Comment to David

David Asked;

My question is what is the differentiator between heretical and emerging church ideas?? what's the authentic difference between the two???

________________________________________

David,

The way I would think about the book is "future thinking". The Emerging church may come and go but the Church will remain (even if we don't recognize it as we do today).

This book asks very core questions about the "institutional church" / religion and how these have interfaced with doctrine, dogma and grace.

In my opinion this book is heretical in the same way Jesus, Galileo and Luther were. It dares to call out assumptions that have been given more status then they perhaps should. It is there that I find the critics focusing on the details rather than engaging the destabilizing "Big Picture" questions and proposals of the book.

One way this book has broken with most of the emerging church literature is in the strong reaction and open debate among the leading voices in the movement (Brian Mc took so much criticism from so many early on, but, people like Scott McKnight never questioned his orthodoxy). This book has dared to call the "institutional church" (the way we think the church operates - established or emerging) into question and that has power, professionalism and perceived needs all up for grabs.

I liken it to other industries in transition.
*The music industry sold vinyl and plastic but that is not MUSIC.
*The movie industry sold tickets but thoes are not MOVIES.
*The church industry counts weekly event attendance but that is not the CHURCH.

The record companies told us MUSIC would die if the ALBUM died, but they were wrong MUSIC is strong than ever (from .99 downloads to ring tones). The movie industry told us if the theaters went empty MOVIES would lose their funding, but they were wrong MOVIES are stronger than ever (from netflix to youTube). The institutional church says if we propose CHURCH as "Jesus beyond Christianity" or "Grace Beyond Religion" then the CHURCH will cease, but will it be stronger or weaker...

"A Heretic's Guide To Eternity" is a survey of spirituality today and a proposal for a bold new way of approaching the future as the Church.

We can follow the other industries mistakes by alienating their most important relationship (those who they serve - fans, record/ticket buyers, aspiring artists) and take advantage of / burning out their most important resources (those who lead - artists, executives, agents).

The Church has the same opportunity or plight. Are we going to hold on to the old ways, rules or distribution channels just because we've "always done it that way" or "that's the way it should be done so let's get 'those people' in line again..." OR as we say in the book -

"Grace is a miracle because it is not controlled, structured, shaped, or handed out by human beings or their religions. Grace is not the result of what we could ever plan or calculate. Grace belongs to no one but God, and because of that, it belongs to us all. Grace says that nothing is sacred and everything is sacred. Grace shakes the world, catches us by surprise, and knocks us off our feet. It is the miracle of miracles.

I believe that Jesus was full of grace and truth, and he is greater than the Christian religion that claims him. When the Bible tells us we will be his witnesses to the “ends of the earth” after the Spirit has come upon us, it does not mean that we force Western religion on others. It means that we are invited to bear witness to how Jesus would nurture and affirm the expressions of God’s grace in our world today. Grace is the gift we get to share and celebrate with each other. Grace is the key that unlocks the kingdom. Grace is life. Grace is hope. Grace is the future.

This is mystical responsibility: questioning, listening, and living in grace."

 

Comments

[david]

spencer ~ thanks for taking the time to pound this comprehensive reply . . . i so appreciate this aspect of the emerging “conversation” . . . your answer transcends the discussion . . . it moves to honoring the relationship of those discussing the questions which epitomizes not only christian character but underlines the tension that exists in my mind regarding the difficulties propositional approach to theology and the relational approach . . . thanks for modeling that . . . this sort of modeling is in my mind significantly more important than the issue at hand . . .

BTW ~ (no disrespect) did you answer the question about how the church determines differences between emergents and heretics??

let me mention that I am not as certain that examples like the protestant reformation are in anyway exemplarily method for examining ideas of people like “galileo and luther” or some guy from maryland named mclaren . . . (LOL) . . . the passive undertaking of ghandi in india or dr martin luther king jr during the civil rights movement was far superior to the active resistance/separation pounded onto all saints' church door in wittenberg by luther himself . . . if we continue this logic . . . the attempts toward solidarity within the episcopal church are struggling over . . . unfortunately, this divisive quality of breaking off dialogue birthed by luther and other reformers accidentally conceived an undesirable genetic DNA of division within the protestant church . . . and that saddens me . . . truly . . . so I guess I missed the point . . . again no disrespect . . . but I don’t follow the logic . . . it seems sort of naive not to be cognizant of how these fundamental theological and ecclesiological questions are never separable from the political questions soon to follow . . . this is a terribly important subject in my mind and I am glad you are discussing it . . . but I did miss your point . . . honestly.