A Web of Beliefs

Back in December, I tried to give a basic explanation of foundationalism. This is a very modern (as in post-Enlightenment) way of understanding knowledge and beliefs. I have found it helpful to look at this subject, which is called epistemology, in a new light. Therefore, I'm going to spend the next few days explaining the gist of what I've learned in the hopes that it will help you, too.

The foundationalist metaphor for knowledge is a building. If you seriously damage or remove the foundation of a building, you're in serious trouble! Foundationalists think of certain beliefs as  not questionable. Descarte's famous example was Cogito ergo sum—"I think, therefore I am." In trying to doubt everything, Descartes reasoned that there had to be someone there in order for that doubting to take place. In foundationalism. this sort of indubitable belief serves as a foundation for the rest of what you believe. When justifying your beliefs, you reason from the bottom up. You start from your foundational beliefs and justify other beliefs based on the "floors" below.

W.V. Quine presented us with what I think is a much better metaphor. Instead of imagining a building where beliefs are built on top of other beliefs, he gave us the image of a web. There are various points on this web where strands connect. These are our beliefs. No one point is necessarily more important than any other. The outside of the web is where we put our "experience." Experience provides the boundaries for what we believe. At the center is logic. We will rarely change this area of our web unless forced to.

The strength of the web depends on how interconnected our beliefs are. Take note, also, that we can reason in any direction, unlike in foundationalism. When changes to our beliefs are made, we usually attempt to make the change in a way that affects the rest of the web the least.

What do you think? Comments? Questions?

Comments

[r]

In light of Christianity where does this web fit in? Is the center Christ and Faith or is it human logic? Could you give an example of " strength of web depends on how interconnected our beliefs are"
It is all very intriging.

[ken]

That's a very interesting metaphor. I agree that it fits better than a building metaphor. A web is also a more flexible structure. You are less likely to have a failure of the entire system if one area of belief changes.

[Bill]

r,

Our beliefs about Christ would be one of the points on our web. For a Christian, it's probably going to be connected to a lot of other things (i.e. beliefs about Scripture).

In class, we talked about the example of the Bible. What makes us believe it is inspired by God? A foundationalist might try to establish some unquestionable fact and work upward from there in a logical fashion. In reality, I think we have a whole host of reasons for believing it. No one reason necessarily trumps all of the others. And honestly, I don't think any reason, all by itself, is sufficient "proof."

I think the subject of faith is a special category and it probably depends on how you define it. I don't think our faith is supposed to be irrational, know what I mean? So while we things about God are sometimes paradoxical, we don't deny the laws of logic. It's probably important to remember that just because something is in the center of the web, that doesn't make it a foundation.

Nancey Murphy suggests putting the doctrine of the Trinity in the center. I'm not exactly sure why, but maybe she believes its the least inflexible point of belief for Christians. It's an interesting point of view, but I'm not exactly sure I understand where she's coming from.

Thanks for the comments!

[Bill]

That's right, Ken. It's interesting when you think about the task of sharing your beliefs with other people. If someone doesn't buy into your foundations, you have nowhere to go.

Many Christians spend time trying to defend absolute truths, but I think that in the end, all of our beliefs are justified in some kind of circular fashion. That doesn't mean we can abuse that, though. It's possible to construct circular arguments that are misleading or disingenuous.

[Lauraconk]

Well..........hmmm. Early morning rambling... here we go>>>>>>>>>
I agree with Nancy that the Trinity should be central. That is probably exactly because it's truly foundational and not only central. If someone doesn't "buy into" Christ... what else would we have to offer them next anyway? It's not like we can say, "Oh, you don't believe in Christ's purchasing your freedom with His blood? How about we try Buddha? Maybe you'll like him better!"

As a Christian, I would hope the center would always be about Jesus and would be completely inflexible... what else has the right to take that place and therefore, if you really think about it, become more important than Him? Ascribe higher significance to logic, and logic becomes your god... doesn't it? The mysteries that we'll not have complete grasp of 'til heaven, when we finally see in full & not just in part, can't be explained away with logic... they're all to be found in Jesus. He's more radical than logical, wouldn't you say?

[deborah]

That is interesting Laura, I hadn't looked at that way. When I picture my web of beliefs, I don't picture Jesus as the center, but rather Jesus is each and every anchor point of the web.

[Bill]

Laura,

The point of a web of beliefs is that there is no foundation. Think about it this way: If I change my view of Christ it will affect other views that I hold. At the same time, if my view of other things change, it may affect my beliefs about or understanding of Christ. I don't think anyone can say they're view of Christ never changes. That doesn't mean Christ changes according to our perspective, it's just admitting that our perspective changes our concept of who Jesus is.

That's why you can't say that Jesus is "inflexible," in my opinion. If you insist that Jesus is an unchangeable foundation, you are in danger of rigidly holding on to a view of Jesus that doesn't correspond with who Jesus really is.

[Lauraconk]

So, as in Deb's web...if Jesus is an anchor at every point... the same would hold true? Wouldn't that web fall apart if every anchor point changed? So, in that case how is it truly different?

We can know Jesus better and in new ways...but by Him not changing as foundation, I mean Him as Savior and Lord of my life. If I were to decide that He truly is not my blood atonement....I would expect that everything else in my life should change! I think it would.

[Bill]

I don't actually think the "anchor points" thing fits the model I'm talking about, no offense to Deb.

According to the web model, our beliefs about Jesus would affect everything that is related to that belief. So if a person's view of Jesus changes then, yes, it would affect their whole life (assuming that their belief in Jesus had a big impact in the first place). The difference, in foundationalism, is that this only works in one direction. You establish a foundation (let's say it's Jesus) and you build from there. What you build on top of Jesus is not supposed to affect what you believe about Jesus.

This may sound great to a foundationalist, but I don't think it's really as great as it may seem. What ends up happening is that your view of Jesus has to remain unchangeable. You can't change your view of Jesus based on your walk with him or a sermon you hear or a life experience that you have. If you try to change the foundation you've ruined your whole project. The danger of all this is that we will be stuck with our own idolatrous concept of Jesus as opposed to the real deal. This is a subject that I touched on in my new post entitled Conceptual Idolatry.

[Lauraconk]

I guess I just don't understand why that has to be true. As I experience more of Jesus, the box I may have placed Him in earlier in my walk/life has certainly altered. My growth affects the way I respond and act in my life... in so doing, affecting everything else: how I speak, what I say, how I teach my son, etc.

You know... foundations are strong start points and crucial to a building's integrity ........HOWEVER, even now I COULD have my home lifted off of it's foundation and have another foot of block added if I had the $$ and desire. At our last home, we did an addition and built on to our existing foundation. Perhaps it's some people's stagnant view of a foundation that is at fault and not so much the design itself :)

[ken]

True. But sometimes the foundation is built out of less structurally sound materials. The house above may seem beautiful and strong but the foundation is crumbling beneath it. I have seen this in many older houses where they built the foundation out of loosely laid stones held together with mud. The foundation is literally decomposing out from under the house.

[Lauraconk]

Yep... true... and I've also taken my garden hose and obliterated entire webs with little difficulty ;)

[deborah]

Hey Bill, you attach your web to what you want, and I'll attach it to what I want. ;)

Actually, in the model you are talking about, what do you attach your web to?

[Bill]

And the point is that you can't change the foundation. You're not going to keep your old house, but swap out the old foundation for a new one.

The more of a foundationalist mindset you have, the less you will be willing to adjust your "foundational" beliefs. That means that if your foundation is crumbly, as Ken pointed out, you're in trouble!

The web of beliefs model allows us to see how we can let all of our beliefs affect the others. Now, some beliefs may be more influential, but none are unchangeable (or perhaps a safer word would be adjustable).

[Bill]

Another point made in the web model is that the outside of the web is experience. The closer your beliefs are to that outside, the stronger they are. I have been thinking about this lately. Despite what we, as Christians, tend to say about faith, we really do believe more strongly in those things that we actually have experienced.

Let me put that another way. If I never had any experience that showed me following Christ was meaningful, I wouldn't continue to follow him.

[Bill]

Deb,

It just floats in space.

Seriously, though. I don't think that's a consideration in this model. As they said in The Holy Grail:

"It's only a model!"

[deborah]

So, how has following Christ been meaningful? What has your experience shown you about Jesus?

[r]

Whether its a model or not, is beside the point, you have to "build/attach" your beliefs on something. There is a quote I like," If you dont believe in something you will fall for anything" Being confident in what we believe is core to telling others about Christ and to living a more missional lifestyle.
Bill, what is the role of the Holy Spirit in your life?

[Bill]

Deb,

I think I already tried to answer that first question here?

As for the second one, a lot of the reading I've done in the past couple of years has affected my view of Christ and the his kingdom. These books are scripturally based, but I can't say that I would have my views just based on reading scripture alone.

Also, some of my actions in the past, when I was more of a "fundamentalist," have caused me regret. That also has helped shape the way I view Christ's admonition to love my neighbor.

Does that answer your question at all?

[Bill]

r,

I think you're misunderstanding my answer to Debbie's question. In the web model, all of the beliefs are connected to each other. It's not like a building where the attic isn't connected directly to the basement.

Nothing in the web model says you don't believe in anything. I think there is such a thing in believing in something TOO much, though. In other words, people can put too much faith in their interpretations or perspectives.

I hold to the traditional view that the Holy Spirit is God's presence in our lives. He is our guide and the third person of the trinity.

Why do you ask?

[deborah]

You answered how you have come to your beliefs, and you said you have become "more Christ-like" in that you "believe that I have become more loving, more accepting, more willing to listen to other people and to take their views seriously", which you also credit the ec with doing.

My question is: is being more loving/accepting/willing to listen being Christ-like?

And my last question was: how has following Jesus been meaningful? (which the above quote from your comment didn't answer - I'm looking for the meaning, not just that it made you nicer.)

[r]

Im my life I relay on the Holy Spirit to reveal to me those things in which I either don't understand or have questions about. It has been my experience that I didn't give the Holy Spirit enough credit of His role in my life, I have recently been more of aware of what His role really is and how we are to tap into that source. I asked the question because I wondered if you use the Holy Spirit to reveal to you that which you are seeking.

[Bill]

Deb,

You wrote: "My question is: is being more loving/accepting/willing to listen being Christ-like?"

Yes.

You wrote: "And my last question was: how has following Jesus been meaningful? (which the above quote from your comment didn't answer - I'm looking for the meaning, not just that it made you nicer.)"

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you're getting at. Following Jesus has been meaningful in that it has changed my life in the ways I mentioned. How am I not answering you?

[Bill]

P.S. Sorry if I'm being dense. I'm not sure what else you want me to tell you.

[Lauraconk]

Okay.. I see where I think Deb was going with the.. "does that make you more Christ-like" question..
If you think about it (or atleast what is happening when I think about it..)

Did Christ really do a lot of listening?? I don't see that so much. He did a lot of talking and preaching, He did a lot of healing, oftentimes for people who didn't even talk to Him, He did a lot of truth-telling.
When the woman at the well tells Him she has no husband...Jesus doesn't sit and contemplate her sob story.. He tells her "all the things she ever did." It would seem He listened more to God then to people.

Accepting of others? In the sense that choosing Him as Savior He rids us of that which would be unacceptable in a pure heaven... he makes us acceptable. But on earth did He just accept pharisetical (sp?) views? No. Did He accept money changers being in the temple? Not a bit! In OT, God wanted entire people groups that worshipped false gods completely obliterated... acceptance?? I'm feeling pretty uncertain.

"Acceptance" of everyone leads to things such as this (yes, it's sounding like a slippery slope rhetoric): My niece, a young woman who confesses that Christ is her Lord.. has come to accept a Muslim young man as her friend, and most recently as her fiance. She has come to accept his god and has gone as far as to state that Allah is the same as Jehovah. She is twisting truth for her own comforts.
What would it look like for me to be Christlike when discussing this situation with her? To accept might mean that I just agree with her and we go on our merry little ways. To be truly Christlike, I believe I should bestow grace and love her deeply, but should speak the truth in a way that demonstrates my love and concern. I should not waiver on what truth is, Jesus would not have.

[george]

Laura, does your niece know that the Quran allows muslim men to "tie women to the couch and beat them"? I'll find the "surah*" for you if you need it. *chapter and verse in the Quran.

You raise a really good point because IF the Bible is literally true and let's just pretend for a moment that the "fundamentalist" viewpoint is 100% correct then which is more loving, to allow someone to continue to believe whatever they want while they go to Hell or to tell them that they are wrong and try to pull them out of Hell. (They cannot believe unless they hear, right?)

Jesus was not always "gentle" either. "Go and Sin NO MORE!" If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off.
He did not play with sin and it's consequences.

Which is more loving to grab some kid by the arm and jerk him out of traffic or to let the bus hit him?

[deborah]

The idea that Jesus is nice and wants all of us to be nice is actually one of my biggest problems with the evanglical movement.

[Bill]

Epehesians 4:15 tells us that we are to "speak the truth in love." As I've learned in life, sometimes we can be all about the truth and forget about the love part. Here are some wise words about love that I want to remind you of:

"Love is patient; love is KIND; love is not envious or boastful or ARROGANT or RUDE. IT DOES NOT INSIST ON IT'S OWN WAY; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." (1 Corinthians 13:4-7, emphasis mine)

I see people in the EC learning to speak the truth more with this kind of love in mind and I think that's a WONDERFUL thing.

[deborah]

Yes, but contrast what Paul says with what Jesus did. Christianity isn't supposed to fix all of our problems and make us obediant and go to college and get a good job. We are called to be prepared to go against our families, forsake everything, and sometimes flip tables in a temple.

[Bill]

"We are called to be PREPARED" to do those things. Right. That doesn't mean we look for opportunities to do it.

You wrote: "Yes, but contrast what Paul says with what Jesus did."

Are you saying that Jesus does not exemplify the kind of love that Paul talked about?

[deborah]

Not at all, but is being nice, accepting and willing to listen all you gain from following Jesus?

[Bill]

Of course not. I never said it was.

[Q]

You can't understand Quine's "web" from reading a paragraph on a blog, so stop trying. This is the kind of thing that philosophy students spend months wrapping their minds around. Although, it appears that this post has nothing to do with the "web" anymore, so forget I said anything.

[Just Me]

Coming very late to this long set of responses, and with due deference to "Q"'s excellent point, I am intrigued by the concept of a web of beliefs - so intrigued that I spent an hour this morning reading through some papers by Quine and noting a few things that especially interested me with respect to what's being discussed.
If you all might allow me to quote Quine...
1. "The desire to be right and the desire to have been right are two desires, and the sooner we separate them the better off we are. The desire to be right is the thirst for truth. On all counts, both practical and theoretical, there is nothing but good to be said for it. The desire to have been right, on the other hand, is the pride that goeth before a fall. It stands in the way of our seeing we were wrong, and thus blocks the progress of our knowledge. Incidentally it plays hob with our credibility rating." Bill's "thirst for truth" is (dare I say it?) self-evident. Though I don't comment often, my observation of the interactions here has definitely increased his "credibility rating."

2. To quote Quine again: "To maintain our beliefs properly even for home consumption we must attend closely to how they are supported. A healthy garden of beliefs requires well-nourished roots and tireless pruning." It seems that this blog is allowing all of you a forum for doing just that.

3. With reference to a separate post - or may be it's this one and I just can't find it - "A" stated that we need to be ready to share our choice in an "informed and logical way"; Bill stated that it's difficult to share the gospel with those who do not accept the "foundation" and someone mentioned "buddha?" Quine states: "To convince someone of something we work back to beliefs he already holds and argue from them as premises. Perhaps we also insinuate some supporting beliefs, as needed further premises. We may succeed in insinuating a supporting belief simply by stating it, or we may be called on to offer support for it in turn. We aim, of course, for supporting beliefs that the person is readier to adopt than the thing we are trying finally to convince him of. His readiness to adopt what we put to him will depend partly on its intrinsic plausibility and partly on his confidence in us. If in particular a proffered belief is a mere report of our observation, he may accept it routinely; for in accepting it he has to trust only our memory and our moral character and not our judgment. If on the other hand he balks even at our observation report, we may try to get him to do the observing."
I loved this with respect to sharing the gospel. Although I do believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who draws men, that God is always a priori, I also believe that too much of "witnessing" has been with a take it or leave it attitude. "I'm right and you're wrong so you'd better believe me or you'll wind up in hell!" It also has depended on the unsaved having some basic knowledge of - perhaps even assenting to - foundational beliefs that today's populace does not acknowledge - or even know. This lack of a starting point, or foundation, makes sharing the gospel very difficult and makes the credibility of the "sharer" - his moral character, his "credibility rating" - SO important. In response to the question: "is being more loving/accepting/willing to listen being Christ-like?" Bill wrote: "Yes." I believe that it is being like Christ in precisely this manner that will open doors for sharing the gospel to Bill that would not exist for others. I also think that the EC - and now I'm "responding to" many other posts - is at least partially about tearing down artificial barriers, establishing credibility, and living like Christ - in part so that the gospel WILL BE spread.

[george]

Bill said "I see people in the EC learning to speak the truth more with this kind of love in mind and I think that's a WONDERFUL thing."

Bill, you know way more about EC than I do so please understand my questions are questions, not accusations.

In Liberal Theology (which also is not a ''church" but a "way of looking at the Bible", a way of "critiquing Christendom") they are big on "accepting" people where they are. They are very into "welcoming everyone". If you go into a liberal church you will usually find lovely people, very kind, very loving, non-judgemental of whatever you do, and open, but you will not find Jesus. You will not find "Go and sin no more."

Can you explain to me the difference between EC and what I just described please?

(Also since I'm WAAAAAYYYY off topic, feel free to post this under a new heading if that's more appropriate.)
Thanks

[Bill]

George,

You wrote: "If you go into a liberal church you will usually find lovely people, very kind, very loving, non-judgemental of whatever you do, and open, but you will not find Jesus. You will not find 'Go and sin no more.'"

Why do you assume that "you will not find Jesus" there? The problem with your reasoning, in my opinion, is that you want to see your concept of Jesus at work. I agree with you that a well-formed view of who Jesus is should include his ability to encourage righteousness, but I think it should also include love and acceptance. Jesus didn't wait for people to be righteous before he associated with them. If that were the case, we'd all be in trouble!

So what about the "conservative" churches where being right is what really counts? What if they are all about speaking the truth, but forget the "in love" part? Will you "find Jesus" there?

I think we should look for Jesus wherever we go. He may just be lurking in the places that we least expect him to be.

To answer your question re:the EC, I think that liberal theology, in general, has put too much stock in "experience" as a source of theological reflection. I would hope that people in the EC (in general) are not making the same mistake. (This is, again, based on the very little I know about liberal theology.)

[Bill]

Thanks for all the research you did, Just Me. Those are some great quotes!

[Just Me]

I grew up in a very fundamentalist (I might not be using that term correctly) church. No one ever stated it directly - or rarely did - but it was clear that "we" did it the "right way," and everyone and everything else was suspect. A sad consequence of that attitude is that this church refused to cooperate with other churches in the town, even on things as non-church related as the Memorial Day parade. (There was actually an uproar over cooperating on a town flood relief committee.) Although the church has moderated over the years, I find this ingrained attitude unconsciously impacts the way I look at other churches and other Christians. Unless, I consciously rebuke myself, I find myself thinking things like: "She can't be saved, she goes to the XXX church." - or - "He can't be saved, he believes in infant baptism."

One of the exciting things, to me, about the EC is the opportunity to purge myself of some prejudices. Notice I did not say to abandon the truth, but to recognize that there are many points on which I can agree with and cooperate with other believers - including on the fact that they are believers:) - and in so doing expand my network of fellowship and of service. Are there dangers in cooperating with "them?" Possibly, but so far all I'm finding is Jesus in their midst.

[Bill]

I was going to make a wisecrack about "the XXX church," but then I remembered that such a thing exists. It's a Christian group that is trying to reach out to the porn industry and people who are addicted to porn! Click here to see their website.

[Just Me]

No thanks - and sorry for the mis-characterization.

[george]

Bill asked "Why do you assume that "you will not find Jesus" there? The problem with your reasoning, in my opinion, is that you want to see your concept of Jesus at work. "

Bill, my personal background dealing with liberalism is the Episcopal Church, so let me speak from experience. They ordain homosexuals and lesbians, the only thing in the entire Bible I ever heard them preach on "literally" was tithing. Now, I'm not saying that homosexuality is the "worst" sin, but how can you have a pastor who is a lesbian, who with her "life partner" went to bars for the sole purpose of finding men to have sex with, with the hope of getting pregnant? (This happened!!!)

I would not want a pastor that is greedy or lustful or a liar or an adulterer or anything else but when you deny the authority of Scripture for the sake of "love", you are really not loving anyone.

[ken]

I think that without risk you accomplish nothing. Sometimes it is necessary to take a calculated risk (such as associating with churches that may not agree with ours) in order to further God.

I remember at my last church that Billy Graham came to town and was looking for local churches to send representatives to cousel and pray with those that came forward at the rally. The general concensus was that we could NOT participate because of some of the churches that were participating. What an opportunity they missed. Instead of being a positive representative of God, they stayed home and let the churches they felt didn't believe correctly reach out to these new believers. How sad that such a dumb thing got in the way of that church furthering God's work.

[ken]

Don't take this the wrong way George, but we see those same problems at supposed conservative churches. Doesn't make it any more right.

Once again, you are applying a label that comes with a lot of baggage to a group that it doesn't necessarily apply to. Just because ec'ers are MORE liberal than yourself, doesn't mean that they are THAT liberal.

It is kind of like trying to shoot a mouse, in a pen full of ducks, with a shotgun. Yes, some of the buckshot might hit the mouse, but a lot of it also completely misses the mark. :-)

[george]

Ken, I respect what you're saying but I still can't seem to get a real answer on what EC believes. I've been told that "it's not a denomination", well liberalism is "not a denomination" either.

I want to know, in general, HOW liberal is EC? I know they 're more liberal than I am, that does not necessarily mean that they are "to liberal to be saved". However, we also have not established how conservative they are.

Do you think, in your opinion, if a person believes that the Bible is a "good guide" but that you have to embrace the teachings of all the great spiritual leaders and that there are many paths to God... do you think the guy that believes that is going to heaven?(as defined in the Bible, not some new agey "heaven on earth" or "heaven within you".)

[ken]

I personally believe that Jesus is the only way. It is not just a "good guide". From what I can tell, the majority of ec'ers believe this as well, although it would help if they were more willing to publicly make these statements of faith.

I think that you are trying, once again, to attach a label to the ec'ers in order to put them in a box and be able to reject/accept them within your foundation of beliefs. This methodology makes it 'easy' for you to dismiss/accept them as a group, rather than deal with them on an individual level. Unfortunately, that is a shotgun approach that tends to cause unnecessary (and I assume unintended) casualties and damage.

[Bill]

George,

You wrote: "I want to know, in general, HOW liberal is EC?"

I've been trying to tell you that those labels don't apply. People in the EC tend to not fit either label.

By the way, I want to caution you about judging the worldwide Anglican/Episcopal faith community based on what you've seen in one Episcopal church. Yes, the denomination as a whole has ruled that homosexuals can be ordained, but keep in mind:

1. Some of the churches in the denomination fought against this.
2. Just because the denomination has deemed homosexuality to be permissible does not mean that they would condone the kind of behavior you've mentioned above.

And now to your last question...I woudl disagree with the specific statement that your hypothetical person is making and I would hope people in the EC would, too. Nonetheless, I think there are elements of truth in there:

1. The Bible IS a "good guide." My problem is with those who try to make it out to be more than it is.

2. I don't think anyone HAS to "EMBRACE the teachings of ALL the great spiritual leaders," but I do believe that we can learn from people who hold different beliefs than we do (other "religions," if you will).

3. I think there ARE "many paths to God," but I think that they are related to Christ in some way. Perhaps you've heard of inclusivism? This is the view that people can draw near to God because of what Christ has done, but not necessarily knowing all the specifics about who Christ was or what he accomplished during his earthly ministry. I think this is worthy of consideration and will be reviewing a book that (I think) deals with this issue in the near future (A Heretic's Guide to Eternity" by Spencer Burke).

I guess that's all for now!

[george]

Actually, I'm not looking for an easy "accept/dismiss" them situation. My background, since becoming a Christian is apologetics and dealing with cults, including helping people get out of cults. I am not in any way saying that the EC is a cult. However, there is one very uncomfortable similarity. Cults will NEVER define what they believe. If they did, you would know they are a cult so they talk nice, they don't offend, they kind of suck you in and before you know it, you're stuck. The EC has (at times) taken an "us against them" mentality. They are after all "emerging" FROM the narrow-minded larger evangilical church. If the "NMLEC" was okay there would be no reason to break away. So just by the fact that they need to "do church differently" implies at least somewhat that the "old church" is wrong.

If you look at all the "movements" throughout Christendom whether you're speaking of Liberal Theology or "Liberation Theology" (which was to conform to Marxism) or whatever it is the "movement" usually happens because the "church" is looking at the world and saying "we don't quite fit" or "we need to make Christianity more appealing to the masses". Or the ever popular, "the world is changing and we need to change to." The reality is the churches that embrace the "theology of the day" are dwindling in attendance and relevance.

So, I can deal with you on an individual level and honestly say that I love you as a brother, think you're a great guy, enjoyed our time in Tadpoles and softball together and miss seeing you. I can also say that so far, as far as I can tell the EC is sliding into liberalism by focusing on the "wants" of the world and "wanting to fit in" or maybe "not wanting to look like those ignorant fundamentalists like George Bush" instead of focusing on the Truth of God's Word. That does not necessarily mean that there is not some good in it, if I thought you guys were completely off the deep end there'd be no reason to ask questions but the appearance of avoidance, the seeming unwillingness to give direct answers to direct questions is what puts the red flag up for me.

Does Bill believe the Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation?

Do any of you read the books that criticize the EC or Liberal Theology, the ones that have already disproven things that Fuller embraces for some unknown reason?

[george]

Bill said "By the way, I want to caution you about judging the worldwide Anglican/Episcopal faith community based on what you've seen in one Episcopal church. Yes, the denomination as a whole has ruled that homosexuals can be ordained, but keep in mind:

1. Some of the churches in the denomination fought against this.
2. Just because the denomination has deemed homosexuality to be permissible does not mean that they would condone the kind of behavior you've mentioned above."

Bill, I know that worldwide there has been a fight between the conservatives in the Episcopal Church and the liberals. I also know that the Liberals are winning the battle because Conservatives cannot get appointed as rectors in most of the US.

However, the liberals are losing because they are losing members. Why get up on Sunday morning just to go hear "nice stories"?

As for my example, that woman with her partner did exactly what I described and when the partner got pregnant by the brother of her lover the church celebrated their "good fortune". No mention of the amount of men they slept with before one of them got pregnant. Would you want to find your pastor in a bar looking for a one night stand? Do you really think Jesus embraces this behaviour?

[ken]

I am currently reading "Ashamed of the Gospel". Does that qualify?

To be honest, I haven't, personally, read a lot of the EC writings either. I also haven't thrown my hat in with them completely, in the sense that you are asking.

I am coming at EC as a group that has some good ideas and a fresh way of looking at things. I am sure to find things I disagree with. They will be filtered out. But that doesn't taint the good ideas and lines of thought. At the same time, I am not turning my back completely on my background. I am simply filtering out the things that I don't agree with. Personally, I am tired of all the negativity generally found in the Christian circles. We spend so much time shooting our own that it is amazing we have anyone left. (speaking as one that has been shot numerous times)

Is this EC? I think it is part of the core (dare I say foundation) of the EC thinking. Some, as we are prone to do, have taking it a bit farther than I would. But I only have to answer for me to God.

[george]

This guy seems to have some of the same problems with EC as I do. Primarily that they refuse to define their terms. If you speak to a Muslim he may tell you that Allah and Jehovah are the same God but if you force him to define his "god" you will find that the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran are two entirely different beings. Are EC'ers using our terminology but changing the meaning of the words or are they being straight with us?

http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_a_2.html

PS. Bill I HATE this "verify" thing.

[deborah]

George, I have read a few criticizing books, and I read 3 anti ec blogs everyday, as well as 3 pro ec blogs, and one really good "there are things I hate and things I love in the ec" blog.

I have read extensive articles on apprising.org, and unfortunately the author spends so much time tilting at windmills that he has very little credibility with me, even when I agree with him.

There are good and bad things in every church or organizations. I have been in churches where the opinion is that if the church building is multimillion dollar place so we can't just let anyone in. I have been in churches where the sunday school superintentant was PAYING the kids to bring friends. These were both conservative churches. It is very difficult not to judge a whole group of people because of a few.

[Tom]

George, I think you're not getting the answers you're looking for because EC isn't a denomination such as Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist, etc. There is no central organization which makes up "the rules " you have to follow to call yourself or your group part of EC. As such, you have a HUGE diversity of thought regarding every aspect of how to be Christian. Some are totally far out, and some are hardly different from what I would consider "regular" church.

I enjoy the way some churches do things differently,and the questioning aspect has really forced me to think a lot more deeply about what I believe and why. I feel it's made my faith much stronger for having to struggle with a difficult concept which I had previously just accepted without really thinking. That being said it's teachings need to be (sorry Bill) fundamentally sound. It's like saying "OK, I'm an Evangelical Christian and I want to attend a non-denominational Bible church." Great! Now you need to visit x amount of Bible churches to find one where you feel the Holy Spirit is leading you. You may reject many churches based on the sermon you heard, or the style of music during worship, or infant baptism vs adult, etc. They all believe in Christ as Lord and Savior but certain doctrinal points or maybe even just a "feeling" have led you to reject them. EC churches are the same way. Some are going to be wrong for you, but that doesn't mean all are. There is error and sin in SOME churches of ALL denominations, we need to be able to discern it through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I understand your concern, I just think you can't paint with too broad a brush on this subject because it's so diverse. I feel we need to judge the churches on an individual basis as long as there is no central doctrine they need to follow to be called "EC".

[Bill]

George,

You wrote: "Do you really think Jesus embraces this behaviour?"

No. I never said anything about embracing peoples' behaviors. Is this all because I said my relationship with Jesus made me more "accepting?" Couldn't you just have assumed that I meant the way Jesus accepts all who come to him?

If ECers are redefining any terms they are, from what I've seen, up front about it. If theologian A believes that group B has been defining grace (for example) incorrectly, then there is nothing wrong with that theologian "re-defining" the term.

I'm having trouble discerning what to say about the author of the link you posted above. This person has banned me from the blog he writes for (Slice of Laodicea) and without, in my opinion, sufficient reasons for doing so. He (or the other authors there) also censored several of my comments. I'm torn between making a big deal out of it and just letting them go there own way. In any case, I don't have the time to read the article you linked to because I don't find the author to be a credible "witness."

Sorry about the verification thing. I can't do anything about it.

[Bill]

Wow! I'm having trouble keeping up.

George,

I missed your first comment and only responded to the second one. A couple quick thoughts:

1. I don't think you can compare the EC to a cult. I think the "church" in emerging church is misleading here. Have you read the post I wrote the other day called Heretical Orthodoxy? It may help shed on this subject.

2. What about the "movement" of fundamentalism? What was that based on? Can you guess my answer? ;-)

3. The leaders of Emergent that I know most about have a desire to talk abotu theology that addresses the past, present and future. I find that many other groups only think about the present.

4. The EC isn't all about fitting in. That's preposterous and I challenge you to back your accusation up. I'm tired of hearing this kind of claim. I can say for myself that I want to be both "in the world" and "not of it."

[deborah]

Tom, that was a great comment.

[Tom]

Thanks, Deb. It's a little frustrating to see people having a hard time with this issue. I think it's a little like trying to hold onto a handful of water at this point since the state of EC seems to be in flux all the time. There are certainly some questionable ideas out there, but there is also a beauty to the process of cementing your beliefs by looking at Christianity from different perspectives. We need to be open to the leading of the Spirit, be it towards or away from something.

[Bill]

I guess I can see why people want to be able to warn others if they think the EC is dangerous, but I would prefer to discuss specific issues and ideas. Some of the discussion lately is reminding me of why I went so long without talking about the EC. I guess, in the end, I don't care whether people think the EC is heretical, cult-like, or whatever. I'm more concerned with seeking the truth, no matter where it comes from.

[deborah]

I think that a lot of people in the ec waste a lot of time trying to refute arguments against them, rather than ignoring the ones who are a little out there on the conservative side. This time could be better used elsewhere.

That said, we should always be ready to give an accounting of what and in whom we believe.

Besides, isn't that what the ec is all about - discussing?

[deborah]

And is it just me or are the word verifications starting to spell stuff?

[Tom]

I think you've maybe been posting too much!

;-)

[Bill]

I just wanted to invite you guys to read and discuss the articles in my new series. I think a lot of what I'm talking about cuts to the heart of some of these issues.

Heretical Orthodoxy, Conceptual Idolatry, Defining God, 21st Century Pharisees? 

[deborah]

yeah, shameless self-promotion. I'll have to get the book first.

[Bill]

HEY! Watch your tone of typing, lady. ;-)

No, really. Some of the stuff I'm writing might help people to understand where all this EC stuff is coming from. I don't know if Peter Rollins describes what all people who include themselves in the EC think, but I think he describes HOW they should be thinking!

[ken]

As to Deborah's comment, the randomizer is bound to hit combinations that spell things eventually.
(...and monkeys might fly out of my...nevermind)