Hmmm? Certainly the guys I know do not think that. I think some of what I have read from the Emergent camp is not Scripturally sound but I could probably say that toward anyone just as I'm sure anyone could say about me. I don't know too many that agree with each other on 100%. But to say that not interpreting Scripture same is equal to using imagination as the source for doctrine, that's not correct. So before I expound on the referenced article, I suspect this is a classic misrepresentation and generalization by TeamPyro.
So what does the article say? I have no idea! Much of it I simply didn't understand. It outlines nine characteristics of the EC based on the book Emerging Churches. I've already critiqued that book - some of it was good and some of it was horrible. What I know is that not all EC'ers would say they agree with it. But I digress, back to the article.
Since I didn't really understand it, I did a word search for "imagination" and I found two hits. Perhaps one or both of these is where TeamPyro draws it's fire from.
The first is under the heading, "The emerging church stands for a recovery of biblical realism." I like that - biblical realism. I read it to mean, let's be true to the Bible not our imaginations. The author, Andrew, writes that he appreciates Danutz (a commenter to another article) but finds him to represent
a style of liberalism that has picked some juicy fruit of social justice from the ancient tree of the biblical narrative while at the same time doing its best to chop the tree down. I don’t think that is the way forward for a church that professes to follow Jesus from Nazareth.
Now this sounds real good! It sounds like Andrew has figured out that we cannot abandon the Biblical narrative.
He then writes:
The key to the recovery of biblical realism will be the development of a forward-looking rather than backward-looking theology. We think prospectively - and therefore uncertainly - from the narrated humanity of the early community, not retrospectively from our over-developed theological vantage points. The emerging church will give priority to the biblical narrative, recounting it and indwelling it as a formative community epic, with an empathetic imagination, without suppressing its conundra and contradictions. But it will hesitate to translate it into assured, rational, normative categories.
I'm not 100% sure but I read this to mean that the base is Scripture not imagination and that he wants his imagination to run free on that base as opposed to restrict it to the categories prescribed by someone else such as say, TeamPyro. While he uses that phrase "assured, rational, normative categories", I don't think, based on the earlier statements, that he means there is no Truth nor that Truth is irrational nor anything else of the sort. I think he is saying that none of us have absolute, comprehensive, perfect, etc. understanding of the full depth and breadth of God's Word. I hope his use of the words conundra and contradiction in regard to Scripture are really meant to be from our perspective as opposed to "Scripture contradicts itself" as an example. And even if he thought this were true, I'm not sure that equals "let's use our imagination as a source for doctrine".
The second place the word is used is in the heading, "The emerging church stands for renewal of the imagination". This section reads:
There are two general reasons for the emphasis on imagination and creativity. The first is that the emerging church, dissatisfied with the artistic sterility of much contemporary Christian culture, is seeking to translate a creation-oriented theology into much richer, more vivid, more complex, more playful and adventurous forms of expression, not merely in the arts but across the spectrum of cultural and social activities. The second reason is that the reinvention of church demands the exercise of a radical imagination that will see things differently and conceive new ways of being, doing and expressing.
That sounds good to me. The Truth of the Gospel does not lead the human spirit to be less creative but rather to be more. There is no suggestion here that imagination replaces Truth or that it is the source of doctrine. On the contrary, it suggests that redeemed man is free to enjoy imagination and beauty based on Truth.
As a side note, I have a personal problem with those that "dumb down" Truth to try to fit their artistic capability. That is, if I think puppets are cool I will reduce Truth to that which fits nicely in my puppet show. I hate that stuff. At the same time, I'm very good with Truth setting me free to want to express that in all that I am and do, which may include puppet shows.
So I don't know, I may have to reread this to figure out where TeamPyro finds the issue but I didn't get it. It seems like quite a lot of imagination went into getting from here that Emergents think that doctrine comes from imagination and then to be proud to confer the world in a mocking sort of way.
What did I miss?
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church
No comments:
Post a Comment