Herb wrote:

--

2.  Because we live in a postmodern age, they believe churches must find new ways to express spiritual vision without appealing to absolute truths.

--

Just so we know what you mean by absolute turth could you give us 5 examples of absolute truth. perferably religioius related examples. Thank you

Surely you are not claiming that the Spirit is limited to Christians or Christianity?  That the church is changing is nothing new:  the church in the NT is not the church today, nor should it be.  The structure and organization, as well as the doctrines accepted by Christians today were not those of the NT church, but were added long after the NT canon was closed.

 Was the church in error to do so?  The church instituted many structures of both the Roman government and of the one Christian church at that time and has continued to both adopt and institute new doctrines and practices (note the SDA Fundamentals that have gradually increased in numbers). 

This is evidence that the church is not static, nor has it ever been.  Nor, is any particular Christian denomination the "true" one.  It is men, not God who established all the Christian denominations, and even Jesus never set up a new and distinctive church.  It was the NT apostles and Paul who radically left behind Judaism and began a new movement culminating in Christianity before the turn of the first century, and it has been instituting new doctrines and practices ever since.  

Good questions, Ron: You, I know, can add to this short list that you ask for: 1. Jesus is God who became man; 2. Jesus said, "I am the Truth, the Way, and the Life." 3. Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law of the Prophets. I did not come t destroy but to fulfill." 4. Jesus said: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of MY Father in heaven." 5. Jesus said, "If you abide in Me, and My words abide inyou, your will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you." Does all this sound like truth? Cheers, Herb

Elaine: I enjoy that tongue in your cheek! Of course, the Holy Spirit has resided in the mind of everyone who has ever been born (John 1:9) to give us all a head-start in resisting that ever-present enmity that Satan has set up to zap the enmity that the Spirit has set up against him. Until an individual resists that appeal to respond to the Spirit and chooses self-gratification in any line as a habitual life pattern, the Spirit will keep speaking.

 Your definition for "church" needs clarification. The NT church of Paul is surely not the sacerdotal church that developed in the next few centuries. The "true" church is always made up of people who build their loyalty and life choices on the Scriptures, not on the scary interpretations of councils or church leaders of any persuasion. Those who build on the "true foundation" of Jesus as set forth in the Scriptures, willl not be constantly remodeling their "doctrines."  What do you think? Cheers, Herb

Every Christian teacher claims to use the Bible as his source for all truth, as did the first apostles who only had the Hebrew Bible.

To say that the church has wandered from the first century of Paul's time applies to all Christian churches, Adventism included.  Many of its doctrines came straight from the church councils in the third and fourth century.  They were not original with Adventism at all.

 Even claiming:

"Those who build on the "true foundation" of Jesus as set forth in the Scriptures, willl not be constantly remodeling their "doctrines."

is far from reality:  the church has consistently added doctrine, one need only read the doctrinal beliefs listed in the 28 Fundamentals to see how far it has strayed from the original church of the first century.  Most of those that are unique to Adventism are less than 200 years old, so in that short time, I daresay Paul would not recognize the "church" that claims not to have "remodeled" its doctrines. 

The church of Paul's time radically changed the concept of obedience to  Hebrew Law which had been strictly observed until his time; there was no instruction given by him for 10% of one's increase to be designated as tithe; there was definitely no doctrine of sabbath as an eternal holy day--to the contrary--no specific day was ever given; there were no longer "clean" and "unclean" meats prohibited; there was absolutely nothing about a 800-years in the future that Christ would be entering into the heavenly sanctuary to being his work of investigative judgment; there was nothing about observing any day as special in heaven as God is the Light, not the sun nor moon. 

 That should be sufficient to illustrate that there is a vast difference between the first century church and Adventism of today which often claims to be a "restoration."    

Herb, I am afraid that of your list of 5 none can be regarded as Absolute truth. To help you understand here is a useful definition:

__

In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context. The absolute in the term connotes one or more of: a quality of truth that cannot be exceeded; complete truth; unvarying and permanent truth. It can be contrasted to relative truth or truth in a more ordinary sense in which a degree of relativity is implied. http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci861884,00.html

--

At best your list is based upon an idea of relative truth and of course if one did not believe in the New Testament books they would not even be considered as relative truth except in so far as they were supposed to be statements taken from an ancient document.

Of course even more contrary to your claim of absolute truth, you have statements that are very open to interpretation such as: ". Jesus said, 'If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, your will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.'" Sort of a wide field of view on that text even within Christians, it may be very popular among the "name it and claim it" Christians, word prosperity teachers, general Adventist scholarship or Roman Catholic tradition.

I point this out because I percieved a very biased view in your blog.

But if you claim something is absolute truth then it really has to be absolutely true to everyone otherwise it is no where near being absolute truth. And beliefs are no where near absolute truth.

Elaine,

Your fine observation that doctrinal evolution has occurred in both the larger Christian  church and in the SDA Church doesn't really respond to Herb's point about postmodernists constantly remodeling doctrine. Are you suggesting an equivalency between the two?  Surely you recognize an enormous presuppositional difference between postmodernism, which rejects the idea of objective truth, and traditional Christianity, which rests upon the objective present and historical reality of God Incarnate, divinely revealed through Scripture. I might slightly quibble with Herb's point here, as I don't think postmodernists remodel doctrine so much as they simply deconstruct doctrine in order to discredit it. But I certainly don't think anyone can reasonably argue that postmodern Christians are simply doing what Christians have done through the ages. In fact, I think postmodernists themselves would be offended by the suggestion.

And Ron, you seem to be using "absolutes" in a philosophical sense, though your request that Herb list religious absolutes surely tended away from such a conclusion. From the philosophical perspective, given the finitude of language, doesn't the very notion of knowable absolutes become oxymoronic, rendering your challenge a semantic game?  It appears to me that, rather than assume you intended to ask a nonsensical question, Herb chose to use "absolute" in the sense of an essential, irreducible foundation. In that sense, supporting beams in a house are absolutely essential to prevent collapse. I think Herb may have been answering your question by sharing what he perceives as the necessary supporting structures which prevent collapse of the Christian house of faith.

Don't mean to put words in your mouth, Herb, but I fear that what we have here is a failure to communicate.

You are right, Nathan. I should have been clearer. And Ron is right, using his definitions. Regarding postmoderns--deconstruction is a better word, Yet there is such a wide disparity among those who want to remake/deconstruct Christianity, it is most difficult to say how different they are in their deconstructing. Of course, if one does not accept Jesus and His messages as Truth, then the philosophy approach is as wide open as anyone wants to make it. For me, the evidence of history and experience as I understand them, and the life confirmation that I have found by joining head and heart, all tell me that I am anchored to absolute truth--given my parameters. Is that OK, Ron, Elaine, Nathan?  Cheers, Herb

Nathan wrote:

--

From the philosophical perspective, given the finitude of language, doesn't the very notion of knowable absolutes become oxymoronic, rendering your challenge a semantic game?

--

That however is what Herb was doing. I simply pointed it out. His statement was:

"2.  Because we live in a postmodern age, they believe churches must find new ways to express spiritual vision without appealing to absolute truths."

He then verified that he was not even talking about absolute truths. He was actually talking about his beliefs. Pretending that his beliefs which were in themselves extremely vague and subject to various interpetations should be classified as absolute truth and that the emergent chruches were expressing a spiritual vision without appealing to Herb's particular beliefs.

No churches fundational beliefs are equivalent to absolute truth. those that go down that road become like the Roman Catholic church, holding themselves as orthodox and deciding if others are orthodox or not.

Dr.Douglass, thank you for summarizing some of the characteristics of this movement.  It is definitely not an easy thing to do.   

I would just like to add one more point. Whatever we may say about Emerging Church/Movement one thing is clear, it has absolutely BRILLIANT concept.  It has enormous goal to completely change Christianity as we know it, down to the very foundation, yet it has no organization, no leadership, no buildings, no overhead, no membership, or even doctrine. Just books, conferences, social networks and conversation to promote new ideas.  Tailor made for this age and this generation. What's even more brilliant is that most of the people are not even aware what's going on. From everything evident in different Protestant denominations, as well as, our church, it is very efficient. Now, WHO could have thought of something like that? 

This is really an important blog, Herb.  I'm glad you took the time to write it.  I'm reasonably certain that  many Adventists are unaware of the source of some of our recent worship and devotional innovations, or worse, that they would care if they did know. 

I really like the song, "It's all about You,Jesus" because that's  what I want my worship to be! Sometimes it's just easier to let worship become what appeals to us, without a thought of how acceptable it might be or not be to the One we're ostensibly  adoring.

Cindy

What a scary thought of

"of how acceptable it might be or not be to the One we're ostensibly  adoring."

Are there only certain prescribed forms of adoration to our Creator?   If so, shouldn't there be a list of the ones approved and disapproved? 

The very idea smacks of "good" and "bad" types of worship.  Where in the Bible are we told that only certain forms of worship will be accepted?  All cultures choose their forms of worship that have meaning for them.  Are the North American the approved ones, and of what era?  17th century songs and forms or later?   

Our North American culture - which,  even inside the church is a very politically correct one - tends to think that "it's all good" and thus there can be no delineating distinctions in worship.  Distinctions themselves are becoming so taboo that the anyone who would that there are distinctions are the only "bad" thing left and are thus ostracized.  As an SDA that spent the middle thirty years of his life away from God and learning to be politically correct the subject of, and the reinstallation of, "right and wrong" is my ministry.  

En-rout back to my SDA roots I found quickly that rocking out to the Christian worship teams complete with dancing onstage was the distraction that prevented both conviction and repentance.  What worked best was being still and knowing Who was God.  For me that meant even removing my TV.  

 I would recommend a viewing of "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll" a wonderful and Biblical look at why there are distinctions in musical worship and why.  Should be viewable on you tube.  Very well done and especially poignant to me a 60 year old who went through the center of the cultural sexual drug revolution of the sixties and seventies that has led to the presumptions on grace that is destroying both our homes and churches and thus too our nation.  

So Elaine; What is scary to me is realizing the degree to which when it all has become good - where if that is indeed true - immorality has as well,  become "good".

 Another thing.  I found first hand that I was deceived into thinking I was in adoration when actually it was 100% about me and what I was actually in was denial.  Its not about simply a style.  It is about a mindset. One that keeps us in the undertow of a culture that used and uses music and culture to deceive. The man who is given credit for that (now full grown) culture, Aleister Crowley,  coined a term that became the devil's mantra of the sixties:  "Do What Thou Wilt".

Gary Kimes  

PS I attended the Santa Cruz church where the term 'emergent church' was coined. (Dan Kimble) Fortunately for me those were the evening worship services.. I was there to hear Chip Ingram who I credit with helping to point me back to the Lord.  He can be checked out on LOTE.com. Wonderful teacher.

Yikes.  These are true things.  The church is being destroyed by a bunch of smart, liberal radicals who oppose the Holy spirit.  No more repentance anymore, no more little lambs.  They say, lets make this a "judgement free" zone where everyone can "feel" like a part of the group, despite if there may be any sexual immorality or outright falsehood.  Afterall, there is no objective truth anymore.  

This is all apostasy.  People are only going to fool themselves for so long before apostasy completes it's course.  I firmly believe that times are coming in the near future in which we will see churches utterly shut down and turned into glorified community centers.  Reputable Christian bookstores like Mardel's for example will no longer refer to themselves as Christian anymore and will become more "open-minded" selling books of all sorts such as the Quran, Witchcraft, atheism, etc.  But ultimately, you can only bend Christianity around so much before people say to themselves "I'm going to move on with my life and go pursue my real dreams, such as starting a business," etc.  People are only going to go so far before they break free and become utterly non-religious.  Then you'll start seeing preachers openly renouncing their faith on the internet and public television, and boasting about how they became philanthropists and how much better their marriages became after they stopped being "Christians".  Then massive exoduses of ex-Christians will follow after them.  You can see where this is going.  

Herbert, remember, you're up against the spirit of Satan who is trying to utterly divide the church and conquer it.  The ancient serpent, the destroyer.  You are dealing with wolves in sheep's clothing, who have come to steal, kill, and destroy.  To utterly devour the flock and make disciples after themselves.  Don't lose heart, and keep fighting the good fight!  These are some dark times coming.  The apostasy is going to get much, much worse.  

Blessings be with you.

Herb,

I question whether there is much similarity between emergent spirituality and spiritualism. I have always found emergent spirituality to be very focused on scripture and Christ and not at all on immortality of the soul or finding God within. In fact, I have always found much more of an emphasis on being like Jesus in the here and now. I also have not found much if any of a following after other religions and focusing on them, though there is more respect for other religions and there are certainly some within the movement who question the validity of propositional truth. I don't know that I would say they are the majority, and there are many (especially those who are starting faith communities and not just writing books) who support propositional truth. I think some of this misunderstanding comes from equating emerging church with post-modernism. Emerging is clearly influenced by post-modernism, but they are not philosophical twins. Just like the modern (I believe you referred to it as "traditional" church) is influenced by but not identical to modernism).

But what is Biblical about the modern church? We sit in pews and listen to the expert tell us what scripture means. We allow only pastors to baptize despite the clear command of the great commission to all Christians. Church is a place and not a community. The early church was eating together daily, living together often, everyone was participating in the service, they were listening to the Holy Spirit not experts, and they changed the trappings of their faith (NOT their faith itself) dramatically in order to reach the Gentiles. It seems to me that emerging is more similar to this than are "traditional" churches.

One last thought. I recently read a book by Doug Pagitt (pretty big in emerging) that said something to the effect of "we didn't think the world needed more people who were spiritual but not religious. We thought the world would be better if there were more people who used their religion to bless others." Sums it up well, I think. That's my two cents. Grace and peace to you.