RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 9:34:34 AM)

quote:

in regards to tom wright, i too know of nothing specific where he mentions the "emerging church"; however, wright is seen as the forefront scholar/theologin of our time by every EC fellow i know of, in addition, my post stated that tom has been able to articulate well what this word "post-modern" means (i didn't say "emergent"). i can reference several books, if your interested, and there is a lot of stuff from wright online.

facedown,
I read through your response, but do not have enough time to construct an appropriate response to most of your points, except the one cited above.

I have read 100's (maybe reaching into the thousands by now) of books, articles, blogs, essays, ect. written by EC leaders and everyday emergents, from both here in the U.S. and in Great Britian. With precious few exceptions, the only place I have seen NT Wright cited by emergents, is here on Crosswalk; and then, by only two (maybe three) individuals. Wright's theology is virtually the exact opposite of the EC. The only Wright teaching I can think of that emergents might look to for support of their views, is the NPP (I hope I got the initials correct). Outside of the NPP, emergents refer to Wright for the same reaons they cite other conservative theologians - to prove a specific concept within the EC with something that was said, but never intended to be used to support emergent theology.
Most emergents cite liberal theologians like Franke and Grenz, Nancy Murphy, George Lindbeck, Leslie Newbigin, Henri Nouwen, and Dallas Willard. Once in a great while something that a conservative theologian, such as D.A. Carson or Wright, will be cited to prove some specific point, but that doesn't mean emergents believe any conservative theologian is a leading theologian for our time. They cannot take that position, as conservative theologians tend to insist upon doctrines that emergents claim are a recent development; the result of the church embracing the worldview of modernity (or as emergent like to say, "when the church annointed the worldview of modernity"), and therefore, are not consistant with historical Christian doctrine that was taught by the Apostles or the early church fathers.

Gotta go.



floydette -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 9:45:07 AM)

mush,

I would suggest that Wright's new book, Surprised by Hope may be along the lines of the EC's understanding about heaven, hell, etc. I just ordered it, so will probably read it over the next few weeks.

f



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 10:26:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: floydette

mush,

I would suggest that Wright's new book, Surprised by Hope may be along the lines of the EC's understanding about heaven, hell, etc. I just ordered it, so will probably read it over the next few weeks.

f

floydette,
I went to amazon and read the reviews on Wright's new book. One reader had this to say:
quote:

"Maybe it is the scope...maybe it is how alarmingly (and probably scarily for some) practical it is...to those of us still soaked in the idea that God's end game is "souls escaping the world for Heaven's clouds" it may seem so foreign...to those of us who have embraced a God who is more concerned with Reshaping, Restoring and Resurrecting His Good World, it will be invigorating and energizing (especially for mission).

What a task! Wright wrote a book about what we can and must ultimately hope for: a good world fully restored. We are all indebted to N. T. Wright for this masterpiece."

Another reader had this to say: (emphasis mine)
quote:

"Reading this book was interesting becasue his discussion of "Paradise" as being an intermediate state between death and ressurection. This is exactly on point with LDS belief on what happens after death.

The concept of "Paradise" as being an intermediate state, as articulated by N.T. Wright, is clearly explained in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Official Edition) in chapter 40 of the Book of Alma... Now, N.T's Wright isn't LDS but a Angelican Christian. I don't know how Mr. Wright feels about an "LDS" reading/interpretation of his book in which one LDS reader sees much agreement between his book and LDS theology. Perhaps he would be happy by it or maybe he would be unhappy with the fact that his book happens to broadly reflect LDS theology on Heaven, Paradise and other theological issues of life after death."

I am including the entire text of the last reader's comments (yes, there are only three):
quote:

"Bishop Tom Wright's explanation of what happens to the Christian after death is strikingly similar to that presented in the novel ACTS OF GOD, Book 3 of THE CHRIST CLONE TRILOGY. I am pleased to see this scholarly presentation of those ideas. There is, however, one thing that Bishop Wright has not factored into his account, to wit, God is not subject to the restrictions of time.

In truth, the Bible presents a paradox concerning what happens to the dead. From the following verses it is clear that the dead are unaware until their resurrection: Psalms 6:5 and 115:17-18; Isaiah 38:18-19; Job 14:12 and 19:25-27; Luke 14:13-14; Acts 2:29-34; I Corinthians 15:22-23 and 15:51-52. And, yet, the following verses indicate an immediate or near-immediate transition into God's presence: Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23.

This is where the issue of time comes in. To make this simple, consider the 1960 movie THE TIME MACHINE with Rod Taylor. From his time machine Rod Taylor watched what was going on around him in fast motion because he traveled *through* time. Contrast that with time travel in BACK TO THE FUTURE. When Marty McFly and Doc Brown traveled forward in the DeLorean, they traveled instantly, jumping *across* time, from one point to another without experiencing any passage of time themselves.

When a Christian dies, he does not travel through time as Rod Taylor did (and as we all do, though at normal speed). The dying Christian closes his eyes to life and passes across time to the point of Christ's return and the resurrection. Why is it necessary to add this "science fiction" touch to Bishop Wright's thesis? Because, simply, it is the only way to reconcile the paradox without ignoring or discounting verses like Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23."

It's interesting how vastly divergent interpretations can come from the same book. The content of the first reader's comments suggest the book's message reflects the theology of emergents (even though the reader may not be an emergent). This reader was pleased that Wright teaches God's primary purpose is to restore this world (God's creation), which is one of the aspects of the EC doctrine of salvation that is about people living according to God's undying dream for humanity; about the world here and now, and is not about - as facedown so aptly phrased it - escapism to a future paradise.

However, the second reader is a mormon who sees Wright's message about the future after death. Even more intersesting, especially in light of facedown's statement that Wright is considered by many emergents to be the foremost theologian for this age, is that the mormon sees Wright's book as theological confirmation of LDS teachings. The third reader also came to the "after death" conclusion. I am curious which perspective is correct. This thread might not still be here when you finish reading the book; if not will you PM me with your comments.



floydette -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 10:40:31 AM)

I would enjoy chatting about it. I'd start a thread, but fear it would get hijacked. [:D] I'll send you a pm. Call me on it should I forget.



GregandJenny -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 12:43:33 PM)

The bible has this to say.it's plain and simple. Matthew 7 says

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 5:19:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: floydette

I would enjoy chatting about it. I'd start a thread, but fear it would get hijacked. [:D] I'll send you a pm. Call me on it should I forget.

floydette,
I'm looking forward to it!
quote:

Mushhead,
Thanks for the explanations on the EC, I found them very helpful.

YvonneW,
Your welcome; praise God that you found it helpful.

quote:

The bible has this to say.it's plain and simple. Matthew 7 says

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

GregandJenny,
Amen! and Amen!



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 9:17:29 PM)

earthless
oh you're right i cannot dictate how you post.
but i can point out (even if it is rather bluntly) that you fail to respond to posts/questions in your direction, and rather pop in and out and either a) cut and paste lengthy posts or b) say "amen" or c) post to website(s) or other activity that really does nothing to actually engage in the thread.

that's blunt, but it is what it is. i'll stop now. but it would be awesome if you would in fact respond to posts/questions given to your direction (in other words, posts made in response to yours that were open-ended, as in they left questions, or offered some form of critical response to what you offered), which do in fact exist, even in this thread.

mushead
look at, for example, mars hill - rob bell. he openly praises wright in numerous ways. both in his speaking (pod casts of sermons, lectures, etc) his books, and even the churches website has an article by tom in .pdf.

even christianbooks.com lists wright as a "respected author" on their emergent page. brian mclarren also gives high praise for tom. tom writes much - much about the church and the post-modern culture and engages in very critical studies on theology - much of it is wholly rejected by fundamental evangelicals, others is praised - as you note, some the same might be true for more liberal type folks.

the wiki page for tom suggests that he has much ground within the emerging conversation. just google "nt wright emergent church", and go through the pages. or if your feeling frisky "emergentvillage.com nt wright".

another modern scholar/theologin would be volf.

gregandjenny
it sounds all well and good - until one starts discussing it, then it's not all that "plain and simple".
one is forced to get lost in more and more words, arguments, defenses, rebuttles....



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/5/2008 9:59:31 PM)

quote:

look at, for example, mars hill - rob bell. he openly praises wright in numerous ways. both in his speaking (pod casts of sermons, lectures, etc) his books, and even the churches website has an article by tom in .pdf.

Yeah, I've read the article.

I have to go out for the evening, so I won't be able to post answers to the issues you raised, as most require a lot of typing in order to provide quotes and other references.

Have a blessed evening!



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 7:19:35 AM)

mushead
see you when you return. until then, let me return to your previous post that i failed to respond all the way through. i believe i left off after responding to your remarks about the buddhist.

"....what we believe begins with knowing something...."
let me carry my guitar player a littler further. she can play the guitar, she knows what a guitar is, and knows how to place her fingers behind the right frets to make a few chords.
now, if i overlay paul's message on mars hill, one might say, that the created order and what you might call "general revelation" is the guitar, correct finger positions might be responding to this message paul gave (unless you believe that he failed in his message), and yet, there seems to be so much "more" to know, to beleive in (as paul certainly left a lot out, didn't he?). maybe that element is where you pick up on in the statement above; however, you seem to wholly invalidate everything prior.

mushead, you'll not see any argument that *demands* that if one helps their neighbor out is saved.
"...some other source..." this is an interesting phrase, because i wonder if there are (2) sources for that which is "good", "truth", and "of god"?

back to emergent theology
10c - what you might see in the soteriology presented is more of a fusion of several atonement theories, not a demanding of the moral theory while whole-heartedly denying a substitution theory (penal....maybe).
10d - i don't disagree; however, you seem to suggest then, that emergents believe either a) there is no life in the age to come, or b) everyone will participate in the same life.
10e - not being "about" something, doesn't mean that this something isn't an element, does it? and you'll see the thrust is not about rejecting the age to come, but in discussing what happens when that's all the message is about (which is quite often in evangelical fundamentalism...you get saved so that you don't burn in hell), aka a protest against escapism.
(i realize i responded to some of this already; however, the responses were very limited)

on to 5) emergent claim(s)
some of this is present - an observation if you will, about the consequences of the "life" of the church in the recent past. i don't think any of these statements could be said absolutly, and i'm unsure that any emergent would demand any of these as such. it would be hard; however, to reject the observation.

emergent methodology
"target"? i'm not certain about that, makes it seem like a military strategy. that there is resonation, is quite obvious. now point 4 a-j....man mushead, it seems you believe that emergents believe that "traditional christians" are going to burn in hell, is that your impression?

concluding thoughts
true, not everyone 'is' simply by placing a label on oneself. but you seem to demand that those who "truly" are, are those who fit your list of "essentials", and anything said, even by those who might be emergent that doesn't fit the list don't mean what they say, or are just saying it, or something. in other words - only those who are most antagonistic against moderns, only those most "liberal" folks, only those who seem to "slander" other christians are emergents - all others are not.



earthless -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 8:50:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: facedown

earthless
oh you're right i cannot dictate how you post.
but i can point out (even if it is rather bluntly) that you fail to respond to posts/questions in your direction, and rather pop in and out and either a) cut and paste lengthy posts or b) say "amen" or c) post to website(s) or other activity that really does nothing to actually engage in the thread.

that's blunt, but it is what it is. i'll stop now. but it would be awesome if you would in fact respond to posts/questions given to your direction (in other words, posts made in response to yours that were open-ended, as in they left questions, or offered some form of critical response to what you offered), which do in fact exist, even in this thread.



And point out you have done several times. I didn't see any posts/questions directed towards me that I left unanswered, considering I haven't been in this thread (prior to posting the YouTube link) for weeks.

Why you got so angry because of me posting a single post with a single video link says a lot more about you than anything else.

It's a video link, if you don't like it because it doesn't jive with your stance on the emergent "church", then so be it.

Now please continue to waste all of our time with another circle of "how dare you post in here with a video link, arrrghhh!! ala Howard Dean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

Aren't emergent church people supposed to be so young, hip, and cool? Why all the drama...



J_Michael80 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 9:19:21 AM)

I think its bad. I wish we had one universal church for Christians or one denomination just for protestants. Although I am not catholic, I envy them because they have one catholic church.



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 10:28:51 AM)

quote:

Why you got so angry because of me posting a single post with a single video link says a lot more about you than anything else.


Yes I listen to that and it sounded like a arrogant man raving that his words are true. The only one to walk on this planet and say that was God in body form and his words are true.



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 10:33:25 AM)

quote:

I think its bad. I wish we had one universal church for Christians or one denomination just for protestants. Although I am not catholic, I envy them because they have one catholic church.


For I see that those catholics aren't christian.[:@]



jazzact13 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 11:19:38 AM)

quote:

Aren't emergent church people supposed to be so young, hip, and cool? Why all the drama...


You should have linked to a NOOMA excerpt. Then you too would be 'young, hip, and cool'.



earthless -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 11:39:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13

quote:

Aren't emergent church people supposed to be so young, hip, and cool? Why all the drama...


You should have linked to a NOOMA excerpt. Then you too would be 'young, hip, and cool'.


One day... maybe one day I can join the ranks! And here all this time I thought my "hip" avatar was enough.



stellaluna -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 12:45:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13

quote:

Aren't emergent church people supposed to be so young, hip, and cool? Why all the drama...


You should have linked to a NOOMA excerpt. Then you too would be 'young, hip, and cool'.


One day... maybe one day I can join the ranks! And here all this time I thought my "hip" avatar was enough.

Well, it does have kind of cool hair. [;)]

I finally got into the apprising.org website and as I suspected, it lists many things not to like about Mark Driscoll, which leads me to believe its creator doesn't listen much to the people it decries. And while I believe some of the other people it mentions are heretical or near heretical, I'm now leery of accepting anything the site says about anyone.

The fact of the matter is that there is no clear or accurate definition of "emerging" or "emergent." These pastors should be treated no differently than the other televangelists of our day. If they do not speak the truth, then they should not be listened to or supported. How your church "does church" is completely irrelevant. And frankly, if I hear the words "do church" or "plug in" one more time, I'm going to scream bloody murder.



jazzact13 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 1:11:01 PM)

quote:

One day... maybe one day I can join the ranks! And here all this time I thought my "hip" avatar was enough.


Naw, too plain. You need to give it's hair a pink streak, have it sipping something from Starbucks (or from an obvious knockoff), and wearing a pastel-colored Che Guevara t-shirt.



jazzact13 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 1:15:56 PM)

quote:

I finally got into the apprising.org website and as I suspected, it lists many things not to like about Mark Driscoll, which leads me to believe its creator doesn't listen much to the people it decries.


I've been listening to a lot of Driscoll's sermons lately, and I've enjoyed them a lot. More then that, they've given me a lot to think about. I'm not sure I'm with him on the whole Calvinist thing, nor on some of his end-times views, but as far as practical stuff and his doctrine goes, I haven't a problem with him.



lw9 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 2:48:27 PM)

quote:

earthless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfAyhTpf3EQ


That's an excellent summation and commentary, earthless. Really breaks through the pseudo-intellectual fog and cuts right to the heart of the matter. Thanks for posting it, and I hope everyone will give it a listen.

quote:

stellaluna: And frankly, if I hear the words "do church" or "plug in" one more time, I'm going to scream bloody murder.


That's a great start. I have a slew of used and abused buzz words I'd like to add to that list 'cause they're like nails on a chalkboard.



stellaluna -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 4:11:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lw9
quote:

stellaluna: And frankly, if I hear the words "do church" or "plug in" one more time, I'm going to scream bloody murder.


That's a great start. I have a slew of used and abused buzz words I'd like to add to that list 'cause they're like nails on a chalkboard.

I'm not part of an emerging church by any stretch and it seems like I hear one or the other every week. And what's crazy is that they're using buzzwords to describe things that have been part of my church experience since at least 1980. [8|]

<climbing down from soapbox>



JimboFletch -> RE: The Emerging Church-Flakey or Bad? (3/6/2008 4:29:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: facedown

earthless
oh you're right i cannot dictate how you post.
but i can point out (even if it is rather bluntly) that you fail to respond to posts/questions in your direction, and rather pop in and out and either a) cut and paste lengthy posts or b) say "amen" or c) post to website(s) or other activity that really does nothing to actually engage in the thread.

that's blunt, but it is what it is. i'll stop now. but it would be awesome if you would in fact respond to posts/questions given to your direction (in other words, posts made in response to yours that were open-ended, as in they left questions, or offered some form of critical response to what you offered), which do in fact exist, even in this thread.



And point out you have done several times. I didn't see any posts/questions directed towards me that I left unanswered, considering I haven't been in this thread (prior to posting the YouTube link) for weeks.

Why you got so angry because of me posting a single post with a single video link says a lot more about you than anything else.

It's a video link, if you don't like it because it doesn't jive with your stance on the emergent "church", then so be it.

Now please continue to waste all of our time with another circle of "how dare you post in here with a video link, arrrghhh!! ala Howard Dean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

Aren't emergent church people supposed to be so young, hip, and cool? Why all the drama...

Earthless, the problem seems that your life doesn't revolve around this thread alone and that you aren't properly respectful of fluffy doctrines.
[;)]



earthless -> RE: The Emerging Church-Flakey or Bad? (3/6/2008 4:33:03 PM)

Jimbo,

You're probably right... but don't confuse me.. I am still trying to figure out how I can be hip and cool enough for this emergent thread.



floydette -> RE: The Emerging Church-Flakey or Bad? (3/6/2008 4:41:04 PM)

try dreds.



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 6:51:46 PM)

earthless
on the 29th there was a response to your postings
and on the 2nd, you posted your link.
and posting "bluntly" isn't "angry"....unless you admit your angry as well?

faithfulservant1
i disagree, but because i confess that there is (1) holy, catholic and apostic church

mcleod
are you suggesting that catholics are "damned"?

lw9
while i disagree with your observation fo the youtube video, me thinks it might be more condusive to this conversation to actually enter into dialogue. there's been plenty in here to respond to.

jimbo
no, the problem seems to be that some folks don't really want to engae in a conversation; which it seems, is the purpose of a "forum"....maybe i'm wrong.



lw9 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (3/6/2008 7:31:10 PM)

quote:

facedown: while i disagree with your observation fo the youtube video, me thinks it might be more condusive to this conversation to actually enter into dialogue. there's been plenty in here to respond to.


Me thinks that popping into a thread, reading a post, looking at a video, and dropping a general comment doesn't a problem make. It's all I have time for right now, it's certainly not against forum rules, and I didn't confront someone in particular on a vital issue and then leave them hanging. If my short observations aren't meeting with your standards for long and lengthy conversations, please feel free to drop a note in my complaint box. Thanks.

quote:

stellaluna: I'm not part of an emerging church by any stretch and it seems like I hear one or the other every week. And what's crazy is that they're using buzzwords to describe things that have been part of my church experience since at least 1980.


Ya know, that's a good point. The buzz words aren't in my church, either, but they do seem to be prevalent 'out there' in forums, on church sites, in articles, etc.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI