Wed 7 Mar 2007
Emerging Austin?
Posted by tom cottar under theology
If you don't already know it, here it is: I'm probably one of the strangest 'fundamentalists' you'd ever meet. Why? Because I'm also one of the most 'liberal' conservatives I know. Let me (briefly) give some examples.
I believe that Jesus is God and God is Jesus. That we don't pray to the dead saints, pray people out of Purgatory, or toss up requests to some politically-correct Sky Fairy.
I believe that God became human and called Himself Jesus. That the Holy Spirit now intercedes to God the Father on our behalf, while also ministering to us as our Comforter, directing us and guiding us as we serve The Kingdom. And that each aspect of the Triune God is at once and simultaneously fully God.
That the Bible is God's inspired revelation to mankind. That Jesus is God's only son, who came to overthrow satan's kingdom/rule on the earth (characterized by sin and separation from God), and to establish a new Kingdom of God's rule and reign (characterized by the redemption of ALL of creation and the rule of the Prince of Shalom). That Christ's death on the cross was more about glorifying God, fulfilling prophecy, and re-establishing the reign of the King, than it was about me getting to go to Heaven when I die….Heaven is a perk. (and a temporary one at that, according to Revelation 21 and Isaiah 65)
I also believe that the Bible is sufficient. That you and I don't need extra-Biblical sources to tell us of God's plan. Traditions and thoughts of men are nice to have around. Some are even helpful. Some make me want to put sharpened pencils through my temples… Either way, when we stand on taking a 'high view of scripture', let it be known that Scripture is enough. Period. Anything extra-Biblical is a heavy yoke to burden along with. Only the truth sets us free.
Also, as a 'conservative' it bugs me that more of us are not 'conservationists' (by way of the Genesis 3 mandate). I'm not into hugging trees and viewing nature as the Rousseauean 'spiritual sacred totality' with some kind of Wiccian/Druidian/Pagan roots…but we're making a mess of this place none the less…
Before I begin to rant, I'll stop there. The bottom line is I guess I've never fit into a nice, tidy box…of any kind.
So…after such a long introduction to this….I'm really excited about the Emergence 2007 Austin event! Mark your calendars, boys and girls, for April 27-28. For the low, low price of $49, we'll get to converge and converse with the following potential spark-makers:
Dan Kimball, of Vintage Faith
Scott McKnight, Host, author, wicked-smart Jesus-lover (blog: Jesus Creed)
Mark Driscoll, the Eminem of conservative evangelicals and pastor of Mars Hill, Seattle.
7 Responses to “ Emerging Austin? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Sounds Hott.
I need to borrow your copy of Organic Church.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
It’s only a problem because you have not yet eschewed labels and categories like ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’. ‘Independent’ is as close as I come to adopting those sorts of labels and that only because it drives people crazy if you don’t pick a box to live in.
I am looking forward to the conference, though! However, I looked at the speaker list and it appears that TSK will only be at the Minneapolis one and Mark Driscoll will only be at the Seattle one, just as Scot McKnight will only be at the Austin one. We will get Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, John Burke (from the host church), and someone else. Forget who off the top of my head.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Dude,
I give you credit for being the most liberal conservative that I know. I also think I would like to challenge for the title, but I forget I am just a follower of you, the Master. With my most humbke acceptance of you being my leader, take me somewhere!
March 9th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Scott,
Eschewing labels sounds romantic and noble…like taking off an old shirt. But, since all words have a lexical range, both connotative and denotative, I’ve not yet been convinced it can be done, given our compartmental nature. Since everything in our existence is defined by the definition of other things (except the self-defining God known as I AM), I’ll have to maintain that ‘eschewing labels’ sounds like ‘trading jerseys’…
So, until then, I’ll remain a paradox.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Jimmie,
Climb in to the octagon, bro. You are my Yoda. I think you could claim the title!
March 9th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Sorry, I should have said eschewing other people’s labels. Unless, of course, you actually think of yourself as a ‘fundamentalist’ or a ‘conservative’. In that case, you appear to be redefining the labels from their commonly understood connotation in the US today.
However many images are involved, we think in words. As such, we inevitably categorize and label ourselves. My suspicion kicks in when others try to apply a label to me. If anything, such an attempt makes me immediately less inclined to accept that label, though I may later change my mind.
I mistrust the power games involved in such highly charged labels today as ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’, and ‘fundamentalist’. The rules-making and othering involved on all sides feels almost painful to me. That’s why, in any context, I’ve long tended to simply say ‘independent’. I find it ironic that in the political arena today, ‘independents’ seem to be the fastest growing group.
But mostly I just decline to accept labels others try to impose on me. I can’t do a thing about what they think, but I don’t need to twist myself into contortions trying to think of myself that way.
OK. Now I’ve gotten waaaaay too serious and introspective for a comment on a ’silly’ post.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Tom,
You are more like Jesus with me being poor John the Baptist. I am your humble servant and I am unworthy to untie your shoes.
BTW that is pretty impressive company there so you better live up to it!