This reminds me of my bibliographies. I'm all about brining together those strange bedfellows.

Wow. If that's true then I want nothing to do with theology. It's just a cul-de-sac...

This is exactly the point I was trying to make in my post on all of this a few days ago. That statement you quote is exactly indicative of what I suspected all along: that putting forward a "rule" like the creeds (or scripture or whatever) is really, in the last instance, a mask for elevating one's own interpretation as the norm and circumscribing the entire tradition, in all its diverse and variant forms, to a singular understanding.

Jeremy, thanks for posting this clarification. First let me say that though I disagree with your conclusions theologically, I am glad that your are taking Emergent to task over its theology in a more academic manner than most. Like I mentioned in a previous thread, I've been disappointed that more of these sort of critiques haven't emerged (no pun intended) and, for what its worth, I wish more robust theological engagements were taking place on the other side as well. I think the lack of these has contributed to the fact that Emergent hasn't really created too many theologians. And that's unfortunate.

That being said, I tend to agree with Greg here. If you want to use the Creeds as the norm, that is fine. But once you start making assertions about what is "implied" or "affirmed" you are entering some pretty tenuous territory and make the shift from putting the Creeds forward to making constructive theological claims and interpretations about them. I think it is untenable to conflate the two, especially when we are talking about "rules" of the faith, because in so doing you are, once again, limiting yourself to a singular interpretation. Now that is fine if we are talking about theological claims in se, but perhaps a bit myopic if we are talking about the overall norm.

So I think my previous questions still stand. I myself affirm the historic creeds but I interpret them in a manner quite different than your claims above (substitutionary atonement and original sin being chief among them). But again, I am not Barthian nor am I neo-orthodox. For me, the umbrella under which we both sit is big enough for you, I, Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren and many other practitioners with whom I passionately agree and vehemently disagree. Here I find John Franke's (and others, to be sure) claim that our faith is inherently diverse pluriform to be quite compelling. I would want to affirm a Christian reality based upon plurality which is included, but certainly not limited to, your interpretation of the Creeds.

Again, it seems to me that this comes down to how we deal with and negotiate theological difference. Are our theological sources (Scripture, the tradition, etc.) repositories of timeless, eternal truths that static and fixed or are they more dynamic requiring, under the guidance and inspiration of the Spirit, new forms and interpretations for the ever-changing current situation? Put another way, can the tradition speak against itself? My reading of church history suggests that it not only can but should as we are being pulled closer and closer to God's future. Though it is far from perfect and deserves penetrating critiques like your own, I believe that Emergent is but one form among many that is seeking to accomplish this.

I'm about 100 pages in to Brian's new book. I may have more to say about it once I finish, but for now I think this point is the crux of the matter. What does the "historic rule of the faith" even mean? Is it the neo-orthodox Barthian perspective? What about those of us that are more Tillichian? What about the liberation and postcolonial theologians? What of the process people?

It seems to me that the issue here is how we deal with theological difference, how we understand the tradition, and whether the tradition can speak against itself (and whether that is healthy or not). Frankly, it doesn't seem to me that Brian is drawing a line in the sand as much as he is clarifying his own position (which he argues is not an Answer but rather a response among many). He is articulating a different perspective and he's not the first one to do so nor does he claim to be some sort of crypto-gnostic brokering the more enlightened path. Again, the question is how we deal with diversity.

I have no desire to be a Barthian. Is there no room under this umbrella for more progressive theologies?

That is an important point that I hope gains some currency in the larger conversation. While I tend to come down differently than Jeremy theologically, I am glad that he is at least willing to rigorously subject this stuff to real theological engagement.

My primary complaint of most of the literature out there (save maybe Rollins) is its lack of theological substance. I just picked up McLaren's newest today and I hope it will offer more 'meat.' We'll see.

I agree with you on the dialogue, Paul. But I can't say that these "new" (I don't really believe they are new at all) atheists offer much in the way of furthering dialogue. Which is unfortunate because more than a few prominent Christian theologians are willing to do so. Dan Dennett's refusal to engage in substantive conversation with Philip Clayton is a recent case in point.

Here's to hoping we Methodists can follow the lead and adopt some positive legislation at the next General Conference in 2012.

What happened to the file?

Thanks for this. I've been trying out Readability for a while now, but never thought of combining with Evernote. Nice!