What Would it take for One Emerger to wonder whether another Emerger is a Heretic? A rethinking of the Trinity Perhaps?
There’s an interesting development over at Scot McKnight’s blog, Jesuscreed.org. Apparently Scot is reviewing Spencer Burke’s latest book A Heritic’s Guide to Eternity and has found it lacking not to mention heretical. Spencer Burke is the founder of theooze.net and a leader in the Emerging Church movement.
Adam J said,
August 26, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Hey man, I like the new blog address/design, it’s good stuff.
AJ said,
August 29, 2006 at 1:43 am
I was following McKnight’s review as well. Seemed like he was unwilling to be overly negative until he realized that Burke’s take on God is nontrinitarian and nonpersonal. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was installment 4 of the review…when I think about it, it’s remarkable that Burke was able to keep his “heretical” views under the radar that long.
spencer burke said,
August 29, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Sorry I have just got around to posting this now. It has been pretty busy out in the Bloggosphere… I hope the context from Scots blog sheds some light on your question. Below are comments from instalment #4 on JesusCreed. There or over 100 comments so you can read the rest when you get a chance. One of the values of blogging with comments is the give and take on the initial post. Scot was very gracious and I think the dialogue modeled one of the ways we can have interaction, hold our beliefs and be graceful, kind and loving. BTW: I have had great contact with Scot offline as well…
YOU SAY -
“Burke’s take on God is nontrinitarian and nonpersonal. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was installment 4 of the review”
__________________________
I SAID – (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1319#comments)
May a say up front I do not deny the Trinity as you quoted from the book above “Instead, he is a panentheist — which means that “God is ‘in all,’ alongside my creedal view of God as Father, Son, and Spirit” (195).”
When Father is used in scripture and prayer, etc. I see God much in the same way as you would – personal, with the best characteristics of a father, Son the same – as a son of the father and the incarnational image of God here on earth as God in Flesh and Holy Spirit as personally guiding me, comforting me and leading / convicting me in truth. I assume this would fit (at least loosely) in your “creedal” view of the Trinity. May I add this is a very dear part of my belief and I thought stating “along side my creedal view” would make that clear.
The context for the subsection of the book focuses not on a denial of the Trinity but the question of how do we deal with the passages where God is not identified with one of these personal roles (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) but only as God. Do you equate God as Father, as the default? That is the way I used to think of God, but now I see the potential of both a Trinitarian creed along with a panentheist view. What if when scripture refers to God as “God” we begin to see God not as anyone of the three but wholly and completely all three and other. I don’t believe there are 4 persons to the trinity but I do see 4 ways of looking at the person and work of God – Father, Son, Holy Spirit AND God.
__________________
MARK SAID –
Scot,
How can you conclude that Spencer doesn’t believe God is a person based on the quote you provided? The words “exclusively” and “more than” don’t exclude personhood, they just qualify it relative to other characteristics of God.
I have not read the book, so maybe he is more direct elsewhere, I just took what you quoted differently.
Comment by MarkE — August 8, 2006
________________________
ALAN SAID –
As far as the specific concerns you laid out here, I wonder if some of it, as you have intimated, may be a matter of semantics with Spencer, e.g., the “universalism – inclusivism” thing. Also the “personhood” of God thing. Scripture even says the God is Spirit, but is He not also an ultimately personal being, BEING?
Comment by + Alan — August 8, 2006
________________________________________
I hope we will engage each other and listen not only to the words but also the heart of the person we disagree with. In the end I believe we will be strong for our dialogue.
Matt Christenot said,
August 30, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Spencer,
Thanks for stopping by. I will amend the title of my blog to more accurately reflect the dialogue between Scot and yourself. I will also follow with a more thoughtful response to the rearticulation of your views.
AJ said,
August 31, 2006 at 12:37 am
I appreciate the clarification from Spencer. I think the semantics of this debate have become too involved for some people to track however…I’m interested in your response, Matt.
spencer burke said,
September 2, 2006 at 2:59 am
Matt and AJ,
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue. I look forward to the conversation both online and maybe someday in person…
I posted this on another blog today, but I think it might have some value in this context as well. Either way a little more for your pondering.
______________________________________
The use of “heretic” can be seen as metaphorical in terms of how most people would use it – the “institution” of church trying to hold power, dominance or control over people, ideas or progress that they feel is threatening – but in reality end up exposed for the motives they had.
Perhaps just like the movie Dogma, Barry and I have painted the religious landscape with big, broad brush strokes. Moving from “religion” to “spirituality” may give us the chance to leave a world of “catholic vs protestant, sunni vs shiite, red state christians vs blue state christians”, to a new place where we find what brings us together rather than what makes us different and still hold our own personal beliefs – replacing dominance with love.
It is interesting to see people equate dissent with opposition. When I talk to most christians they don’t believe the church or religion are working. Many have pointed out how they disagree with the book, I respect their insights and have learned from their remarks. But then I hope we can have the conversation about how the book has sparked their imagination, stretched their point of view or challenged their understanding of the world and spirituality.
AJ said,
September 4, 2006 at 5:12 am
“a new place where we find what brings us together rather than what makes us different and still hold our own personal beliefs – replacing dominance with love.”
I wonder what type of unity this would amount to. Given: We’re faced on all fronts with people who disagree violently with Christianity, and we are called to love and even serve them. I don’t see how this implies that we should gloss over gaping differences in beliefs, however. No matter if the beliefs are “personal” – since all beliefs are “personal” before they can be held.
Spencer, I guess I’m trying to figure out what you mean by “replacing dominance with love.” It’s precisely because Christ’s truth does dominate all other “truths” that I am willing to love my enemies.
Matt Christenot said,
September 5, 2006 at 12:53 am
Good point Ariel.
Spencer, I don’t think any serious student of history would deny the fact that the church through the ages has used the term “heretic” as a form of oppression and as a way to wield power. We should keep in mind however that most of this oppression came in later centuries as power became increasingly centralized under the papal authority. That’s not to say that the reformers didn’t participate in their fair share of oppression under the auspices of squelching heresies.
This however, is not the 16th century. In this discussion let’s keep in mind that the worst fate a “heretic” faces today is being labeled as such (and on a blog no less). There is a vast difference in having your views questioned and being killed for holding those views.
Nathan said,
September 5, 2006 at 6:56 am
There are a lot of ways to kill a person today without killing them physically.
We may not literally burn people, but we still burn people.
We may not be using the actual practices of the 16th c., but I think the point is that at times–most of the time, in my experience–there still is the dark 16th c. attitudes and reactions in our hearts, the tone and the general demeanor in which we conduct our theological dialogue.
gymbrall said,
September 7, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Interesting discussion, though I think I’m coming to it late in the game. I think I’m with Ariel regarding the question of what Burke means by “replacing dominance with love.”.
On the heretic front, I think we need to be careful with the word. Were I to use this word, it would mean that I would be willing to begin church discipline against the individual, the end result of which (if carried out by the church body and leadership) would be excommunication (earthly recognition of the unsaved state of the accused and severance of fellowship and communion) Serious stuff indeed.
gymbrall
Matt Christenot said,
September 7, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Nathan – First I’d like to say that I have not personally called Spencer a heretic. This particular post was meant to call attention to an ongoing discussion taking place at http://www.jesuscreed.org. In this particular discussion the question came up of whether or not Spencer’s views tended towards heresy. I found this particuarlly interesting, because it has been my observation that people of an emerging mindsets are very reluctant to speak negatively of each others beliefs. I often wondered where the breaking point was, and it seemed to me that this issue of the trinity might have been it. I’m not sure where the conversation stands as of now between Spencer and McKnight, perhaps he can fill us in.
In regards to my statement about the 16th century, I simply want to avoid the mentality that wants to espouse any belief under the sun and then cry foul and play the martyr whenever someone calls them on it.
Gymbrall – I believe you are right that the word “heretic” is a strong word and that we should be careful in its use. I may put up a post on the issue of heretics to generate some more discussion on this issue.