|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 2/29/2008 10:56:23 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 573
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Dear Kat_D,
quote:
Then I guess you've had a change of heart about Benny Hinn, Randy & Paula White, WOF, the Catholic Church, and Joel Osteen because, if I'm not mistaken, they believe Jesus died and rose and that He is the way, but you had no qualms about speaking out about their false teachings in these forums.
No I haven't quite that sin yet.  I would like to say that not everything Rob says or does makes me happy either. But as it has been written before I can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Even I can agree with some those words WOF use that are out of the Bible. But when they get the idea that when you give God money, then you shall have riches as far as living in a penthouse, or a huge crib, drive expensive vehicles. I disagree with them on that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 2/29/2008 11:12:49 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 573
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Willing to compromise on biblical truths (Bell's trampoline analogy) for the sake of some form of 'peace' and inclusion.
I know you guy's are reading something that I miss in where Rob told the story of the trampoline. He stated that every person who walks on this planet has faith in something which is true. He also talks about the Spirit of God moving some to a understanding as far as what the scriptures says.
If we would all agree with what the scriptures says, then we would not be in a form liken unto this. I enjoy reading what other people think or believe. I find that while I have been here some of my thoughts have change. But to say that you have all of the answers and your are correct and no one else thoughts matters then you have become a little Benny ,Paula, Kenneth, and John who in their minds, have it correct and the rest are doomed to the slum ghetto in heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 2/29/2008 1:19:04 PM
|
|
|
Kat_D
Posts: 3454
Joined: 9/2/2005
From: Where We Shake, Rattle & Roll!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Facedown
kat
you believe its dangerous, one of the most dangerous teachings out there to believe that god has a big story? one that begins before eternity, and extends beyond and is inclusive of every moment and every space, everything that is seen and unseen, and in which we are beckoned to engage in this story authentically....that's dangerous?
it seems to me, if this is your opinion, then your view of scripture may be dangerous, it might seem to suggest in some way that the bible is self-referential.
what do you believe the very real consequence of bein in a "big heop ' trouble with him" is?
I think I told you a while back in another thread that I am no longer interested in interacting with you because you continuously twist everything I say. I see nothing has changed. I explained exactly what I meant in an earlier post to Hawkfan. Maybe you should go back and read it...but if you don't have the energy or the desire to get it right, this is what I actually said:
quote:
I'm talking about the Bible for us here and now. Of course, God is able and can do exceedingly above what we can ever imagine. He is God and not limited by our view of Him. But, His Word is what He left us so that we could know Him and follow Him in the way that is pleasing to Him. It is enough...and speculating or thinking you know more that what His Word says or adding to it in any way can get you in a big heap o' trouble with Him.
_____________________________
~Kat
"...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes...no more death, sorrow, nor crying."
I weep for those who won't experience this because they have been deceived.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 2/29/2008 2:04:57 PM
|
|
|
hawkfan428
Posts: 238
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
But when they get the idea that when you give God money, then you shall have riches as far as living in a penthouse, or a huge crib, drive expensive vehicles. I disagree with them on that.
That's the justification they use for tithing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 2/29/2008 6:15:53 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
If we would all agree with what the scriptures says, then we would not be in a form liken unto this. I enjoy reading what other people think or believe. I find that while I have been here some of my thoughts have change. But to say that you have all of the answers and your are correct and no one else thoughts matters then you have become a little Benny ,Paula, Kenneth, and John who in their minds, have it correct and the rest are doomed to the slum ghetto in heaven.
mcleod,
I don't think anyone here would claim to know everything about scripture or to have perfect knowledge about the meaning of every single scripture. Nor do I think anyone here would claim that perfect agreement on every doctrine is possible this side of heaven. And I'm quite certain that no one here (though some might) will call another person a heretic because that person doesn't agree with his or her interpretation of every single passage of Scripture. However, it is wrong to conclude that because Christians disagree about the meanings of some passages, we cannot be absolutely sure about the meaning of any passages.
A heretic is someone who teaches a doctrine that if believed and practiced will lead people to worship a different God and/or seek salvation by some other means than "the way" Jesus provided. I don't automatically call someone a heretic because he doesn't believe in a literal hell (although that belief usually indicates heretical doctrines of salvation because the denial of hell is part and parcel of many of those doctrines), but I do call someone a heretic that teaches salvation is possible by faithfully adhering to the teachings of pagan religions or that salvation is possible even if someone rejects the gospel of Jesus because God saves good people whose lives reflect the character and values of Jesus. I also attach the label heretic to the teaching that salvation has nothing to do with redemption for sins and spending eternity with God, but simply is deliverance from abberant and oppressive behavior in this life - whether self inflicted or inflicted by others. An aspect of this teaching is that if salvation has anything at all to do with eternity, then God allows everyone to spend eternity in paradise because a loving God would not/could not create people knowing that some of them will spend eternity in conscious torment.
These heretical beliefs about salvation appeal to the natural man's sense of what a loving and just God would do, but they are in direct conflict with Biblical teachings that are beyond misunderstanding.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 2/29/2008 8:19:31 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/1/2008 11:28:11 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
jazz
i've not seen an invalidation of "hell", but an argument that what modernist churches have taught on the subject is at worst off base, and best not holistic.
if your argument is "if it's not in the bible, then it's heretical" i assume you to worship on both the sabbath as well as the lords day, i assume you to fast, and have a prayer closet, i assume that your gatherings are overseen by a bishop, i assume you to not utilize electricity, i assume that you don't have a bible in the first place, and i assume that you use the LXX, and i assume......
but somehow, i don't think that's your argument, is it.
now then - if you have an issue with "mysticism" lets discuss it.
if you have an issue with "social justice", lets discuss it
if you have an issue with "playing politics", lets discuss it.
because it does no good to simply say "they are not being true the message of jesus" if you're not willing to authentically engage in the conversation.
kat_d
key phrases such as "may be" were said authentically.
secondly your post seemed to be somewhat self-contradictory, and further dialoge would be awesome.
you said: "god is able.....but, his word is what he left"
you see, when one embraces sacramental theology, one doesn't simply find god in the bible, one doesn't simply recall the message about jesus, one embraces the message of jesus - one encounters christ in the "least of these"
and "heretsy" is another word full of baggage. it quite plainly means a challenge to a prescribed system of belief(s). it comes from the greek hairesis which means a choice of beliefs.
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/2/2008 10:53:07 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4968
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfAyhTpf3EQ
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/2/2008 11:34:03 PM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
i'm sorry earthless, was that a response to questions posed to you? or simply your way of dashing in and out of a conversation without really saying anything of substance?
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/3/2008 8:23:22 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4968
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
i'm sorry earthless, was that a response to questions posed to you? or simply your way of dashing in and out of a conversation without really saying anything of substance?
The video has a lot of substance. Considering it is regarding the exact topic being discussed I knew some would find it quite useful, if not at the least a bit entertaining.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/3/2008 12:28:22 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 3324
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I think anyone who claims Mark Driscoll isn't orthodox has never listened to him.
(I tried to visit the site kat_d linked to, but it appears to be down at the moment.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/3/2008 2:51:59 PM
|
|
|
stateofgrace
Posts: 2025
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I can think of two things about Mark Driscoll that are not orthodox. His sense of humor (which I usually enjoy but sometimes goes too far) and his style of dress.
_____________________________
less junk, more Jesus
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/3/2008 3:29:08 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
I think anyone who claims Mark Driscoll isn't orthodox has never listened to him.
(I tried to visit the site kat_d linked to, but it appears to be down at the moment.)
I don't remember, but has anyone here claimed that Mark Driscoll is not orthodox...other than his sense of humor, and maybe his uses of vulgar language?
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/3/2008 3:30:23 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
jacobwdowning,
I don't know if anyone has answered your inquiries about the EC, but just in case they have not...
For the sake of brevity I will omit some details that are interesting, but not necessary to understand the subject matter. Also [again, for brevity's sake], I will not include quotes that demonstrate what I say the EC teaches or believes. However, I am prepared to provide those quotes if there is an ensuing conversation.
Genesis of the Emerging Church
1- The EC as a movement began about 1998, when a group of innovative, and mostly younger ministers who were experiencing success in reaching younger generations, gathered to discuss why the church was failing to retain its youth or reach younger generations of the unchurched. Organized by Doug Pagitt at the behest of the Dallas based Leadership Network, the conference attendees realized almost immediately that the issue was not generational, i.e. ministry to builders, boomers, busters, etc. Instead they discerned that the issue was a fundamental shift in epistemology (world view) from modernity to postmodernity.
2- A committee consisting of the likes of Tony Jones, Chris Seay, Mark Driscoll, and Dan Kimball (to name a few) was formed from among some of the conference members to explore how to minister effectively to postmoderns.
3- Some of the committee members traveled the country to share their conclusions with churches and youth ministers.
4- After some time, about a year (I think - going on memory), Brian McLaren was recruited by Doug Pagitt to join the committee because he had written a book about the church in the postmodern age. The committee became known as the TerraNova Project.
5- McLaren quickly assumed the leadership of the committee because, as Mark Driscoll put it, McLaren was the only one who had the time to take on the responsibility of that position. McLaren, who is a self-described evangelical (he is not an evangelical in any sense of the word, and I doubt he ever was), led the committee in a decidedly liberal direction that Driscoll was uncomfortable with, so Driscoll resigned.
6- The term "Emerging Church" was first used during a conversation between McLaren and Pagitt, about the church in the age of postmodernity.
7- This same committee, again changed its name and is now known as the coordinating group of Emergent Village, which is the current leadership committee (steering committee) of the EC that, among other things is responsible for entering the EC into partnerships, e.g. "Emersion" - a publishing partnership between the EC and Baker Books.
Purpose and goals of the EC
1-Find methods of sharing the gospel and conducting church that are relevant in the age of postmodernity and that resonate with postmoderns.
2-In 1994, at a conference hosted by Wheaton College, Nancy Murphy mused about the possibility that conservatives might adopt a change in methodology that would facilitate a reformation of theology for the postmodern age. In other words, Murphy saw the possibility that conservatives would react to postmodernity by opening the door to a fundamental change of doctrine. In 1995, at the close of another Wheaton College conference, George Lindbeck said that postmodernity provides a real opportunity to reinvigorate liberal theology.
3-Stanley Grenz wrote a book that attempted to provide a theological framework for this reinvigorated liberalism.
4-Later John Franke and Grenz collaborated on an expanded version of Grenz’s book, which was published under the title: “Beyond Foundationalism - Shaping Theology In A Postmodern Context.”
5-Foundationalism is the belief that certain facts are universal, objective, and undisputable. Because foundational facts are certain, they can be used like the foundation of a building, upon which the pursuit of knowledge can be constructed.
6-Franke and Grenz claim the church in the age of modernity built a theological system on the Foundationalism concept.
7-Theological Foundationalism is the basis of both conservative and liberal doctrine. The difference is how the two camps applied the concept. Liberals built their theology on the foundational concept of irrefutable religious experience and conservatives built their theology on an error free Bible.
8-Franke and Grenz sought to produce a theological system built on something other than Foundationalism, in order to give both liberals and conservatives common theological ground.
9-Franke and Grenz could not escape the concept of Foundationalism (after all, God is the ultimate foundation. therefore we simply cannot go beyond Foundationalism). However they did propose a new foundation for theology.
10-The new foundation is God’s purpose in creation, which Franke and Grenz claims is Trinitarian theology. Trinitarian theology teaches that God is three persons in relationship with one another. Therefore, God created mankind to be in relationship with Him and Him with mankind.
11-In Trinitarian theology, experience and scripture are invaluable. However, the purpose of Scripture is to tell the story of mankind’s and God’s relationship with one another. In this sense, scripture is error free. However, Scripture is not intended to be used to define doctrines as are found in “systematic theologies.”
12-Those liberal and conservative Christians who join in promoting this new theology are called post conservative and post liberal.
13-Brian McLaren has been deeply influenced by “Beyond Foundationalism.” He, and many other emergents, cite this book as a source of significant influence on their new way of thinking about Christianity.
14-Franke and Grenz’s theology is not conservative in any definition of the word, and their “post-conservative” is nothing other than a new name for liberal.
15-Franke and Grenz, along with most emergents, claim this is the theology of pre-Constantinian Christianity.
16-Therefore, the change in direction Brian McLaren introduced to the TerraNova project, indicates that the EC is the vehicle for an attempt to reinvent and reinvigorate liberal theology under the guise of authentic ancient evangelicalism/Christianity in the age of postmodernity.
Emergent Theology for Postmoderns
1-Understanding academic or philosophical postmodernity is not required, but to understand the theology of the EC it is necessary to have a basic grasp of the average postmodern’s world view - what I like to call the "postmodern street."
2-Postmoderns reject the concept of absolutes. Absolutes are anything that is true for everyone, in every culture, in every age - sometimes referred to as metanarratives. As a result, postmoderns believe that truth, morality, and values are a matter of perspective. Individuals and cultures determine for themselves how to define truth and error, morality, and values from their experiences, circumstances, and traditions. A classic example is the interpretation of history such as the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution. Americans see these men as courageous heroes and freedom fighters. The British see them as rebels and terrorists who sought to undermine and destabilize England. Each position is believed to be true, but only from their particular cultural perspectives. Another example is marriage. Some cultures view polygamy and marriage to teenagers as acceptable, but most likely for economic reasons unique to those cultures. Morality is another issue affected by postmodernity. Postmoderns believe that Biblical morality, such as the condemnation of homosexuality, was true in the past, but is no longer true today.
Postmoderns also believe that all religions and forms of spirituality are expressions of worship to the same god. Postmoderns demonstrate an interest in spirituality and have a high regard for Jesus, but they tend to reject organized religion, especially Christianity, which they believe has perverted the message of Jesus and is filled with arbitrary rules designed to control people.
(admittedly this description of the postmodern street is woefully incomplete, however it gives enough information to understand the basis for the methods and theology that EC leaders believe are necessary to effectively reach postmoderns.)
3-emergent theology is an effort to appeal to postmoderns by redefining Christian doctrines that contradict the postmodern world view.
4-The foundation of EC beliefs is Trinitarian theology which is very similar to the theology of the Eastern Orthodox church (EOC).
5-Emergents believe that evangelicals misunderstand the intent of the Scriptures, which leads to the misuse of the Bible.
6-Emergents believe the Bible is a narrative that tells the story how God created man to have a relationship with Him; the consequences of mans rebellion against God - the consequence of sin: selfishness, self-centeredness, greed, abuse of power, injustice, wars, oppression, caste or class systems, starvation, slavery, homelessness, abuse of animals and the environment. Religions also participated in these evils by partnering with oppressive and violent governments in an effort to protect the authority and influence of established religious leaders.
7-The bible tells the story of how a loving God pursued His relationship with mankind, even though they had turned away from Him. It tells how God sought to teach man to live according to His original intent for creation - called by some “God’s undying dream for humanity.”
8-Emergents believe the Bible is not a source -dictionary - of doctrine or morality. Instead it simply tells the story of man’s sin and God’s effort to teach them to live according to his undying dream for humanity. First by setting apart a people for Himself, through whom God attempted to establish a more compassionate social system that would serve as an example for the whole world, and culminating in the life and teachings of Jesus who demonstrated perfectly God’s ways, e.g. teaching to lead by serving, loving one’s neighbors as themselves, etc. Whoever lives according to this undying dream, as demonstrated in the actions of Jesus, is a disciple of Jesus.
9-Anyone that conforms to the “way of Jesus” is a disciple…even if they don’t realize it.
10-As a result, the EC doctrine of soteriology (salvation):
a) teaches that salvation comes through Jesus only
b) denies penal substitutionary atonement - Jesus was crucified, but not to pay penalty of death for man’s sins. Jesus’ submission to execution was the ultimate form of protest against the epitome of the worlds leadership methods (self-centered, power hungry, oppressive Roman government and Judaism’s collaboration with Rome.
c)Jesus provides salvation by teaching and demonstrating the attitudes and behavior God originally intended for man.
d)Salvation is two fold: 1- deliverance from the consequences of rebellion against God in this temporal life (listed above) resulting from the individual living in harmony with God’s undying dream (original intent) for humanity. 2-The individual following Jesus’ example of protesting against injustice, seeking to right wrongs, showing compassion to the hurting, meeting physical and spiritual needs.
e)Salvation is not about eternal life with God in some future paradise.
f)Confessing faith in Jesus is not necessary for salvation. In fact it is possible to reject the gospel and still be saved (this does not mean that they might have a change of mind in the future, but that specific belief in Jesus’ gospel is not necessary for salvation).
g)Conversion from pagan religions is not necessary to be saved or to be considered a disciple of Jesus.
h) “Saved” is living according to the “way of Jesus.” Adherents of pagan religions can be disciples of Jesus. Terms like “Buddhist Christian” “Muslim Christian” “Hindu Christian” are used to describe this EC doctrine.
I)It is unloving, and in some cases, sinful to require conversion to Christianity.
j)All religions have teachings that are considered wheat (doctrines that if obeyed will lead people to live according to the “way of Jesus“), and all religions, including Christianity, have teachings that are tares.
k)Doctrine is ever changing and should be determined by all religions, including Christianity, dialoguing with one another to learn the good (truth) other religions have to offer.
l)Religions need to be saved - that is, all religions need to change the practices that are antithetical to the way of Jesus, and enhance the doctrines consistent with the “way of Jesus.”
m)Some emergents - not all, but some - deny the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus. They believe the resurrection is a metaphor for the better way of life the “way of Jesus” represents.
n) “Incarnational” and Missional;” Incarnational describes the practice of exhibiting the attitude of Jesus’ in every aspect of one’s life and reaching out to people in need by going to where they are and operating in their culture. Missional is the practice of being on mission in every aspect of ones life and in all of ones relationships, and meeting the needs of those people.
Emergent Congregations and practices:
1-Emergent churches are congregations led by pastors teaching EC theology.
2-Most EC churches are independent because they find that association with denominations or established evangelical (and mainline) churches expose them to interference from the parent organization. However, some denominations are experimenting with EC congregations.
3-Because of the concept of Missional and Incarnational, most EC churches are typically designed to reach certain cultures; e.g. homeless, bars, club or rave, etc. However, not all of them begin this way, and those that do, tend to branch out to other cultures as people join.
4-Because postmoderns tend to appreciate ancient worship practices and symbolism, many emerging churches employ candles, icons, liturgy, and religious symbols in their worship
5-Because postmoderns tend to be techies, some emerging churches use multi-media technology in every area of worship, including the sacraments.
6-Emerging worship services are a blend of ancient and contemporary.
7-Because postmodernism has reinvigorated an interest in the arts, many emerging churches use the arts to enhance the worship experience. In some emerging churches, some of the worshippers will be painting, sculpting, or creating pottery, which symbolizes, among other things, the creative nature of the divine.
8-Emerging sermons are commonly narrations of God’s effort to reach man - telling the story of the Bible.
9-Many emergents call the EC a conversation because they value the life stories of each individual. The conversation allows individuals to tell of their experience, what they learned about God or how they experienced God on their life journey. The one rule, is that they do not criticize or tell someone that anything they say is wrong. This is demonstrated in Donald Miller’s book “Blue Like Jazz.” He tells of his struggles; about his experience as a church youth group leader while he was stoned. In every story, he makes no effort to communicate the good or the bad, or draw any “moral of the story” conclusions for that matter. This is because truth is in the eye of the beholder, and the highest value is the experience, which is part of the relationship with God.
10-Some emerging churches engage in pagan practices such as prayer labyrinths, transcendental meditation, channeling, and so forth to enhance their experience with the divine.
Emergent methodology for promoting their movement:
1-Emergents target postmoderns (primarily, but not limited to, between the teenage years and 30) with a theology of Jesus that is specially designed to appeal to their worldview.
2-Emergents target disgruntled Christians of every age by distorting the doctrine, the history, and the practices of Christianity.
3-Emergents slander traditional Christianity by describing the church as if the media’s portrayal of Christianity is accurate.
4-Emergents claim that traditional Christians do not:
a) have an authentic relationship with Jesus
b) authentically pray
c) have authentic relationships with one another
d) seek to meet the needs of people in their own neighborhoods
e) ever do anything of value in the world
f) understand the intent of Jesus’ message and mission
g) care about the environment
h) seek justice for the oppressed
I) love people that are not like them, e.g. homosexuals
j) do not understand paradox, or realize that God is primarily a mystery
5)Emergents claim that traditional Christians do:
a) isolate themselves from their own culture by hunker ingdown behind the walls of their church buildings
b) wrongly declare that anyone who doesn’t believe just like them is not a Christian
c) preach hate filled messages of exclusion
d) marginalize people different than them
e) believe that Jesus is a republican
f) use their doctrine and structure to gain power over people
g) adopt the philosophy and world view of modernity and then incorporate it into their doctrine
h) act as if their theology is the same as the Apostles and church fathers, when in fact it is an invention of post-Constantinian Christianity
I) are anti-intellectual and anti-scientific
j) wrongly assume that the Bible contains all that can be known about God, thus declaring that any experience that contradicts Biblical revelation is not of God.
k) Use the Bible to control and condemn people
l) only care about getting people saved, but don’t care at all about their lives in the here and now.
m) believe Christianity is only about a future in paradise
Some concluding thoughts
As you can see, the EC does have structure. It is similar to denominations like Calvary Chapels that begin with a leadership already in place, then invite anyone that agrees with them to join with them in serving God. Anyone can call themselves Emerging as long as they agree with fundamental emerging church doctrine. They do not have to agree on every point, but on they must agree on the essentials. Not every one that calls him or herself emerging, is. Much in the same way that not all churches that call themselves Calvary Chapel are recognized by the Calvary Chapel organization, so to, not everyone that calls him or herself emerging is actually emerging.
You also might notice that the EC does have an agreed upon theology. Emergents differ on the focus of their missiology (how they incarnate Jesus in their cultures), and they don’t all agree about the implications of their movement for the future, but they do share common theological beliefs about Jesus, the Bible, salvation, and ultimately how truth and morality are defined.
I hope this was clear enough to give you a basic mental image of what the EC is. Any questions?
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/3/2008 4:09:09 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/3/2008 3:48:09 PM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 3324
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellaluna
I think anyone who claims Mark Driscoll isn't orthodox has never listened to him.
(I tried to visit the site kat_d linked to, but it appears to be down at the moment.)
I don't remember, but has anyone here claimed that Mark Driscoll is not orthodox...other than his sense of humor, and maybe his uses of vulgar language?
No, but it sounded like the website linked to earlier might question that. I'm still trying to get it to load. (the apprising.org site)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 7:15:01 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 993
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
earthless
so....that was a way of dashing in and out, and not really engaging.
mushead
wow, what a post man. so much there. want to actually discuss any of it?
how about this interesting observation: your claim #2 in your observation about theology demands that "...postmoderns reject the concept of absolutes..." and you've equated "emergent" and "postmodern", so i can only read that statement as "emergents reject the concept of absolutes" - however - in point #4 you claim that "...the foundation of EC believes is trinitarian theology....". can you not see the problem in these two conflicting statements?
a couple quick comments:
#5-agreed
#1 there is much difference between emergents use of "postmodern" and your typical secular use of the word, and i'd cite NT Wright as one who has really been able to articulate this.
#3 disagreed
#6 - sounds like a reasonable observation
#7 - same
#8 - i'm not sure if one should insert the adjective (in such a negative way) "simply". the rest i believe is a fair observation, one that i think many would agree with. and in the end, any argument that suggests the bible is a "dictionary" is rejected by those who demand such a doctrine.
#9 - eh, i'm not certain if that was articulated well. maybe the point you're trying to make is that being a disciple of jesus isn't centered in mental assent, or subscribing to a detailed statement of faith. and that what we do, is united with what we believe. and like a learning guitar player who only knows how to play chords, but nothing of notes, scales, or voicings - still participates and "knows" these things, she just doesn't "know she knows them" - why? because you can't play a chord unless your fingering is right, which of course is meant to produce certain notes based on a certain scale.
#10 - again, compare 10a with #2. 10b not so much what penal substitutionary atonement says, but often what it itself denies. and the rest, is a bit off and short (as i'm certain any statement on soteriology is). 10c - negative 10d - possibly; however, it would be hard to suggest that this *is* it. 10e - no. what you may find is that it is expressed that escapism is not what its about. 10f - look back at 10a. 10g - i could give the same response; however, your statement assumes that "religion" saves or damns. most often, "religion" is infused with cultural, political, economical ideologies. and because you seem to say: you can worship any diety or idol you want and be "okay", then i must disagree with you; however, should you mean the particpant isn't required to move from....say iraq or china to america, then i would tend to agree.
10h - same thing
10i - such a short negative statement, and one that doesn't care to explain itself (which is understandable, as you've written such a lengthy post, but it begs the observation, wouldn't it be wise to now narrowly discuss things?)
10j - decent enough an observation, though again, maybe there's more to be discussed
10k - see 10a
10l - here's another statement that sounds so.....absolute
10m - do they? i know of many folks who deny the "literal bodily resurrection"; however, i'm aware of no "emergent" that does so. who did you have in mind?
10n - sounds like a fair observation
i'll have to pause for now, as i gotta run.
pax christi
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 7:50:52 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4968
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
earthless
so....that was a way of dashing in and out, and not really engaging.
It was a way of sharing a video that involves the topic being discussed. Either watch it or don't, no rocket science required.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 8:50:39 AM
|
|
|
floydette
Posts: 1142
Status: offline
|
I don't know how much I will post in this thread - I have very little time right now, but will keep watching the thread. I did take the time to watch the YouTube video this morning. Thanks for posting it earthless. It sounded like a gross misunderstanding of the emergent conversation. And, post-moderns, as I understand them as well. Was it Todd Friel? I couldn't figure it out, but thought I recognized the voice.
The part that was the hardest to listen to was the contempt in his voice. Whether you are on the side of modernity, or p-modernity, conservative or liberal, treating the other side as it they are idiots is far from what Jesus modeled for us. It was simply 10 minutes of mocking people with whom he disagrees. It is always depressing to hear people talk about others in this fashion. And we wonder why people outside of the church have the opinions that they do about those inside the church....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 11:01:20 AM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
facedown,
I am not sure which points you are referrng to, as the numbers you referenced all appear more than once in my post. I will respond to the ones I am reasonably sure of. If you will clarify on the others, I will try to respond as soon as I have more time.
quote:
how about this interesting observation: your claim #2 in your observation about theology demands that "...postmoderns reject the concept of absolutes..." and you've equated "emergent" and "postmodern", so i can only read that statement as "emergents reject the concept of absolutes" - however - in point #4 you claim that "...the foundation of EC believes is trinitarian theology....". can you not see the problem in these two conflicting statements?
emergents - like postmoderns - do not deny the existance of truth, they only deny the existance of absolute truth. As for the specific concept of foundationalism contradicting postmodernity - I agree. Pay attention to the things that emergents say, and you will discover an incredible volume of contradiction. For example: Someone already mentioned their criticism of modern Christianity for being political, then touting the responsibility of Christians to be politically active. Emergents also criticize modern Christians for the exclusivism inherent in their doctrine, which leads to identifying who is in and who is out as Christians. However, Emergents continuously claim that modern Christianity is a perversion of Jesus' message and mission. Mike Yaconelli, tells his story in "Stories of Emergence -From Absolute to Authentic." Yaconelli says that Christian leaders in his area made him and his congregation feel as if they were not really a church, but he realized it was they who are not the church. Do you notice how Yaconelli says that the church of modernity is not really the church because of how and why they judged him. Then he claims he realizes he is actually part of the authentic church, even as he committs the very same act he just finished saying is why the other guys are not.
These are just a few examples...there are many, many more. One last point on foudnationalism. Most emergents claim that foundationalism is dead (as do Franke and Grenz, who over and over again siad foundationalism is declining, and would begin to discuss the doctrinal implications of that when foundationalism would reassert itslef. In the end they admitted to a new foundation, but they still held tenaciously to their claim that foundationalism is declinging and/or dead. Most emergents are attracted to the theology that Franke and Grenz constructed around trinitarian theology.
I am falling asleep, I'll continue later.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/4/2008 11:09:56 AM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 12:38:09 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 573
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Well at least Mushhead hasn't gone after Rob Bell yet on his slamming of Emergents people.
By the way You are taking a lot of good stuff and throwing it under the bus so to say. Just curious are you one of those who Saint Peter has the rest of us go by a certian room. Tells us to be very very quite because they are the only one in Heaven so they think. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 12:51:26 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 546
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
because it does no good to simply say "they are not being true the message of jesus" if you're not willing to authentically engage in the conversation.
Why should I "engage in the conversation"? In fact, the word 'conversation' is becoming quite ruined for me by emergents, because of how they have made a cliche out of it.
And it does quite a lot of good to say that. It says exactly what it was meant to say.
quote:
if your argument is "if it's not in the bible, then it's heretical" i assume you to worship on both the sabbath as well as the lords day, i assume you to fast, and have a prayer closet, i assume that your gatherings are overseen by a bishop, i assume you to not utilize electricity, i assume that you don't have a bible in the first place, and i assume that you use the LXX, and i assume......
but somehow, i don't think that's your argument, is it.
And if your argument is that you really have no argument, I think that little childish rant proved it.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 5:32:10 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Well at least Mushhead hasn't gone after Rob Bell yet on his slamming of Emergents people.
By the way You are taking a lot of good stuff and throwing it under the bus so to say. Just curious are you one of those who Saint Peter has the rest of us go by a certian room. Tells us to be very very quite because they are the only one in Heaven so they think.
mcleod,
I did not slam the EC; I only sought to provide jacobwdowning the information he asked for. I don't intend to get drawn into a fight, but I am able and willing to provide multiple sources for every point. So, if you disagree with something in my post, then be specific (it is better if you can present an argument with supporting documentation to explain your position, but if not, at least cite what it is you disagree with an why), and I will respond. However, accusing me of slamming emergents, insinuating that I am dishonest, and attempting to insult me in a post devoid of even one substantive point, doesn't prove anything.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/4/2008 6:34:29 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/4/2008 6:29:25 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
#1 there is much difference between emergents use of "postmodern" and your typical secular use of the word, and i'd cite NT Wright as one who has really been able to articulate this
facedown,
continuing on:
I presented those aspects of postmodernity that emergents typically refer to when explaining their movement. As you know, the description was not exhaustive, but it touched on the important aspects of postmodernity. I am not aware that NT Wright has written anything supportive of the EC, so I am guessing that you are referring to some kind of analysis. I am interested to here what he said that you are referring to.
quote:
#3 disagreed
I think you are referrring to #3 in the theology section, but because I am not certain of this, I will wait to respond.
quote:
#8 - i'm not s | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
