Read Tony Jones' post...in which (as in all emergent dialog) there a good vibe overpowered by an over-all sense of "something's not quite right here"...
http://tonyj.net/2007/11/06/daddy-whats-a-heretic
And, to quote Tony's blog...What is a heretic?
“It’s what someone says,” Mike told her, “when they’re trying to hurt and silence someone else. It’s been used a lot in history, and often against people who are really onto something.” (That’s a paraphrase. Mike said it better.)
Perhaps, "Mike" is on to something...maybe heretic isn't a bad word. Maybe gnosticism is a good thing, maybe Christ wasn't God...maybe the whole Trinity thing is a farce...perhaps Mary wasn't a virgin when she conceived Jesus. Or, maybe the word heretic is a sobering word...maybe a person should use the opportunity of being called a heretic to see if there's any chance that they've wandered into dangerous waters?
And, just to formalize my feelings...I think I'm officially tired of all things emergent. So what if they've given evangelicals some good questions that we've been missing over the years... I'm tired of them saying "I wonder what would happen if the Bible wasn't inspired" and then saying "I never said the Bible wasn't inspired". "I wonder...what if Mary wasn't a virgin?"..."Oh, I actually never said that Mary wasn't a virgin." This would potentially be tolerable if it wasn't followed up with "Why is everyone picking on me? I didn't do anything...look at these evangelicals...all they want to do is fight...join the emergent side...we're actually not a side, we're just the misunderstood folks who everyone is picking on."
I'm sure emergent-ism will pass soon...not soon enough for me, though.
Hebrews 5:11-14
About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
4 comments:
Josh, good stuff bro. I agree with your post. I find it particularly interesting what Tony Jones said:
"Of course, the warnings against false teachers in scripture have nothing to with epistemological positions, but that’s beside the point..."
Epistemology can basically be defined as the philosophy by which a person perceives knowledge and interprets life. The Bible teaches a Jesus-centered Gospel-driven epistemology, whereby the Bible is the lens through which the entirety of life is viewed and interpreted including culture. Unfortuneately the emergent crowd teaches a man-centered, culture driven epistemology whereby culture is the lens through which the entirety of life is viewed and interpreted including the Bible. This shift in "epistemology" is a diversion in which the cross of Christ and the Gospel has been replaced by "man" and culture. This is a "fundamental" shift in what the Bible teaches.
Dictionary.com in one definition, defines a heretic as follows:
"anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle."
Paul says clearly in 2 Corinthians 15:3-4 that "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.." The Gospel is of "first" importance.
There is nothing MORE established in doctrine or principle than the Gospel! If you shift your focus from the Gospel to "anything" you are obviously replacing it with something else. This is also known as "idolatry".
In my opinion, Tony Jones and the emergent camp have abandoned the Gospel. They are teaching a "false-gospel" in which man and culture hold the key to unlocking and interpreting the Bible in the "evolution" of our faith. In conclusion, I feel that Tony Jones is by definition a self-confessed heretic based on his own statement.
On the flip side...
1) The Jews who were the Early Christians were considered to be heretics (and worse, blasphemers). The Protestants who separated from the Catholic Church were called heretics.
2) The negative connotation of the word heretic usually only exists in the present, as the separation or change is happening. But the word as it is used in history books is used (somewhat) neutrally and simply means "someone who broke with the status quo." History is more favorable to the rabble rousers than the players in the actual events were.
Jen, I think the present issue is that although the Jews and Protestants were labeled "heretics" they were said to be abandoning the dogma of Judaism and Catholocism. The issue here lies within the fact that the "Emergent" camp is abandoning the "Gospel". I am labeling them heretics on this premise. If abandoning the Gospel isn't heresy, then perhaps one may want to re-evaluate the "lens" through which they are interpreting life and the "foudation" on which they are standing.
Michael -
I was merely trying to provide a different angle on the notion of heretics, and the position you've taken on my comment is indefensible. It's easy to look at history and declare that the heretics did well to take their risks; in hindsight everything is 20/20. It seems rather cheap, in my opinion, to praise them in such a manner because in the midst of their rebellion, they were risking their eternity, not just their lives. It is more difficult to be a heretic than to declare someone a heretic.
...
I disagree with your definiton of epistemology. In a rare show of limited verbiage, the Oxford English Dictionary gives it one, solitary definition: "The theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge." It was first used in 1856 by someone referring to the scientific method and has nothing to do with determining truth, but factual, verifiable, personally experienced knowledge. The use of it as a religious term, when applied to philosophical reasoning, is erroneous at best; at worst, it is terribly misleading. It claims to know everything there is about belief, and the person using it in such a manner generally implies that they know everything about what is true and false about God's character and intentions for mankind. Not even C.S. Lewis, profound thinker though he was, would make such an absurd claim; all you have to do is read The Last Battle to understand that even he refused to believe that there was one and only one way to a relationship with God, or his essay Religion and Rocketry to see that his mind was open to the possibility of a different form of redemption for extraterrestrial races in the universe (should they exist).
The OED's definition of knowledge makes the religious claim to the word epistemology even more ludicrous: (derived from the verb "know," based on one's senses) "The fact of knowing a thing, state, etc., or (in general sense) a person; acquaintance; familiarity gained by experience" or "Acquaintance with a fact; perception, or certain information of, a fact or matter; state of being aware or informed; consciousness (of anything)" or "Intellectual acquaintance with, or perception of, fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension; the fact, state, or condition of understanding."
Epistemology, then, is the method by which a person discovers knowledge, and knowledge is defined as something learned through the senses, or through "a person, thing, or perception gained through information or facts about it rather than by direct experience." That is not philosophy: it is reasoning. A philosophy about life develops from what one has reasoned to be truth. Your sentence should read "Philosophy can basically be defined as the epistemology by which a person perceives knowledge and interprets life" not the other way 'round. Epistemology = method of reasoning. Philosophy = Reason arrived at through a method.
I do not disagree with you that the Gospel should be the focus of a Christian's life, that it should be the filter through which one views the world. I disagree with your use of terminology, and language, tricky thing that it is, can land you in a some serious trouble.
As for Tony Jones and this notion of "emergent" Christianity, I'll have to get back to you on that one. If emergent means making the presentation of the Gospel conform to current cultural norms, then I would agree with him. The easiest place to see this need is in the musical form of worship. Hymns simply don't appeal to our generation, and the only reason they appealed way back when is that they were recognizable tavern tunes transformed by holy words.
However, if emergent means changing the truth of the Gospel (that Jesus was both God and man, that He was born of a virgin, that He died on the cross and rose from the dead on the third day), then I might join your chorus of "Heretic!" But until I read his book, I'll withhold my torch from his stake.
Post a Comment