GroshLink

The other morning Theresa and I had a breakfast conversation regarding various election concerns including universal health care which combined private and public elements.  I must confess no silver bullet hits home for me as we muck around in the messy nature of the fallen-ness of creation, human culture, and individual/familial/societal sinfulness.  None-the-less, may God grant us as the people of God, an extension of the Kingdom of God, the grace to step forward in the blessing of others and the creative redemption/re-creation of our families, neighborhoods, towns/cities, society, culture, and world.  Join our family as we make this a focus of our prayers today.

Why I am not a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox ... a well articulated post by Scot McKnight. Check it out.  I ramble on a variety of topics at #60 and comment on the Cubs loss at #61.  Below's a significant section of his statement, any programmers have a comment on the "wiki" analogy which winds through his statement?

Second, the biggest reason is how I read the Bible. As will be a little more clear in my Blue Parakeet [Note from Tom: I wonder how this will compare to How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth], I believe the Bible establishes a clear framework for a vital characteristic of forming all theology. The framework is what I call the “wiki” nature of gospel and theological expression. That is, God spoke to God’s people in Moses’ day in Moses’ way, in David’s day in David’s way, in Isaiah’s way in Isaiah’s day, in Jesus’ day in Jesus’ way, in Paul’s day in Paul’s way, and in John’s day in John’s way. There is, then, a clear pattern: the gospel and God’s revelation participates in “wiki” (or ongoingly renewed and renewable) versions. What this means is that there is an ongoing pattern of development and a recognition that the former days can get swallowed up in the present days.

This, you might be tempted to think, supports becoming part of a later church that takes its “wiki” responsibilities very seriously. Not so! I say back. Yes, this “wiki” understanding of the Bible reveals the need to speak the gospel in each culture in an ongoing way; yes, this means the assumption of responsibility was a good thing. But I think the RCC and EO render authority in the ecclesia instead of in Scripture and in Spirit to make Scripture clear. So far as the church partakes in that Spirit, it has an authoritative message; so far as it doesn’t, it loses its authority.

Now here’s my point: both the RCC and the EO have captured the Spirit in the Church so that Church too often has become Authority. One example, hardly foolproof, illustrates my point: RCCs and EOs talk about Church; Protestants talk about Scripture. It is their emphasis that I like — and I wish each talked more of Spirit.

If you haven't visited InterVarsity Christian Fellowship's Faculty Ministry website, or haven't done such in quite awhile, then click here to check out the recently upgraded site and abundance of helpful articles, audios, and videos. 

And if you're an Emerging Scholar, Graduate Student, or Faculty member, take a moment to check out the Emerging Scholars Network (ESN) and Following Christ 08, December's National Graduate & Faculty Ministry Conference. 

When I spoke at Penn the other night, a student wondered whether I was advocating the Emergent Church Movement. Why? Because of my relationship to InterVarsity's Emerging Scholars Network (ESN) and my passing around of The New Conspirators: Creating the Future One Mustard Seed at a Time. As I've always understood the emerging in ESN as developing (i.e., from undergrad to grad to postdoc to faculty), I had never thought of the association. And I was passing around Tom Sine's book in relationship to a story regarding Randy Pausch's life, one in which he left a lecture by Tom Sine. This led to a brief conversation regarding the Emerging Church.

And this hasn't been my only recent conversation on the topic, so when I came across Scot McKnight's McLaren Emerging: In his last two books, Brian McLaren presents more clearly than ever his vision of the gospel, the article caught my attention and I figured that posting a link to it would be a great idea as McKnight is as close as I get to the Emerging Church (unless one starts exploring Newbigin and the missional church movement). I particularly disagree with those who claim to return to the Bible by setting aside all of God's work through his people across time/geography or seek to piece together various Church practices without any recognition/interest of their original purpose/meaning, and/or those which question the centrality of the cross in the overall Biblical story (creation, fall, Abrahamic people of God, birth/life/death/resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the Kingdom of God/people of God, new heaven/new earth).  Here's a quote from the article: