the emergent mystery

i thought the title was a nice play on words. the whole emergent church movement embraces mystery (the mystery of God, the mystery of the Bible, etc), yet the movement itself remains a great mystery to me.

i'm listening through the messages given at the 1-day conference that Grand Rapids Theological Seminary held last week. one of the speakers covers the topic of "hell" and says the emergent church movement does not believe in a literal hell, that it was just a teaching tool Jesus and the disciples used. then brian mclaren, a big leader in the movement, spoke again later that day and said he can't speak for all the emergent churches, but he for one does indeed believe in a literal hell, the sacrifice of God's son, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. which raises the following questions - what does the "emerging church" movement believe exactly, and why don't all the churches in the movement believe the same things? because if all the churches within a certain "movement" don't all agree on basic doctrine...how can you classify them all under the same movement? and if they do differ in doctrine, is it possible then that some emergent churches are truly great churches, while other emergent churches have crossed the line to being unbiblical?

on that issue of hell that was raised, it's ridiculous to say there's no literal hell. because if there's no hell, that would mean Christ's death and resurrection was for no reason, that would mean that the "Great Commission" has no application, and then why even live your life for God? because if everyone gets to go to heaven, what's the difference between someone living their life for God and someone living their life for themself? and if there is no difference, shoot - i'm going to drop everything and go live la vida loca. :P there's no justifiable way to say there's no literal hell.

well, time for theology class with dr. caner. yessssssss :D

keep it real.
~jen~