Should we always ask “what do they believe?”

Brian Mclaren has some brilliant things to say taken from the conversation above.

“When I read a book, or listen to music, I’m not always asking “What do they believe?” I’m asking, “What do they have to say to me?” I’m not requiring them to agree with me (and me to agree with them) for me to be stimulated by what they have to say. To me, there is a peculiar problem in a lot of religious readers where their approach is, “I don’t care what the person might have to say to me.

I want to know if he’s right.” And, so they go into the reading and discussion experience with an assumption that they are already right, that they already see things the way they should be. And they’re going through with a checklist. The experience of that for a writer (and for pastoring and preaching), is when you’re in the presence of those people is that it feels like an inquisition. They’re doing a kind of constant heresy hunt. My personal feeling is that there is a place for that. But maybe we could say, “those who live by the sword die by the sword,” i.e., “those who live by boundary maintenance die by boundary maintenance,…those who live by heresy hunting die by heresy hunting.” It is interesting that people read a book that way. To me, that’s a significant problem.

Regarding “provocative ambiguity,” there is some dimension of that. Soren Kierkegaard said, “It is very hard to use indirect communication when you’re talking to someone who is held in the grip of an illusion.” Because if you tell a person who is so absolutely certain, they have absolute certainty that they’re right, when they’re not right, if you tell them they’re wrong, they just assume you’re wrong. Sometimes when talking to people in an illusion, you have to use indirection. Flannery O’Connor said, “With people who can’t see very well, you have to use very large and strange characters.” I also think that in other places, I’m not trying to pass someone’s test, I’m actually trying to challenge them

to think. And sometimes the ambiguity does help with that.”

The full transcript of this interview can be found here.

Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to

the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.

Peter Rollins on his blog.

If you are familiar with the Emerging Church crowd, this is a must see.

Emerging Church theology compared to Irenaeus “lost Christianity”

In my thesis with the title; ”the dream of a perfect church – Emerging Church”, I compare Emerging Church theology, with the theology of Irenaeus and, the Christianity which has its roots in Asia Minor and Antioch.

The most significant exponent of the theology of the northeastern Mediterranean was Ireneus. Antioch is where Christianity first comes after Jerusalem. In other words it is the oldest Christianity we can trace back to the present day. I shall call this theology for Type C theology as explained below.

A part of my conclusion is that the church again is reminded about this “lost Christianity,” through Methodist writers like Geoffrey Wainwright, Justo González and Runyon. Other writers like Robert Farrar Capon, N.T Wright and Dallas Willard, and as I point out in my paper, many of the Emerging Church Leaders and personalities like; Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell.

Shane Claiborne

I have been asked a few times about the connection between Shane Claiborne and the Emerging Church. Now th at m

ay also be a new questio

n to some, but an interesting one none the less. Claiborne recently visited Gothenburg and is becoming a well known personality also on this side of the Atlantic. So how can one answer the question? Well first of all it is hard to define the emerging church. How can one take a whole movement and then put Claiborne in it. So lets forget about emerging church and look at Shane Claiborne and emerging church personalities.

Brian Mclaren and Rob Bell

Brian Mclaren writes the following in his lastest blog post for sojourners:

“That prayerful hope came back to me the other day when I read a post by a good friend. He suggested we should advise everybody and endorse nobody.”

The good friend he is referring to is Shane Claiborne.

Lets look what Rob Bell says concerning Shane Claiborne. In his book SexGod, Bell writes the following in the footnotes:

“I call him for my friend, but he is also a hero and a profet. Shane Claiborne lives in Philadelfia and wrote a book called “the irresistable revolution.” (my translation from the Swedish edition)

So just based on these two examples from two of the most influential Emerging Church Leaders, we see the freindship between Claiborne and emerging church.

The same theology

If we look at the theology emerging in Claibornes two books; Jesus for presisdent and Irresistable revolution, it is clear that it has its roots in Brian Mclarens and Rob Bells theology. I could also draw the similarities between Claiborne and other Emerging Church personalities such as Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. But that I will in some other post.

If familiar with Claiborne what are your thoughts on his theology and do you see the connection to Emerging Church?