide theological point of veiw. these names are the most sited individuals in the books, websites, etc, that commented on the emerging church, at that time. they do not repersent anyone other than themselves and their communitties.
|
|
|
|
(75)
My heart has been blessed. I was developing a debilitating phobia regarding evangelicals, though that is an important part of my own heritage growing up in the Evangelical Mennonite Conference. However, if these emerging church guys are evangelical I am greatly relieved, and I can once again humbly wear the evangelical moniker with pride. Thanks guys, for your concern for Truth and the church, and for your integrity in taking a strong stand for truth over rationalism. I firmly believe you are the best hope for the future church. Lived truth is more malleable than objective universal absolute smash-your-head-against-a-rock truth, but it also has a longer life span (wonder why?). God bless you. Posted by Henry riesen | Posted at 05/05/2006 9:09 AM
If you all indeed find 'great joy and promise in dialogue and conversation' and affirm that 'truth' is of the utmost importance, you will address my proposition that the doctrine of the Trinity is not based on either the Old or the New Testaments. Posted by Vynette | Posted at 07/05/2006 10:35 PM
You write "Seventh, we have repeatedly affirmed, contrary to what some have said, that there is no single theologian or spokesperson for the emergent conversation."
Then my question is "Who exactly does this article represent?"
I would very much appreciate an answer! Thank you! Brian
Posted by Brian Bish | Posted at 01/04/2007 3:31 PMbrian,
please note the 7 names of the co-authors who represent a wide theological point of veiw. these names are the most sited individuals in the books, websites, etc, that commented on the emerging church, at that time. they do not repersent anyone other than themselves and their communitties.
Posted by spencer burke | Posted at 01/04/2007 8:06 PM