Summary on Emergent/Emerging Church Movement – Oct 6 (revised and updated – Jan 12)
We have worked through the nine key traits of this movement with evaluations. So how does one sum it up? There are several strengths of this movement and several concerns about this movement. I see these clear strengths: 1) There is a problem with modernity in its spirit of freedom and quest for human autonomy. This is a cultural value that needs to be challenged. 2) There is a problem with modernity in the dominance of the consumer culture and the way it can lead to compromise of values of the faith.
We have worked through the nine key traits of this movement with evaluations. So how does one sum it up? There are several strengths of this movement and several concerns about this movement. I see these clear strengths: 1) There is a problem with modernity in its spirit of freedom and quest for human autonomy. This is a cultural value that needs to be challenged. 2) There is a problem with modernity in the dominance of the consumer culture and the way it can lead to compromise of values of the faith. This also drains the ability of the church to serve others selflessly. The missions budget of many churches is a shame to reflect on. Many other resources could help make an impact as well. However, many of our resources go to things that do not advance the kingdom. 3) A problem with modernity is that efficiency and technology can depersonalize or overwhelm life (leading to the [over]saturated self). I see these strengths (in other words, these are positives but they also need qualifying in how they are applied): 1) Interpretation is never totally objective (We all read from a place and perspective). This does not mean that we cannot affirm what a text says. But it does mean that how we read and the lenses we bring may draw us to certain texts and cause us to miss certain texts. 2) Communities matter. There is more to faith than just walking as individuals before God. 3) Differing perspectives can teach. We can learn from the engagement that comes from disagreement, as there is always room to learn. (This is a two way street as others can learn from us) 4) Interpretations need testing (There is an appropriate plea for a proper humility). Appreciating the Bible as the Word does not mean that our interpretations are automatically correct. Community can help to check us. 5) Pushing for authenticity is solid value. 6) Recognizing one’s social location is an important factor to appreciate in life (where we fit in the world and how that helps and blinds us). 7) The effort to evangelizing outsiders is stronger (esp. those on the fringe). 8) There is a valuable probing links back to tradition. 9) There is often better success with people on the edge because of the value of concentrating on this group. But there are also major problems. These are issues of concern that could cause the movement to lose its edge. 1) The analysis of modernism oversimplifies and characterizes the period to a degree (which is more diverse in expression than suggested by the absolutist contrasts of much of the presentations. Some modernists share the concerns and values that many E/E churches are concerned about) The contrasts with modernism are more like relative emphases to be viewed as pressure placed at different points of a see-saw versus absolute contrasts where each side sits on the end. 2) There is a seeming devaluation of confessional expressions of Christianity and the content elements of the faith. The attitude toward the Word tends to elevate Jesus at the expense of the rest of God’s word (a canon within a canon, when the apostolic reflection of Jesus is a key part of how God reveals himself to us through their lived out experience of Jesus in light of his teaching). Jesus does have much to tell us by the way he lived, but he also could say uncomfortable things to people and make serious warnings of accountability to God (This side of the equation is often missing in challenging people to consider the gospel and what it teaches us about us). What the rest of Scripture teaches also rounds out what his life and ministry represents. The claim to honor the Word’s authority and seek to incarnate it while underplaying aspects of its message are not consistent (and we are speaking here of more than whether or not one affirms the total veracity of the Word) 3) There is too much either/or thinking (or better) rhetoric when both/and modes and relative emphases are really the point (Leaders when pressed acknowledge these are not as either/or as their rhetoric.). This kind of language has alienated many in the church and often has meant that E/E’s legitimate criticism of the church has not been heard or taken as seriously as it needs to be. 4) There is a tendency to avoid discussion of hell and judgment (i.e., to confront on sin) or accountability to God as His creature. The effect is that the need for Christ is devalued. I am not saying one needs to pound away at sin (which is what some in the E/E movement are reacting to). However a awareness that everyone has a broken relationship with God that he takes the initiative to repair is fundamental into leading to the emphasis on the life God graciously gives through the Spirit. The tendency to be unclear about the state of those outside of an embrace of Jesus is also a major problem for some in the movement. I view this as one of the more alarming aspects of the movement but it is not unique to the emergent. 5) There is a tendency to equivocate on moral issues (like homosexuality). Attaining a balance here of love, compassion, outreach and ministry alongside a real moral need for change is something everyone in the church wrestles with. E/E is right that all wings of the church need to develop how to communicate the move to holiness in all areas of life in a way that presents the gospel as good news (and not just highlight "special, serious" sins of our own choosing). The danger of conservatives is that homosexuality and issues like it are treated as especially bad, when all sin stains us before God (including gluttony, greed, lust, gossip. adultery, divorce, etc; things we tend not to get as "worked up" over). Even though soem contend for a normalcy for these lifestyles, somethign the church needs to stand up against, the fact that the divorce rate in churches is pretty equal to those outsdie the church is a shameful fact for the church. We are far more comfortable (accepting?) of divorce than we are of issues like homosexuality. Yes, some sin is seen as particular evidence of a serious fall, but all sin is bad, or else Jesus woudl have never equated anger with murder. E/E is right to remind us that singling out particular sins is not particularly biblical. 6) There is a tendency to underplay or underestimate the nature and role of Scripture in the face of problematic, factors in reading it. The tendency to speak of the Bible becoming God’s Word in response versus being God’s Word regardless produces an imbalance for what the Word teaches is true whether I embrace it personally or not. There is a power to the Word embraced that is worth highlighting. But the Word presents a reality that is whether I recognize it or not. The Word must remain a key basis for forming a worldview that reflects God’s heart. Yes, there is a danger of being to cognitive and nor consistent in practice, but I cannot knjow what practice shoudl look like without God’s direction and guidance through the Word. So there it is. The E/E movement is an important development today. All the church would do well to engage it and reflect upon the questions it is raising, not simply praise it or condemn it in a dismissive manner. There are important issues here. The long term health of E/E and the church at large are in play. I hope this series has proved of value. Please let me know what you think and if you want more discussions like this.
29 Comments
gsheryl
Summary on E/E Church Movement
Dr. Bock,
Being largely ignorant of the E/E movement–although I remain unconvinced that it isn’t more than a passing cultural fad–I appreciate your summarizing your discussion of it.
There were a couple of things you mentioned in your discussion that I wanted to comment on:
One thing had to do with your mention in passing that the E/E movement might be avoiding discussions, e. g., of sin and hell, in reaction to an over-emphasis on these things by some churches. Perhaps this is true; however, I am reminded of a message I once heard by the late Keith Green, in which he said something to the effect that, “Some people say they are tired of hellfire and damnation sermons.” Then he said, “Let me ask you a question: When was the last time you heard any?”
Secondly, you seemed to imply that conservative evangelicals erred when they focused on certain gross sins, such as homosexuality, as if they were worse than other sins, since all sins leave us stained before God.
However, the Bible itself seems to makes such distinctions of specially heinous sins. For instance, under the Law of Moses, certain sins were atoned for by sacrifices. However, in other cases (such as homosexuality), the penalty was death.
Even in the New Testament, such distinctions remain: For instance, although all Christians sin, there are certain sins which require a believer not to associate with a so-called believer who practices those sins: E. g., the sins recorded in 1 Cor. 5:11 (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Does this not indicate that all sins are not equal before God?
Additionally, Jesus spoke of “the greater sin” of the one who delivered him into the hands of Pilate, which would seem to imply degrees of sin. Also, the Scripture speaks of the unpardonable sin, which certainly seems to indicate a sin that is greater than any other; as well as the “sin unto death,” which would seem to indicate a most serious sin. Sin, then, would seem to be like sickness:
Although all sickness is sickness, in that both are abnormal states, there is a great difference between, say, a cold and terminal cancer. So, all sin is wrong, and even terminal; however, there are degrees of sin, just as there are degrees of sickness. From the Scriptures’ treatment of sin, it would seem that not all sin is equally repugnant to God.
Homosexuality, though certainly not the unpardonable sin, would seem to be a particularly heinous sin, not only because it involves sexual immorality, but also because, beyond that, it is unnatural–it is against nature, as Romans 1 indicates.
Again, however, I really appreciated your summary of the 9 facets of the E/E movement that you dealt with.
bock
Summary on sin and hell – dlb
Greg:
Your point about distinct penalties for sin is a good one. But here is an additional point. The singling out of a particular sin of our choice is not particularly biblical. Look at the vice lists in the NT. Let me just take two as an example. Epheshoans 5:1-5 certainly includes greed as a key sin and equates it with idolatry, but how much do we talk about that in our churches and deal with it? Galatians 5:19-21 has a pretty long list of vices as well that are said to be obstacles in entering the kingdom. Look at the contents of either vice list and you will see all kinds of things people do regularly, often without a second thought. The importance of the point is a realization of how high God’s standard for righteousness is and that we all need God’s grace because we are all sinners. The point is not made to say we avoid discussing homosexuality as a sin, but to say that it is wrong to highlight one sin at the expense of others, especially those sins many are more prone to commit.
As for sin and hell: the point here is whether we present and highlight the avoidance of hell as an emphasis in presenting the gospel or do we make it clear that the good news is that God has initiated the move towards us in a relatiosnhip our sin is responsible for breaking. In other words, do we so highlight the problem that the good news of the gospel has trouble getting through. So the point is not how often do we hear a rendition like Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. The point is how often do we present that gospel as if the goal is to avoid something rather than to enter into something God desires for us. (I am speaking of emphasis here) When we ask, “if you died today would you know for sure you will be in heaven,” it sounds like the core of the gospel is avoiding hell. But to me the key to the gospel is God moving to fix a broken relationship and giving his son to bring us to himself, something that starts before we die and lasts forever. Yes, we do avoid hell, but far more important is the restoration and reconciliation that is the gospel. It is not what we avoid that is key, but what we enter into and get to participate in that is central. Now that is really good news. He rescues us from sin but does not leave us there. So the bottom line is not avoiding a fate, but entering into a new state of unbroken relationship with God. This aspect of the gospel message often needs more highlighting or can get obscured if avoiding a fate is emphasized.
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. They were helpful points.
lmathew2
Dr. Bock, could you please
Dr. Bock, could you please be a little more clear on what Gregg brought up about sin. Something we get taught in the church today is that “all sins are equal, they are the same in God’s eyes”. I, like Gregg, believe this is a myth we have heard our whole lives. While all does leave us stained before God, all are certainly not equal. Stealing a pencil from a classmate and raping and killing my mother are not equal in God’s eyes. Could you explain a little more about your view?
bock
dlb – Dr. Bock, please
The point here is about consistency, not sin. Any sin makes us a lawbreaker and subject to God and his accountability (James 2:1-13). Some of your query I responded to in my reply to Greg. However, the key point is that it is easy for us to say (I am not as much of a sinner as my neighbor is, and then lower our sense of our need in the process because I do nto commit the “worst” sins. Take a look at Jesus’ teaching in Luke 7:36-50 or 18:9-14. Those texts make the point I am concerned about.
dlb
Reid Monaghan
Yes, reconciliation with God is the end…but
Dr. Bock,
Great post highlighting the reality that God is the end of the gospel not “avoidance” of a certain fate. This is certainly needed. However, in our historical situation I fear that wrath and hell are simply being put aside for the sake an easier message for people to hear. Personally, I was on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ for 8 years (came to faith through that organization, so I do cherish their work) and the evangelistic messages and tools were very slow to talk about wrath and hell. For instance “Law 2” – speaks of sin and separation, even cites Romans 6:23 – the wages of sin is death…with the very weak parenthetical “spiritual separation from God.” What I found over the years is that college folk today will shrug and say “yeah, maybe I am separated from God, I’ll maybe take a look at that in a decade or so, but now – I am going to the club tonight to hook up and get wasted.” To be honest my evangelism became much more effective when I included the reality that sin has us under just condemnation and wrath, and we must escape from this to the grace of God in Christ.
If I could borrow from your post and then use an analogy. You wrote:
When we ask, “if you died today would you know for sure you will be in heaven,” it sounds like the core of the gospel is avoiding hell.
I would be in complete agreement here. Following Piper I would shout “God is the gospel” – we need to be brought to God (1 Peter 3:18). Yet saying that this is the end, without saying there is a certain path one must go to reach it is perilous. What if, per say, their is an insurmountable barrier along the path which no one can cross in their own power. That we say “go to God” but we fail to say that the one, insurmountable, terrifying reality is that their is a barrier which must be removed and cannot be removed by our own strength. What is it that keeps us from the end of the journey which is the loving heart of the Father, reconciled to his people? It is his wrath against sin and the separation/condemnation of which must find remedy. The curse must be removed (Gal 3:10-13) – and then their is joy!
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.
Sharing the gospel without such is like saying – “Go down this road, and at the end you will find your hearts longing – the loving father and creator of all things” Yet not telling them there is a bottomless pit right in the center of the road. I once heard a guy preach Romans 8:1 to say there is no condemnation from God – I was so bummed out because he missed the beautiful, wonder, exultant nature of the gospel by doing so. For the text says, there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ…meanning, namely, there was horrifying condemnation before. That is why Christians can sing songs like “Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God should die for me.” Be shocked, be appalled, their is God on a tree, for the sake of guilty people!!! Yet Jesus, endured the cross, scorned its shame, became obedient to death, even such an ignoble death, made a curse for us…why…to bring us to God – Amazing!
Today, many Americans think God ought to love them, if he is there, it is his duty, and he would never condemn a soul. So wrath/hell is minimized in sharing the gospel in order to tell this people, who just want to feel good about themselves and God, that they should feel good about themselves and God. When rather, they should feel GREAT about God, but only in Christ who is reconciling sinners, who were once under the severest just wrath and condemnation, bringing them back to the greatest treasure…namely God himself.
Without this reality – people are converted to their own feelings and not the God of holiness, justice, grace, and mercy…not to the God of the gospel. Believe me, I am currently serving in the Bible belt where I have met numerous people who are in church who have no grattitude to God for what he has done. They simply assume God should like them and welcome them and cater to their needs. And when “he doesn’t” (for instance when we suffer) they shake the fist at the heavens as if he were in the dock – then they go to counseling. Something seems wrong to me – and at times I think the harsh edge of the gospel has been so muted, that the amazing part of grace is left unknown.
Thanks for reading,
Reid
PS – I found your work on the gnostic gospels very helpful as I addressed Da Vinci Code issues here at our church and in Latin America. My stuff is here – many, many thanks for your scholarly labors. I have the new book as well and look forwrad to the read.
Reid Monaghan
Yes, reconciliation with God is the end…but
Dr. Bock,
Great post highlighting the reality that God is the end of the gospel not “avoidance” of a certain fate. This is certainly needed. However, in our historical situation I fear that wrath and hell are simply being put aside for the sake an easier message for people to hear. Personally, I was on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ for 8 years (came to faith through that organization, so I do cherish their work) and the evangelistic messages and tools were very slow to talk about wrath and hell. For instance “Law 2” – speaks of sin and separation, even cites Romans 6:23 – the wages of sin is death…with the very weak parenthetical “spiritual separation from God.” What I found over the years is that college folk today will shrug and say “yeah, maybe I am separated from God, I’ll maybe take a look at that in a decade or so, but now – I am going to the club tonight to hook up and get wasted.” To be honest my evangelism became much more effective when I included the reality that sin has us under just condemnation and wrath, and we must escape from this to the grace of God in Christ.
If I could borrow from your post and then use an analogy. You wrote:When we ask, “if you died today would you know for sure you will be in heaven,” it sounds like the core of the gospel is avoiding hell. I would be in complete agreement here. Following Piper I would shout “God is the gospel” – we need to be brought to God (1 Peter 3:18). Yet saying that this is the end, without saying there is a certain path one must go to reach it is perilous. What if, per say, their is an insurmountable barrier along the path which no one can cross in their own power. That we say “go to God” but we fail to say that the one, insurmountable, terrifying reality is that their is a barrier which must be removed and cannot be removed by our own strength. What is it that keeps us from the end of the journey which is the loving heart of the Father, reconciled to his people? It is his wrath against sin and the separation/condemnation of which must find remedy. The curse must be removed (Gal 3:10-13) – and then their is joy!
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.
Sharing the gospel without such is like saying – “Go down this road, and at the end you will find your hearts longing – the loving father and creator of all things” Yet not telling them there is a bottomless pit right in the center of the road. I once heard a guy preach Romans 8:1 to say there is no condemnation from God – I was so bummed out because he missed the beautiful, wonder, exultant nature of the gospel by doing so. For the text says, there is NOW no condemnation for those in Christ…meanning, namely, there was horrifying condemnation before. That is why Christians can sing songs like “Amazing love, how can it be, that thou my God should die for me.” Be shocked, be appalled, their is God on a tree, for the sake of guilty people!!! Yet Jesus, endured the cross, scorned its shame, became obedient to death, even such an ignoble death, made a curse for us…why…to bring us to God – Amazing!
Today, many Americans think God ought to love them, if he is there, it is his duty, and he would never condemn a soul. So wrath/hell is minimized in sharing the gospel in order to tell this people, who just want to feel good about themselves and God, that they should feel good about themselves and God. When rather, they should feel GREAT about God, but only in Christ who is reconciling sinners, who were once under the severest just wrath and condemnation, bringing them back to the greatest treasure…namely God himself.
Without this reality – people are converted to their own feelings and not the God of holiness, justice, grace, and mercy…not to the God of the gospel. Believe me, I am currently serving in the Bible belt where I have met numerous people who are in church who have no grattitude to God for what he has done. They simply assume God should like them and welcome them and cater to their needs. And when “he doesn’t” (for instance when we suffer) they shake the fist at the heavens as if he were in the dock – then they go to counseling. Something seems wrong to me – and at times I think the harsh edge of the gospel has been so muted, that the amazing part of grace is left unknown.
Thanks for reading,
Reid
PS – I found your work on the gnostic gospels very helpful as I addressed Da Vinci Code issues here at our church and in Latin America. My stuff is here – many, many thanks for your scholarly labors. I have the new book as well and look forwrad to the read.
Darcy
sin and hell
My comment on presenting the gospel thru the teaching of sin and hell is from my own testimony. I was exposed to the gospel of love many many times throughout my life and could never seem to grasp what it was. One Christmas a relative gave me one of the easy read bibles as a gift so as I had no clue as to where to begin reading I turned to the last chapters to see what the ending of this book was. Now I know there are many interpretations of what revelation is saying and that it can be very difficult to understand, but as someone who understood nothing of scripture I will tell you that I understood the message of hell, damnation, judgment, and eternal punishment. I was so afraid of my coming doom that I began to ask everyone I knew what they knew about this. Now the people I knew were as ignorant to biblical truths as I was so mostly they just thought I was nuts. My fear grew to the point where I would have nightmares of giant insects stinging and tormenting me ,about a lake of fire reserved for me and eternal punishment. I continued to ask how I could escape this judgment even going to church, but the sermons and people never had any impact. Until one day while in church during worship I was doing my usual standing there wondering what I was doing when I began to look at the people. As they sang many had eyes closed, with hands in the air some had tears rolling down there face completely lost in worship. It was then I decided just to close my eyes and listen, as I stood there waiting something incredible happened. It was as if the congregation had moved somewhere behind me I could still here them but it was as if they were far away. As i stood there it was as if two doors on the bottom of my feet opened up and all the fear, worry, and cares of life fell thru them. Behind them came a peace that I could never explain overtook me I remember hearing a voice saying This is what I have for you. The next thing I remember is I started weeping and this is when my brain kicked back into gear and not wanting anyone to see me crying I opened my eyes and everything was just as it had been, except Jesus had called my name.
Now you would think that this would be enough to turn anyone to God but I just went
on with life the same as I always had only there was one difference, Jesus continued to call even though I had not entered a church for about 2 years after this experience. I could be in a bar or at a party drunk and high on drugs having a good time when all of a sudden He would visit me with that same call he gave at the church that day. I continued like this until one morning I decided to go back to the church that I had the experience with Christ. The Pastor preached his sermon and I remember nothing of the content but he did give an alter call and even though I had no idea what or why I was doing I raised my hand and responded. Now I could write for ever on the change in my life from that day on for the last 18 years I have served in His Kingdom Knowing the absolute love and mercy and grace that God has to offer. My point in writing is that it was the fear of hell and judgment that caused me to search for a way out , even though I was asking all the wrong people and searching in places where there were no answers God heard me he saw that I was searching for Him and he sent his Son thru the Holy spirit to call me. You see my fear of death got me asking and searching for answers. It was thru fear that I found the everlasting love of My God and My Saviour and I now have no fear of death, or hell, or punishment but the beautiful expectation of an eternity with Him. God alone knows each persons heart whether saved or unsaved He knows how to turn our hearts to Him, and the good news is that he has given me His Spirit so I can know how to reach a heart. 1 Cor 1:22 and Isaiah 55:8-9 talks about how Gods ways and wisdom go far beyond our understanding I for one an extremely happy that God doesn’t fit in the boxes we try to put Him in with all our wisdom because I probably would still be lost. The ways that God reaches people for salvation are countless and many times make no sense to us,but thru His Holy Spirit we can know what it takes to reach people because we know that God is the author of their lives and we only need to ask him and he will tell us Matthew 7:7.
It would be very easy for me to believed the only way to reach people for Christ is thru warnings of fear and judgment because of my experience of salvation The bible tells me that the letter of the law kills but it is the spirit gives life, without the Holy Spirit our doctrines bring death and destroy the unity of the believers which is the power of the Kingdom of God on earth. All of our wisdom and doctrinal stands must be sifted thru the life giving power of Gods Holy Spirit otherwise it is human wisdom and has no power to save.
Stan
E Church
We cannot make the world love and accept us by changing the message. Lets keep the message the way it is and allow Jesus to grow His church.
Celucien Joseph
Comment
Dear Dr. Block,
It is always a pleasure to read your blog as well as your books. This present topic is right on target. I also want to tell you that I found your work, “Studying the Historical Jesus” to be very helpful and informative on the subject of Jesus Tradition. Your book is among the many texts we’re presently reading in a reading seminar “Jesus and the Gospels” at SWBTS. I personally benefit greatly from your study on ” The Methods for Studying the Gospels” . Frankly, your observations have generated more interest in me to the study of the formation of the NT Canon.
Thanks for your commitment to the church.
Blessings,
Celucien
gsheryl
A Brief Response
Dr. Bock:
Thank you for your response to my comments. Concerning what you said about homosexuality, I am in total agreement with you that all of us need the grace of God–probably more than we are willing to admit, either to ourselves or to God, as the vice lists you mentioned, or even the Sermon on the Mount, reveal. We are all sinners in need of God’s grace.
However, it seems to me that the Scriptures actually portray homosexuality as a particularly heinous sin to God (e. g., Jude 7, although a number of Scripture passages in both Old and New Testaments seem to indicate that this is a particularly abhorrent sin to God). It seems to be an indicator of grave moral decline, as Rom. 1 seems to indicate. If I am correct in discerning this, I believe that it is particularly heinous to God, both because it is sexual in nature, and even more than that, because it is unnatural and contrary to nature.
As for the subject of hell in presenting the gospel, I agree that it is greatly preferable if a person responds to the positive offer of the gospel–the entering in, as you mentioned. However, if a person will not respond to the goodness of God, should we neglect warning such a person of the dreadful consequences of their rejection of the grace of God?
bock
dlb – brief response
Greg:
Any Christian who is serious about Scripture recognizes that homosexuality is presented as a serious issue and sin in Scripture, but note how greed is connected to idolatry, probably the No. 1 sin in Scripture (if we are going to rank them).
Also it is clear that refusing the gospel has seriosu consequences something John the Baptist, Jesus, and the epistles make clear, not to mention Revelation. The key point is one of emphasis. Do we focus on avoiding the penalty or point to the good news that it is relationship withy God that motivates preaching the gospel as gospel?
Magnus Nordlund
Homosexual Christians?
Dr Bock,
In Sweden we now have one of the worlds most secularized Churches (in which Im about to become a Lutheran Priest): the Church of Sweden (the oldest and biggest Church with 7 million members). It would be to long for me to explain to you the mechanisms which lies behind the current theological state in my Church-context so I only conclude the facts as they appear nowadays:
In 2005: The Church of Sweden stated at her Council that Homosexual behaviour is not sinful nor forbidden according to the Bible (that is from the viewpoint of the leading scholars in the Church of Sweden among which include some of the great exegetes in my Country). Another statement was that homosexual behaviour should only occur in a samesex-union which also should be granted the Churchs blessing (in similarity of marriage).
The thing is when I read the footnotes from the document “The Homosexuals in the Church” which the theological committee had produced and from which the Council made there decisions: the name of John Boswell recurred on and on.
This John Boswell (as far as I understand) was a Yale Professor (and Gay, who died in Aids in the late 80:s) who challenged the traditional historical perspective of the view of homosexuals. In Sweden his books is concerned to be historical correct and noone has challenged his viewpoint or his research. Boswell has explained the thing that we didnt know (or thought we didnt know) that the Church has always blessed same-sex-unions) and been tolerant to homosexuality.
Dr Bock, my question to you Sir:
Do you know any good Critics or theologians who has challenged or refuted Boswells thesis and conclusions? He seems to be unchallenged to this day.
I am deeply worried about the ahistorical movements in my own Country as well as throughout the world, with the false claims of historical truth.
I guess the Issue of same-sex-unions will be a bigger problem for Christians in US than it has been in a deeply Secular European Country as Sweden.
Magnus Nordlund, Sweden, student at the University of Umeå.
bock
dlb – Homosexual Christians and Sweden
Magnus:
The idea that the church has always blessed same-sex unions is simply unsustainable. The church struggled even with heterosexual relationships in the early centuries and advocated celibacy where possible. There are many attempts to argue that the condemnation of homosexuals is limited to certain types of promiscuous practices, but Romans 1:18-32 does not make such qualifications. Relations between members of the same sex is portrayed as against the design of God. Vice lists affirm the category as a sin. This type of revisionism is not historcial in the least. Like any sin, homosexuality is not regarded as a neutral category, but something that is contrasted by one who is following and responding to God’s Spirit.
Magnus Nordlund
John Boswell?
Dr Bock, thanks for your respond. I totally agree with you. But in my context it is now impossible to even raise the question again (i.e. because of the Council and its decision in the matter). Even so Im going to do my final essay on this topic from a exegetical and historical perspective.
My question which you didnt answer was about this John Boswell. I guess you will be hearing more about this historian in the US when the Christian Gaymovement further mobilizes.
So again: Do you know anything about this Yale Professor by the name of John Boswell who has challenged the main and traditional viewpoint? Do you know if there has been any attempts to refute his thesis and conclusions that same-sex unions occurred in the late medieval?
His higly esteemed (atleast in my Country) works are:
* Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. And
*Same Sex Unions In Premodern Europe
In his last book (above) he has also well footnoted his sources: a lot of Latin and Greek material (from RC and the Orthodox Church) that seems apparently to give some indication of a liturgy that contained a blessed a union betweeen men (who wanted to share the life together).
Boswell’s interpretation of these old texts (I believe)are totally wrong as he sees them as homosexual unions instead of a union between friends (such as David and Jonathan in OT).
Even so, Boswell seems to have found some divergence in the Official liturgic Tradition.
Magnus Nordlund, Sweden.
bock
dlb – Boswell
Magnus:
He is a virtual unknown here. Robin Scroggs is the key writer on this issue here when it comes to NT texts (Univ of Chicago). As for the history, if I may make an analogy, it is like treating the pedophile scandal as normative for Catholics. It happened but that does not make it normative. Any who argued for it were taking a line against the church as the basic Catholic tradition clearly shows. This is why I called the history revisionist. In addition, the fourteenth century of the Catholic church is hardly a period in which she was a moral example.
Anonymous
homosexuality
Some great work has been done by Robert Gagnon. His website is http://www.robgagnon.net He has written a number of books addressing the the sociological and bibilical issues.
Ned Suffern
excellent exegesis on homosexuality
Dear Magnus,
Please check out the work of Robert Gagnon for a biblically sound exegesis of all the texts. Try http://www.robgagnon.net/ Excellent refutation of revisionist exegesis !!
Ned Suffern
gsheryl
President Carter’s Book
Dr. Bock:
Please forgive me for responding to yet another blog. However, being from Georgia, where President Carter is from, and where he was governor before becoming President, I have a special interest in him.
I used to really respect and like President Carter, partly because he ran for President as a “born-again Christian.” However, in recent years, I have been surprised and disappointed by some of his stances.
As a disclaimer, I haven’t read the book, and can’t do so at this time; however, does President Carter realize that he cannot, as an individual person, leave the Southern Baptist Convention? In order for him to leave the Convention, his church has to withdraw from the convention. It is his church’s affiliation that determines whether or not he is in the Southern Baptist Convention, regardless of whether or not he personally disagrees with the convention’s stances.
Additionally, speaking of tone, as you did in one or more of your recent blogs, I am wondering if his tone in the book is irenic, since he doesn’t seem to be very irenic in public about political and religious matters?
Finally, in his book, does he come across as anti-Semitic, since his public stance seems to be pro-Palestinian, at the expense of Israel?
In any event, it sounds like a very interesting book, and one I would like to read.
andrew jones
emerging church
hi darrell.
great observations – they seem to be applicable to many of the emerging church movements i have come across and worked with in north America (was that the scope of your research)
the polarity of either/or is unfortunate and some countries are better than others in moving to “and” or a better balanced position on things. its hard when you are trying to show how things are different in teh EC and at the same time not to contrast it with the inherited model of church.
peace
Greg Sheryl
Sin & Hell
Dr. Bock,
You continue to bring up the matter of greed being equivalent to idolatry, as if this somehow mollifies homosexuality being a particularly heinous sin before God. So, I simply observe that according to Rom. 1:23-27, it would appear that homosexuality is a judgment of God upon the idolatry of unregenerate people. Thus, it is a downward spiral from idolatry to homosexuality: Idolatry in unregenerate people seems to result in homosexuality as a judgment from God, if I am understanding that text correctly.
As far as hell: I don’t think that hell is mentioned in most modern presentations of the gospel. So I don’t think that there is any sort of emphasis given to hell; although it is true that some presentations of the gospel (such as Evangelism Explosion, to which you alluded) present a vague loss of heaven as motivation for receiving Christ.
I hesitate to tread on an area in which you specialize, namely the book of Acts, since I certainly haven’t done a fraction of the kind of research that you have done into it. However, would it be fair to say that the book of Acts reveals that the apostles themselves didn’t hesitate to warn people about such things as a day of judgment as an inducement to people to receive Jesus?
I will let these comments be my last words on these matters in this blog.
David
Excellent series of posts
I appreciate your series of posts on the E/E movement. I think it is a valuable addition to the commentary that is available on line about the movement, and gives us a rational framework to discuss.
I also recomend the 9 Marks recent commentary at http://sites.silaspartners.com/CC/article/0,,PTID314526|CHID598014|CIID2249226,00.html
I found it helpful also in looking at the E/E movement.
As to the “greater sin” issue – That would be a fine topic. However, it would likely get you labled by some as a heretic. To many in the church deny the sufficiency of scripture, and try to make homosexuality the “greatest sin”, when indeed you have allready pointed out the facts.
gsheryl
A Last Comment Re: Sin & Hell
Dr. Bock,
I don’t wish to weary you, so I will make this my last posting on this discussion of sin and hell, spawned by your summary of the features of the E/E movement.
I’m somewhat confused by your again bringing up the Scripture’s equation of covetousness with idolatry. You appear to be implying that greed is as bad or worse than homosexuality. However, it seems to me from Rom. 1:23-27 that homosexuality is a judgment from God upon the idolatry of unregenerate people. It is a downward spiral from idolatry into homosexuality, if I am understanding this passage correctly.
As far as hell goes, I don’t think that there is much talk of hell in most modern presentations of the gospel. It is true, as you alluded to, that some presentations of the gospel, such as Evangelism Explosion, imply a loss of heaven for failure to receive the gospel message.
However, the apostles themselves sometimes warned their listeners/readers of consequences for failure to believe in the good news, such as a day of judgment (E.g., Acts 17:30-31, Rom. 2:5-16). In a perfect world (figuratively speaking), there might be no need to address what might be called “the other side of the gospel.” Like you, however, I prefer to place the emphasis on the good news of the gospel, but also being willing to address the consequences of failing to heed the good news.
Brian Prentiss
Homosexuality as WORSE than idolatry??!
I would say this is exactly contrary to the Scriptures rather than supportive of them. Homosexuality is not a special level of sinfulness, as many social conservatives would contend. It is sinful no doubt, as is rage, bitterness, discontentment, unkindness, etc. But these are all SYMPTOMS of idolatry, which is the sin beneath the sin. Homosexuality is the result of rejecting God and his word and worshipping something else. It is a result of dethroning God in one’s heart and substituting one’s own choice, pleasure, desires, political ideology, whatever. This is no different or more offensive than heterosexual immorality because the root sin is the same.
I think we in the conservative church would do well to stop trying to diminish our own sins by comparing ourselves favorably with those struggling with homosexuality. We are just as guilty at the root level, and perhaps more so because we frequently disbelieve God’s promises and reject his rule in our lives even though we have much more light from God’s word.
Anonymous
Sin
Dr. Bock,
I enjoyed this chain concerning the E/E movement which quickly turned to a discussion on sin, specifically, the verying degrees of sin proposed by other readers. I agree with your points and appreciate your references to the vice lists in the NT.
It seems that when we have these discussions, it always ends up in the discussion of homosexuality vs. the remaining. Homosexuality is sin as pointed out by a fellow reader in which he referenced Romans 1:18-32, but I believe that it is important to ask the question, “who escapes the vice list in this same text”? If we are honest, none. Therefore, we all lack God’s righteous requirement regardless of our perceived degrees of sin and all need the same Savior! One further point, man’s original seperation from God was not murder, rape, or homosexuality but eating a “piece of fruit” when told not to eat it! The bottom line, God does not tolerate sin, period.
FMA
More info, please.
Although I didn’t know there was actually a name for it, this E/E Church is more or less where my vision for ministry has turned in the past few years. I pastor a small church in the old south that was founded during the Civil War. Our small city has the worst crime problem in the state so I set out to help whoever was active in fostering some change. My church will not be involved because it is a black problem. Other churches have done the tract thing in the past but I have observed that tracting should be followed closely by street sweeping.
I have determined that the first step in evangelism here is building relationships by which trust is earned. Then the gospel can be shared as it is also being demonstrated. I have had some of these E/E notions flowing through my mind during my 4 years here but it is hard to organize them. If you could clue me in on some resources or models or whatever, it will certainly be appreciated.
bock
info, please (emergent) dlb
Just google emergent and I am sure you can get help. Also try the names of some of the key figures, such as Brian McLaren and Tony Jones and Rob Bell. Be sure to keep your eyes on Scripture as you apply these ideas.
Jason
What is the consequences, penalties, punishments for sin?
I also know that Jesus took our punishment for those who believe in him cool huh?
Tim A. Blankenship
E/E – Homosexuality
Dr. Bock,
Could it be that the reason we Christians seem to speak out more against the sin of homosexuality is because the homosexual people have made it a bigger issue, and it is a problem which needs to be dealt with Biblically, and from the Christian perspective?
I agree with you about greed. It seems that greed is covetousness, and that is forbidden in the tenth commandment. Covetousness is idolatry, and idolatry is forbidden, because it worships something other than God. Sin is our condemnation, and Jesus Christ is our salvation.
God Bless you.
Tim A. Blankenship
Anonymous
God given human potential to be co-creators of life
There are many insightful comments here. I do believe that certain sins are held in higher contempt by God when they are manifested by those who have repented. If you’ve repented and you practice or associate with those known to continue to practice higher contempt sins, it does affect how He feels about you. It also represents a willingness to take risks with your walk (your abiding with Him).
The reason why homosexuality may be more contemptuous to God is that procreation is the one thing He gave humans where they can experience the creation of Life out of (almost) nothing. How sex is treated reflects on the God given human potential to be co-creators of life. To me this creative potential is part of what is referred to as “His likeness (tselem) and image (dimuth)”.