Julie...

Thanks for jumping on board with the project!

I just wanted to ask you, are you sure that's what you believe? Can you prove it? :-)

I am amazed at how systematized and sanitized we have made Christianity. It all doesn't sound much like Jesus, and is, of course, a big turn off for most people. Yet, it is a comfortable psuedo-world for so many. I just wonder what might happen, if we got real, honest, and were truly loving.

Great post, Julie. I know exactly what you're talking about - my FIL is an "evidences" teacher. He has scientific (but biblical) explanations for everything.

This comment has been removed by the author.

amazing post.."the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty" (Anne Lammott)

.found your blog via friend of a friend on facebook...send me a request over there if you like...

I married a wheaton girl...her dad and uncle have both been in admin. there (Kriegbaum)..I am pastoring an emerging plant in Calif: www.3dff.com

i added you to my blogroll

dave wainscott

thanks Julie, that reminds me so much of my teen christian life, ah bible nerds in the world but not of it unite!

I often look back and see myself as one of those charicaturs, all giant head and spindly tiny lil body - all head, no heart.

I've been on a bit of a journey of rebalance for awhile - including a few yrs as an all heart no need to think any more charisma type - just crank the music up real loud and go with the flow.

But now i am appreciating all the more my heritage and all that head stuffing and heart growing, being loving and thinking about what is right, being generous with people who see things different and trading in some of the certainty for more community.

Julie
Help me out? It’s either you have a head full of biblical knowledge and are sure of your salvation; however that just makes you a mean spiteful Christian incapable of compassion. Or you throw propositional truth to the wind be unsure of your eternal destiny (because having assurance means your arrogant) and just be good person which means you’re a good Christ-follower. Have I got that right? There doesn’t seem to be a happy medium here does there? Can’t you be loving, kind AND have a certainty about the faith, I can manage both by God’s grace? Doesn’t Jude tell us to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints? Sounds like they were pretty certain they had the true faith. Doesn’t it say in 1John “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may KNOW that you have eternal life” Sounds they were certain and had assurance of their salvation.

Why does spiritual uncertainty equate to “humility” in EC circles (although I believe this “humility” is at best, intellectual arrogance; a contemptuous distain for anyone who clings to the propositional truths of orthodox Christianity and at worst outright rebellion against God) Why on earth would anyone get comfort from a religion based on a man-made philosophy (post-modernism) which in a generation or so will evolve into another equally absurd philosophy. Didn’t Jesus warn us not to build our foundations on sand?

I have read a lot of “I had a bad experience with the church when I was a teenager, so I’ve decided to bin the whole lot” stories. Well haven’t we all? At one point in my life I was dissatisfied with Western Christianity so I took a spiritual journey. My journey took me East, waaay past the Tiber. You know what I found there? The same things I see going on in this movement; mysticism, asceticism, uncertainty, ritualism, myth, culturally relevant “meta-narratives” and a faith built on nothing but doing stuff. Doing stuff in hopes that works would find God’s favor. In the end it did not satisfy.

I’ll not deny that the church in North America is rife with apostasy and false teachings, and mean spirited "christians" which is it all the more reason for us to model the Bereans ; search the scriptures daily for in them is Truth. God is Truth, His word is Truth when we deny this, when we question this we will be like the surf of the sea as James so aptly put it driven and tossed by the wind.

to Ken, newcenturion, and the mocking masses -

if you think this post is about rebellion instead of faith you really do have your blinders up. This journey for me was about realizing that I am not God and therefore not omnipotent (the only way to ever have certainty) and instead learning to believe and have faith. This has nothing to do with rebellion. It has to do with choosing God over the philosophies of man. If you are to enthralled to certain such philosophies to even see that, I pity you.

This journey for me was about realizing that I am not God and therefore not omnipotent (the only way to ever have certainty) and instead learning to believe and have faith. This has nothing to do with rebellion. It has to do with choosing God over the philosophies of man. If you are to enthralled to certain such philosophies to even see that, I pity you.

Julie first off I’m glad you realize that you’re not God anymore; I’ve never had any delusions of grandeur on that scale myself. On a more serious note, I’m not Ken Silva or Phil Johnson and I’m not mocking you. I’m having a “conversation”. Your religion wants to change 2000 years of accepted orthodox doctrine and is engaged in a “conversation” with other Christians, well let’s converse. Your husband challenged me and asked if I personally knew any emergent’s, I don’t, maybe God has brought me to this forum for a reason. I want to know why people have turned their backs on what is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Why do I get the impression that there is such an overall feeling of anger and distrust of Conservative Christians. Like I’ve said before, I’ve read McLaren, and articles by Bell, Jones and a host of other emergent’s however I’ve also read D.A. Carson and R. Scott Smith’s analysis of the movement (both of which were very balanced and I highly recommend for anyone in or out of the movement). I’m not sure where you get the idea that certainty about one’s salvation or the Truth contained in God’s Word is a man made philosophy. Again please refer to 1 John, God through His Word seems to think it was important that Christians be assured of their salvation. Furthermore assurance does not does not negate faith or belief. I still must believe in Christ and I still must submit to his Lordship over all areas of my life to be saved, there is no “easy believism” in the Faith, it’s all or nothing. So please explain how assurance is a man made philosophy? I’m not sure if you get my e-mail address when I log onto your site, however if you wish to continue via e-mail rather than a public forum (where things can get a little testy and people seem to get a little more defensive, myself included) let me know and I’ll forward you my e-mail.

NC - Sorry for the delay in the reply, I've been away from the computer for the weekend. I'll try to address some of your questions.

First - the believing one is God thing. That was sarcasm. Complete knowledge (certainty) on everything would make one equal with God. So i came to see that to claim certainty is to claim to be God - which is a tad blasphemous.

And the emerging church is not trying to change 2000 years of accepted orthodox doctrine - mainly because such a thing doesn't exist. Whose orthodox doctrine? The early church fathers? The coptics (the only one who really have 2000 years of uninterrupted doctrine)? The early catholics? The Celts? The Fransicans? The Syrians? The Greek Orthodox? The Russian Orthodox? The Calvinists? The Purtians? The Anabaptists? The Pentecostals? The Dispensationalists? Which set of orthodox doctrine are you referring to?

Many in the emerging church are questioning our allegiance to post-enlightenment form of epistemology and challenging the assumption that certain doctrines that are a mere 150 years old are necessarily the "correct" ones. instead we want to look at the whole of church history and admit that yes scripture was interpreted differently by different groups at different times. We want to claim what is good and attempt to understand what those scriptures meant in the historical and cultural context of jesus. It isn't a claim that we alone will get it right or get it completely, but for us it is the only way to the intellectually honest.

So what gets me is people who say hold to something like Dispensational theology (to use what I grew up under) saying that I am abandoning 2000 years of orthodox theology. I am doing no such thing and they need to learn history. I am challenging a certain interpretation of scripture that answered questions and made sense in the historical climate of the mid 1800s. But that scares people who have never been taught that the bible is even interpreted. If they think that their brand of the faith is the only one or the only true one, they shut down and freak out if confronted with an opposing viewpoint.

As to certainty being a human philosophy. Try reading about the enlightenment. The endeavor was to get beyond all the mystery and superstition of the middle ages (the church) and trust only in what ones senses can tell you. Science and reason were held up as gods and religion was mocked for its imprecise and faith-based nonsense. The church at first tried to resist such a mentality. They promoted faith above certainty. But of course science and reason won out. don't get me wrong I like what science has brought us, what I don't like is how over time the church sold out to the philosophies of the enlightenment.

In attempts to defend the faith to the masses, the church began to talk like the masses. It used reason and proofs to explain away the mysteries of God and faith. Over time the myth of certainty took hold of the Christian community until it became to be seen as a biblical value. So much so that when people began to point out that christians had accepted fully this philosophy of man the church dug in their hills, denied it, and called the questioners unbiblical. Now holding onto the enlightenment ideal of certainty has become more important for some than truth or faith.