My concern is in seeing people (particularly younger ones) whose faith is purely experiencial, and who have no use for the framework of ideas that form solid belief. Certainly a ‘mountain top’ experience is both important and significant, but a firm doctrinal foundation also holds the structure up should it be assaulted by societal ideas. If one is supported by pure experience, one can be just as easily carried away.

This is, of course, a moot argument in the face of a Calvinistic paradigm, but I think it bears expressing anyway.

“I’d rather experience an ounce of repentance in my soul than be able to define it.” says the Imitation.

I see the conflict as between subjective and experiential “ethos” versus objective “ethics” (to use D Rho’s words). But if our religion is a meal, ethos is the steak and ethics is the salad. The steak’s the main course but the salad keeps us healthy. The conservative view can largely be summed up as “Eat your greens!”, the greens being orthodoxy.

I don’t forsee a schism or reformation but I do see the potential for the good side of the “emergent” movement to be swept away over time, and the movement will end up as a Unitarian-ish wishywashy mix of every conceivable theological creed and practice.

I’ve always felt that the postmodern or emergent movement away from ethics (doctrine, principles, absolute truth) and towards ethos (how you live, social justice, and loving others) is a dangerous one. Most of the movement seems to be a backlash against the traditional church - which has existed for thousands of years. If things don’t begin to change soon the emrgent/postmodern movement is in danger of forgetting history and repeating it vis a vis another bloody reformation in the future. ( Which would be strange since so many postmoderns are into church history and stuff). It feels like it’s beginning already.

We need to begin placing high value on our traditions and our doctrines alongside a high value of reaching the world with God’s love. Can the two ever be married? It remains to be seen… however I see the rift and dissention between the “two camps” widening not closing. We need some bridges being built here. How we do that I don’t know.

Let me also add to all this that I do not claim to be much of an Apologist. Actually, I have little real interest in tha particular dicipline. For that, and a more solid treatment overall, you should check out Dr. Eric Svendsen’s blog at Real Clear Theology. It is listed under Links on our sidebar menu.

Unorthodox=effective (”he used an unorthodox approach”)

Close-minded=bigoted, petty (”he was close-minded about my suggestion”)

Tolerant or inclusive=loving (”the classroom is tolerant of others”)

Chesterton said that in the olden days the worst insult was to be called a “heretic”, but now, it’s fashionable. The early Christians fought tooth and nail to retain the title of “orthodox”. Now, nobody wants to touch it. You can see why young people would shy away from “doctrine”.

I remember I was talking to some of my non-believing friends and they mentioned some position that smacked of the old heresies, Sabellianism, I think. I said “Actually, that was a heresy, and not quite what we believe.” I think someone retorted that I’d better call the Inquisition or some such thing!

As opposed to what I thought you meant, which is that people have orthodox beliefs but do not know how, when or why those beliefs are orthodox.

Heh, I recently offended someone whose mother belongs to a Unitarian-Universalist congregation (the one in Ottawa actually). She said she didn’t know much about the denomination, so I explained, and concluded that they don’t really have any beliefs, which is true. She became a bit cross and said “They do have some beliefs, maybe they are just very inclusive.” But all I meant was that they have no creeds, just a statement of values.

I think the real danger is that our churches will go that. People will hold a list of values and know where they stand on political issues, but not know precisely what they believe.

The problem really raises its ugly head when issues like “The Da Vinci Code” come up. I’ve heard people confidently assert that the New Testament was written by Constantine, which is pretty hard to refute if you’re only familiar with the Bible plus modern writers.

The popularity of ecumenicalism can not result in anything other than “Unity through Ignorance” as a conclusion if the base is no base at all. i do not consider it progress - quite the opposite.

I suppose it’s true that you should at least know things like that, and what other sects believe.

I think young people have been brought up to believing that “ecumenicalism” is a “good thing”, thus we shouldn’t dwell on what separates us. Of course, “Unity through Ignorance” is not a banner I would like to go to war under.