Linear Thinking, Tickled Ears and Creeds of Safety
Chris Seay in Stories of Emergence juxtapositions propositional thinking and other ways of thinking, like web thinking or circular thinking. He is right in thinking that there are other ways that people thinking about truth. He points out that Ecclesiastes is circular in its line of thinking and he says that Proverbs is web thinking. I agree that there is a level of literary sophistication in those books which is not easily caught in simple one liner summaries and the techniques of flash back are used. I'm not sure I see a lack of linear thinking in the book of Proverbs. There are topics that flow in my mind from proverb to proverb. And perhaps Chris would observe the same flow from proverb to proverb. I'm not sure we disagree so much as I think one does not have to throw away propositional truth in order to affirm the value of web or circular thinking. On the other hand, one must acknowledge that linear thinking is an aid in expressing clarity of thought. Web and circular thinking are about complex relationships and gaining the interest of our audience. The first attribute of complexity is essential in communicating the gospel. People often test truth by seeing if it will hold up to the complexity of real-life. It is sort of like difference between a laboratory test and testing something by using it in the real-world. The second attribute if used as a stand alone function amounts to tickling the ears of the audience. Story telling, proverbs, pithy sayings, and other communication techniques are good. But placing the techniques ahead of truth is dangerous. A story can be used to support many different points of view. It all depends upon the details put in or left out.
One other point that Chris makes is that he affirms the Apostle's Creed. I think one of the points of the emerging church movement is to leave behind one dimensional Christianity. I affirm the goal of experiencing God in multiple dimensions : mind, will, etc... One reason for shallow, one dimensional Christianity in America though is the creed that 'truth must always be boiled down to it's minimums'. The lowest common denominator is helpful if one is simply looking for a starting point for beginning to cooperate. It is a poor way to convince people that the scriptures have answers to life's problems. I don't think Chris would be an advocate of simplistic answers. But his affirmation of the Apostle's Creed is more of an effort to minimize flack from the traditional church and maintain connection with it. The point of affirming the Apostle's Creed it seems to be intellectually safe. That type of safety is what the emerging church seeks to leave behind.
MoBlog: This blog entry was composed on a Zire 71.
One other point that Chris makes is that he affirms the Apostle's Creed. I think one of the points of the emerging church movement is to leave behind one dimensional Christianity. I affirm the goal of experiencing God in multiple dimensions : mind, will, etc... One reason for shallow, one dimensional Christianity in America though is the creed that 'truth must always be boiled down to it's minimums'. The lowest common denominator is helpful if one is simply looking for a starting point for beginning to cooperate. It is a poor way to convince people that the scriptures have answers to life's problems. I don't think Chris would be an advocate of simplistic answers. But his affirmation of the Apostle's Creed is more of an effort to minimize flack from the traditional church and maintain connection with it. The point of affirming the Apostle's Creed it seems to be intellectually safe. That type of safety is what the emerging church seeks to leave behind.
MoBlog: This blog entry was composed on a Zire 71.
Comments
You said, "One reason for shallow, one dimensional Christianity in America though is the creed that 'truth must always be boiled down to it's minimums'. The lowest common denominator is helpful if one is simply looking for a starting point for beginning to cooperate. It is a poor way to convince people that the scriptures have answers to life's problems."
I know this was a while back, but do you still believe this?
I am in a quandary right now and part of it is wrapped up in the Apostle's Creed. I don't want to recite it or sign a statement that I believe this... I still think of myself as a "Christian"... but a lot of people I know would think me more a heretic.
Sigh...
Just looking further into this notion that we prove we are Christians by affirming the Apostle's Creed.
Thanks for showing interest in my blog. I hope my discussing issues is an encouragement to you in your own walk. I can give you some of my own thoughts on the issue. You asked if I still feel the same way, that theological minimums are okay to find a beginning point for Christian cooperation but poor way to find truth that stands the storms of life.
I do feel that creeds are useful. I grew up in a denomination where people would not say what they really believed for fear of loosing their jobs. The congregations were generally rural and theologically conservative. The better educated clergy were more theologically liberal than the congregations. So the pastors and other church leaders kept their traps shut so as to not cause undue distress on the poor people in the pew who would not understand. Now I am in a fairly conservative suburban denomination, but the "Two Step" is still danced. The pastors are for the most part very educated and very conservative. But they do not feel free to express their subtle distinctions with their brothers and sisters in public due to fact they want to hold on to their jobs. I have seen this phenomena in both conservative and liberal denominations. I think in both groups, when they are around friendly faces they express their beliefs.
Affirming creeds as a sense of community and unity is good. Affirming a creed under duress is not what we should be doing. If affirming a creed is done in duress then probably fear is the motivation. Fear of man, fear of loss of income, fear of the inability to express just why one does not agree fully with a creed are all negative reasons for affirming a creed.
I am wondering if you oppose signing a statement is based not wanting to be controlled by other people. That could be either good or bad. Are you resisting unreasonable invasion of your own privacy? That is good. I do think a church can expect its members to affirm a creed and especially its leaders. It is reasonable. All churches have either a formal or informal creed. Sometimes the informal creed takes the place of the formal creed.
I am wondering why you are suddenly being pressured to do this?
Terry