|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 5:20:06 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
GroupW,
instead of replying to each of your points, I think I will just offer a comment statement and a challenge:
If this middle position between the two poles exists, I'd be interested to hear about some examples. Because in three years of full time research on the subject, I haven't seen it. Yes, some exist for as in any movement there will be variety, but the description I provided is representative of the basic beliefs of the EC.
Challenge: google emergent or emerging church and see which variety of the EC shows up the most. The answer you will find is why using the term is foolish. Someone hears Driscoll or others like him use the term. Then they visit the internet or the local book store and who are they most likely going to encounter? McLaren, Jones, and Pagitt. They will end up in a hornets nest (maybe it should be described as a butterfly garden) of false teachings designed to appeal to the flesh (natural self's world view). It sounds good; the personalities are likeable; they sound knowledgeable and sincere. The person who was introduced to the term in the context of "orthodox" doctrine end up hooked on a lie.
Since Pagitt, McLaren et al are the most published authors/speakers, if you google emergent you almost by definition get that wing of the movement. If, however, you search more broadly on churches that are known to espouse the concept, you get a lot of Mars Hill, Pathways (Denver), and other churches that are soundly evangelical. Using the number of google hits in this case is somewhat misleading since it's a bit of a popularity contest and the more widely published authors happen to concentrate on the more liberal end. There are a fair number of emergent leaders that started off as colleagues of Mclaren et all but have since moved away from that into something that's both emergent and evangelical - hence the reason that I'm going to start using the term "evangelical-emergent" to describe that group.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 5:23:21 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Mushead to reply to what you have written. Let's take for instance. The gentleman who had at one time that large church in Colorado Springs. Which would talk a very conservative language both political and spiritual. Actual would have said at the time before his great disgrace. Was that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Yet in his mind he was doing the opposite to what the main line conservatives wanted to get rid of here in America. Namely the Gays and Lesbians.
What slap in God face was he to my Lord. Their are alot of others who in their daily walk and they seem to think they are all right to. But Jesus said that they (outcast) would know we are followers of him by our love. And Gentlemen and Ladies that is the bottom line.
Are saying my very conservative and observant Muslim neighbor who demonstrates love by helping the elderly folks in our neighborhood by doing odd jobs they cannot do for themselves is a redeemed disciple of Christ?
_____________________________
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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 5:25:41 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Mushead to reply to what you have written. Let's take for instance. The gentleman who had at one time that large church in Colorado Springs. Which would talk a very conservative language both political and spiritual. Actual would have said at the time before his great disgrace. Was that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Yet in his mind he was doing the opposite to what the main line conservatives wanted to get rid of here in America. Namely the Gays and Lesbians.
What slap in God face was he to my Lord. Their are alot of others who in their daily walk and they seem to think they are all right to. But Jesus said that they (outcast) would know we are followers of him by our love. And Gentlemen and Ladies that is the bottom line.
Are saying my very conservative and observant Muslim neighbor who demonstrates love by helping the elderly folks in our neighborhood by doing odd jobs they cannot do for themselves is a redeemed disciple of Christ?
Not opining on this, but interesting to me that CS Lewis appeared to hold out that possibility.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 5:47:43 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think the way you have the word "emergent" defined, it is a de facto heretical movement but descriptive of only a very small subset of churches that might otherwise describe themselves as within the emerging orbit.
GroupW,
Are you sure this group is very small subset of the larger movement? Any statistics to support this claim?
quote:
I agree, the Gospel does not and should not need to change. How we say it, present it, and teach it though absolutely does. I mentioned earlier that Paul himself advocated a certain flexibility in being able to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in.
This seems to be a widely misunderstood point about the movement. Changing how we speak of, teach, and present doesn't mean that we've tried to change the underlying truth of it. (Granted, the fact that some are indeed seeking to change that underlying truth doesn't help ease the confusion.)
We have only one example of Paul trying to employ culture to support his presentation of the Gospel; in Athens he cited one of their poets. However, we also have the benefit of his approach to sharing the Gospel at the very next stop on his journey - Corinth. He says in Corinth that he intentionally avoided employing wise arguments, eloquent speech, and persuasive words. instead he presented the simple message of Christ crucified so that their faith would be a demonstration of the Spirit's power not the result of men's wisdom (1Corinthians 2:1-5).
Apparently Paul learned a lesson from his experience in Athens. Also, the passage where Paul writes about becoming all things to all men does not refer to how he presented the gospel but how he presented himself. Ultimately, we have no power to convince people of the Gospel's truthfulness, all we can do is present the pure message. Remember that Postmoderns can understand the Gospel. They do understand the concept of absolute truths, even if they don't believe in them; they do believe that the intent of an author can be discerned, as they live with that reality in their everyday lives. Therefore their rejection of the gospel is not the result of our presentation, it is based on their disbelief. We can do nothing in our presentation to change that fact without first changing the Gospel message to make it more appealing.
_____________________________
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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 5:59:26 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushheadAre you sure this group is very small subset of the larger movement? Any statistics to support this claim?
Just from personal experience - I've been to a number of "emerging" churches and none conformed to that description.
quote:
We have only one example of Paul trying to employ culture to support his presentation of the Gospel; in Athens he cited one of their poets. However, we also have the benefit of his approach to sharing the Gospel at the very next stop on his journey - Corinth. He says in Corinth that he intentionally avoided employing wise arguments, eloquent speech, and persuasive words. instead he presented the simple message of Christ crucified so that their faith would be a demonstration of the Spirit's power not the result of men's wisdom (1Corinthians 2:1-5).
Apparently Paul learned a lesson from his experience in Athens. Also, the passage where Paul writes about becoming all things to all men does not refer to how he presented the gospel but how he presented himself.
Same passages, but I understand them differently. In Athens, Paul apparently deemed it wise given the culture to take the form of a cultured response. Not surprising, given the central philosophical and educational role that Athens played in that part of the world. Also not surprising that in the more mercantile Corinth, he abandoned that approach and took a simpler route.
As far as "being all things to all men", I find it hard to believe that being a Jew to save the Jews didn't involve altering his communication style. I think that's beyond logic. It would be logical to assume that he would draw on different imagery, rationale, and history in his conversations in dealing with a Jew than with a Gentile.
Any foreign missionary would tell you it's foolish to walk into a different culture and pretend that such differences do not exist and that one's message does not need to be adapted.
Again, I think the basic rule is intact - adapt where you can and remain unchanged where you must. I see nothing extra-biblical in that at all.
Edit to add: When I say a message needs to be adapted, I'm not talking about modifying truth. I'm talking about using different words/methods to teach it. Here's an example: In today's American society, the concept of "sin" has largely fallen from the vernacular. It is not an operative concept for most folks. 100 years ago, this was not the case. 100 years ago (or even 40 years ago) we could have a discussion on "sin" and be ok. Today, it's much tougher. Head directly into that topic and the discussion is over in short order. Is that a shame? Sure. Should I be able to barrel right on into that topic? Of course. Simple fact is that it's just not productive. If I address that topic today, I have to step back and not assume a certain level of familiarity or spiritual competency with the word. I have to cover it like it's a book called "Sin for Idiots". I'll start off using different words that aren't as loaded and don't carry the emotional baggage, for example. Same concept, but different words. Once I've got agreement using more modern language, I can reintroduce the word "sin"
but only after I've dealt with all the baggage that's associated with the word. It's not about making the concept "squishy" - it's eliminating all the various reasons that people have for not listening and getting rid of the obvious excuses so we can have a real discussion about the issue.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 8/12/2008 6:16:02 PM >
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 7:04:40 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
GroupW,
I'm not disagreeing with you about presenting the Gospel using venacular and illustrations that people can identify with. However, whatever words or illustrations we might use, in the end people either believe or disbelieve the message carried by the words.
quote:
Also not surprising that in the more mercantile Corinth, he abandoned that approach and took a simpler route.
So Corinth didn't have a culture that required something other than a straighforward - non-cultural - presentation of the Gospel?
I too have travelled and spoken to many in the EC movement. I have found far more emergent type churches than not. In the end though how many of one or the other is really irrelavent. As I said in previous post: The founders and leaders of the movement get to define what it is, and they say those that hold to what we call doctrinally orthodox theology are not part of their movement. This includes Driscoll (they refer to him by name). It makes no difference if Driscoll and others are trying to draw a distinction between two forms of the same word, in the final analysis he is no more emerging than he is emergent.
Edited to clarify one statement and add a response.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 8/12/2008 7:22:21 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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 7:13:26 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
I need to add a clarification to my previous post about cultures. Sometimes I think we treat any non-western, non-white people as idiots. It is rare to find anyone in any culture that cannot understand the gospel. Take GroupW's reference to sin not being understood. While it is true that many may not understand the deeper theological issues surrounding sin, most people know the word and understand enough about its meaning to grasp the Gospel. Maybe some children don't understand, but most adults do. People, here in America, and around the world are not blabbering imbasols. Add to that fact that most people in underdeveloped nations are more likely to understand the metaphors in the Bible, as they typically have to raise and grow their own food. For developed nations, globalization has enhanced the understanding of different cultures, not reduced it. Yet, we Americans talk like we think the only people capable of possessing knowledge about another culture is...us.
GroupW,
that rant was not directed at you, but the oft cited emergent claim that we must adapt the message because other cultures will not understand.
_____________________________
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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 7:15:19 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
GroupW,
I'm not disagreeing with you about presenting the Gospel using venacular and illustrations that people can understand. However, whatever words or illustrations we might use, in the end people either believe or disbelieve the message carried by the words.
Understood - thanks for clarifying.
quote:
I too have travelled and spoken to many in the EC movement. I have found far more emergent type churches than not. In the end though how many of one or the other is really irrelavent. As I said in previous post: The founders and leaders of the movement get to define what it is, and they say those that hold to what we call doctrinally orthodox theology are not part of their movement. This includes Driscoll (they refer to him by name). It makes no difference if Driscoll and others are trying to draw a distinction between two forms of the same word, in the final analysis he is no more emerging than he is emergent.
It looks like the difference between you and me then is in large part that I've defined the concept a bit more broadly than you. I remain convinced that a broader definition is appropriate here, but that's something you and I could debate all day long and never really get a resolution.
In light of that, I'll lay down my keyboard and make peace ;)
BT
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 7:29:39 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
It looks like the difference between you and me then is in large part that I've defined the concept a bit more broadly than you. I remain convinced that a broader definition is appropriate here, but that's something you and I could debate all day long and never really get a resolution.
In light of that, I'll lay down my keyboard and make peace ;)
I think we both agree that what we agree on is of far more importance - especially in the realm of eternity - than what we do not agree on. I hope my use of your "sin" example in my rant does not offend you. I was afraid that you would read it as my including you in the overall message of that post. I did not; I do not. If however you feel my use of that example will cause confusion, I will remove it. The example was not necessary to make the point.
God be with you!
_____________________________
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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/12/2008 7:38:48 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
I think we both agree that what we agree on is of far more importance - especially in the realm of eternity - than what we do not agree on. I hope my use of your "sin" example in my rant does not offend you. I was afraid that you would read it as my including you in the overall message of that post. I did not; I do not. If however you feel my use of that example will cause confusion, I will remove it. The example was not necessary to make the point.
God be with you!
And with you. No offense was taken - I completely understood the point.
You'll find that I get a bit worked up once in a while on a topic but rarely get offended. You've got to work pretty hard to offend me. I'm far more likely to offend than to be offended. I've been accused recently of having the Gift of Spiritual Sandpaper.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 8:03:49 AM
|
|
|
Soxfan
Posts: 1442
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sue244
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Soxfan
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
Rather than criticise the movement, I would prefer that we learn from it and reenergize the modern church.
End of rant.
There should be no such thing as the "modern church" God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
I think it was Spurgeon that said, and I'll paraphrase; "We shouldn't try to fit the Bible to the times, but rather fit the times to the Bible"
Times change, SoxFan. God is always the same, but people, cultures and institutions change. The church needs to adapt along with culture where it can and yet hold firm where it must. I think we evangelicals need to reconsider how we approach the world we live in today. At this point, I think evangelicals have become a distinct subculture that is somewhat insular and does not always understand how others within the community think and speak. That's bad, and that's where I think the emergents have something they can teach us if we were open to listening.
We don't have to agree with them straight down the line in order to listen and be taught.
BT
I bolded the sentence that stood out to me. As a history major I have come to realize that we don't change as much as we like to think we do. In fact the more things change the more they stay the same. I'm reading this book called A Conservitive History of the American Left And I could take some of the quotes from people in the early 1800s and people would assume that they were from people in 2008. The superficial may change, but the root of all problems is always the same in every generation. The Solution to the problem is the same in every generation. No matter how many PC social agendas they may take on they're missing the problem. Poverty is not The problem, Sickness is not The problem Sin is The Problem and the only Solution is Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible who died in my place, not as an example of the worst of humanity poured out on Him, but as Substuanary death.
Excellent observation.
The Emergents, Liberals, and Christianity-Lite (Osteens, Warrens) types like to use the "times change" argument to support their watering down of the Gospel and ignoring basic essentials of the Christian faith
_____________________________
"This would be the first step in apostasy; men first forget the true, and then adore the false.".......C.H. Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 9:14:22 AM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 446
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Boy that's calling kettle black.
What is this, mcleod, are you trying to dig up something from two months ago?
Well, then, just to rehash...
Way back in post #96, Peter Gunn said this.
quote:
We're not seeing the "take off your shoes" God but only want to cry "God is Love". We conveniently forget the rest.
Which you misinterpreted in post #99.
quote:
What did I just read that God is not love?
I replied to you about that in post #100.
quote:
I think you just proved the point. For one thing, Peter didn't say "God isn't love", he said "We conveniently forget the rest", which looks to be what you just did. He said that the cry "God is love" has become an excuse for irreverance in regards to how some view God, and I think he has a point.
Followed by you, again, compounding the error and descending to insults in 101#
quote:
Gee you are quite the great judge. You have made a statement jazzact13 yet not having your facts straight as you appear to seem to think you have. God is love he loved first I or anyone else can chose how we show it back to him. You have missed the boat. You are like the person whom I had a discussion with this weekend. Which floored me because when I look at his life all I see is him is going to a church and reading books. Yet if some one came up to him and ask for help. He being very well off would tell them about the four spiritual laws and let the person starve to death.
Which was followed by my post which you quoted above. Then by you trying to make it sound like I was using vulgarity with the abbreviation SOP.
And btw, mcl, the last time we interacted from that time, I asked you this question.
quote:
How about answering my question, mcleod. Where in the quote is it stated that "God is not love".
Still waiting for you to answer that.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 9:45:01 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Are saying my very conservative and observant Muslim neighbor who demonstrates love by helping the elderly folks in our neighborhood by doing odd jobs they cannot do for themselves is a redeemed disciple of Christ?
For one thing the only one they are going to help is their own. For another thing if a person leaves their religion. yare to be found and killed. So you are not comparing apples for apples. But something that it total opposite of what Judism and Christianity pratice or should do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 9:50:49 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
We have only one example of Paul trying to employ culture to support his presentation of the Gospel; in Athens he cited one of their poets. However, we also have the benefit of his approach to sharing the Gospel at the very next stop on his journey - Corinth. He says in Corinth that he intentionally avoided employing wise arguments, eloquent speech, and persuasive words. instead he presented the simple message of Christ crucified so that their faith would be a demonstration of the Spirit's power not the result of men's wisdom (1Corinthians 2:1-5).
You are assuming that Paul just talk and did nothing else in that city. Paul comes quite a few times that he was a worker amongist the people. That he ask them for very little help. But probably gave himself to further the gospel in not just words but actions also.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 10:04:36 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Sox I am not here to create havoc. But what according to a line in history of church happen around 1500's. Wasn't there a man nailing something on a door in Germany? Many would say that was a turn in a change in the church. I really don't know what is in the person's mind (heart) only God knows for sure. But to say that we have it all right and not search our own hearts. To see if we have failed the Almighty is a very arrogant attititude to have and Lord states numerous time after time. That is a sin and such will not see eternal life.
Because satan is going to recieve the boot here in the near future forever. Which was found a bad attititude.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 11:27:42 AM
|
|
|
jayvance
Posts: 58
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
We have only one example of Paul trying to employ culture to support his presentation of the Gospel; in Athens he cited one of their poets. However, we also have the benefit of his approach to sharing the Gospel at the very next stop on his journey - Corinth. He says in Corinth that he intentionally avoided employing wise arguments, eloquent speech, and persuasive words. instead he presented the simple message of Christ crucified so that their faith would be a demonstration of the Spirit's power not the result of men's wisdom (1Corinthians 2:1-5).
Apparently Paul learned a lesson from his experience in Athens.
IMHO, there's not enough information available to us to reach that conclusion. The fact that Paul said he avoided wise arguments, eloquent speech, and persuasive words doesn't speak to whether or not he employed some type of contextualization in his presentation to the Corinthians. We don't know what Paul's "normal" presentation of the Gospel looked like, so we have no way of knowing if Athens or Corinth or any other place represented a departure from normal, right? But even if in fact Paul DID use a different approach to ministering at Corinth than he did at Athens, that's just as likely to be due to a conscious choice on his part to use some degree of contextualization in his presentation, rather than due to some "lesson" he learned in Athens.
quote:
Also, the passage where Paul writes about becoming all things to all men does not refer to how he presented the gospel but how he presented himself.
Well, again, that's an assumption on our part, really. But even if that's true, that would actually argue FOR some degree of contextualization, not against it, don't you think? How you present yourself is going to have an inescapable impact on the methods you use to share the Gospel.
quote:
Ultimately, we have no power to convince people of the Gospel's truthfulness, all we can do is present the pure message.
Of course that's true. But wouldn't you think it likely that the way Paul presented the "pure message" to HIS audiences probably differs in some respects from the way you or I would present the pure message to OUR audience today? But that doesn't mean the message has changed, right?
quote:
Therefore their rejection of the gospel is not the result of our presentation, it is based on their disbelief.
If a missionary were to travel to a foreign land and use the same kind of presentation of the Gospel to the native peoples that he would use in his home country, how effective do you think the presentation would be? Would you be as quick to blame the native peoples' "rejection" of the Gospel on their own disbelief, or would you put some of the responsibility on the missionary for failing to take cultural differences into account? If contextualization to some degree is REQUIRED when ministering to different cultures abroad, certainly the same is true of ministering to different cultures right here at home.
quote:
We can do nothing in our presentation to change that fact without first changing the Gospel message to make it more appealing.
As I've pointed out above, your underlying fact hasn't been established, so the conclusion can't be supported either. The fact is that we CAN and DO and MUST change the way we present the Gospel in order to relate to the culture in which we're ministering, but we MUST NOT change the underlying message itself. If there's anything I've learned in recent years, it's that the post-modern/post-Christian American demographic is as foreign a culture to old-school Christians as many people groups in far-off lands. In many respects, ministering to post-moderns is no less traumatic than pulling up stakes and moving to some foreign country in order to share the Gospel there. The sooner we understand that and adapt our methodology, the more successful we'll be in reaching that segment of American society. The honest truth is that we old-school folks simply don't want to have to move out of our comfort zone in order to effectively minister to the "foreign" cultures right here at home. We want to keep doing things the way we've been doing them for 50 years. When our methods aren't effective we find it much easier to blame the post-moderns for their unbelief than to look at our own methodology with a critical eye. And I'm talking about myself here, no disrespect to anyone else intended.
By the way, let me make myself perfectly clear with regard to the emerging/emergent church issue. I DO NOT accept much of what is going on in that movement for the simple reason that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water. I totally applaud the willingness to use SOME DEGREE of contextualization in order to reach different segments of our society, but I totally reject using contextualization as an excuse to abandon sound doctrine. I feel there's a strong element within the emerging/emergent movement that is basically bitter towards organized/institutional religion and therefore is quick to reject not only the METHODS of orthodoxy but the MESSAGE as well. I can totally appreciate the disillusionment with institutional Christianity, I'm right there myself. But that's a far cry from being disillusioned with the eternal truths in the Bible, God forbid.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 11:35:41 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jayvance
I feel there's a strong element within the emerging/emergent movement that is basically bitter towards organized/institutional religion and therefore is quick to reject not only the METHODS of orthodoxy but the MESSAGE as well. I can totally appreciate the disillusionment with institutional Christianity, I'm right there myself. But that's a far cry from being disillusioned with the eternal truths in the Bible, God forbid.
I think that's an accurate statement. It's why I get involved on threads like this. There's much over in the ECM that traditionalists could learn, but instead we seem to focus on the non-orthodox threats. That's fine as noted in some of these posts, but we should also take the time to learn from the EMC and adapt where we think we can. Criticism is fine - but true criticism involves appreciating the good in something while rejecting the harmful. Similarly, some of the more radical ECM proponents have unnecessarily moved away from orthodox views as a result of their disenchantment. I wish they had not thrown out as much as some of them seem to have done. It's not necessary to accomplish their stated goals and only sows seeds of division within the church.
It would seem that in the debate, there is noone that's innocent.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 11:52:55 AM
|
|
|
jayvance
Posts: 58
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
There's much over in the ECM that traditionalists could learn, but instead we seem to focus on the non-orthodox threats. That's fine as noted in some of these posts, but we should also take the time to learn from the EMC and adapt where we think we can. Criticism is fine - but true criticism involves appreciating the good in something while rejecting the harmful. Similarly, some of the more radical ECM proponents have unnecessarily moved away from orthodox views as a result of their disenchantment. I wish they had not thrown out as much as some of them seem to have done. It's not necessary to accomplish their stated goals and only sows seeds of division within the church.
It would seem that in the debate, there is noone that's innocent.
Very good points. It seems that in order for us to be RIGHT, we have to make someone else WRONG, huh? I definitely agree that it's a GOOD thing for Christians to take a long, hard look at the way we do things and why we do them that way, and be willing to change in order to be more effective at ministering in our sphere of influence. Much of what we accept as "normal" in institutional Christianity has absolutely no New Testament basis whatsoever, and that's a scary thought for many of us--so scary, in fact, that we'd rather reject the entire notion out of hand than to do the research and risk discovering it might actually be true.
So while I have great concern over what I perceive to be the errors of the ECM, and I'm glad I have the opportunity to express those concerns in venues such as this, the fact is I have more than enough on my plate dealing with the errors of my OWN ways!
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 11:56:42 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2863
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jayvanceSo while I have great concern over what I perceive to be the errors of the ECM, and I'm glad I have the opportunity to express those concerns in venues such as this, the fact is I have more than enough on my plate dealing with the errors of my OWN ways!
Jay
LOL - absolutely true. For all of us.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 12:52:33 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 446
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If a missionary were to travel to a foreign land and use the same kind of presentation of the Gospel to the native peoples that he would use in his home country, how effective do you think the presentation would be?
What do you mean by 'same kind'? For example, would any kind of preaching be considered 'same kind'? The using of tracts and reading materials? Or, considering the use of the "Jesus Film" in mission's work, would the use of it be considered similar to the use of such media in other presentation?
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 1:57:14 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
IMHO, there's not enough information available to us to reach that conclusion. The fact that Paul said he avoided wise arguments, eloquent speech, and persuasive words doesn't speak to whether or not he employed some type of contextualization in his presentation to the Corinthians. We don't know what Paul's "normal" presentation of the Gospel looked like, so we have no way of knowing if Athens or Corinth or any other place represented a departure from normal, right? But even if in fact Paul DID use a different approach to ministering at Corinth than he did at Athens, that's just as likely to be due to a conscious choice on his part to use some degree of contextualization in his presentation, rather than due to some "lesson" he learned in Athens.
Jayvance,
You are correct that there is a certain degree of "reading into" the two accounts to draw that conclusion. That said, I think we have Paul's own words in the Corinthian passae as well as examples of his preaching to assist us in our analysis.
When Paul preached to gentiles he explained things about God that he could safely assume they didn't know. An example of this is his message at Athens. He explained that all men were created by the one and only God, all men came from the first man, He is not like and idol, so on and so forth. When preaching to Jewish and "God-fearing Greeks, he didn't need to explain those things so he focused on proving from the Scripture that Jesus was the Messiah.
In Athens, Paul was addressing "wise" and highly educated men. He attempted to present an intellectual argument to support the Gospel. But in the end the vast majority of wise men still scoffed at the Gospel because they did not believe the resurrection. When Paul explained his approach in Corinth, he drew a distinction between two methods of sharing the Gospel. One was the use of intellectual arguments in an eloquent presentation vs. relying upon the Spirit's power. IOW's one method centered on man's effort to persuade/the other abandoned any effort to persuade and relied upon the power of the Holy Spirit. The correlation between Paul's methods in Athens and his explanation of his approach in Corinth are too significant to dismiss. As for not knowing if Paul used cultural references: we do have enough info to draw a conclusion: Paul said that he preached nothing but Christ and Him crucified. "Nothing" is hard to misunderstand.
quote:
Well, again, that's an assumption on our part, really. But even if that's true, that would actually argue FOR some degree of contextualization, not against it, don't you think? How you present yourself is going to have an inescapable impact on the methods you use to share the Gospel.
Not necessarily in the way I think you are referring to. For example: when I was much younger I spent some time living on the streets. I did what homeless people do: I ate in soup kitchens, at the Rescue Mission, and slept...well, I slept where ever I could find shelter from the elements. I didn't get to shower very often, and I wore the same clothes for two months without washing them. When walking down the sidewalk people would move as far away from me as they could. When I had a few dollars from a day job and bought a hamburger from the only fastfood joint close enough to walk to, as soon as I sat down with my food, the security guard would come up to me and tell me I had ten minutes to eat my food and get out.
Living on the streets was demeaning and de-humanizing. With those experiences as a background, now let me tell you about my experiences each Sunday morning at the Rescue Mission. The RM was the only place that provided food on Sunday. They required people to attend a worship service before eating. I remember Sunday after Sunday, sitting there listening to the director of the mission, his wife and son, tell us how much God loved us. They'd tell us that they too loved us. I don't remember anything else they said or taught - only that they and God loved us. I also remember thinking that was a load of...well, you know. It was easy for them to come preach to us and tell us how much they cared. After all, they got up in the morning after sleeping in a warm bed, used their own bathroom, drank a cup of coffee in the privacy of their own dining room, dressed in clean clothes (usually suits and a very nice dress for the wife), and ate a filling and tasty breakfast. They acted like they were making a sacrifice; a sacrfice that proved their love, but they didn't know what hardship was. After the service was over we went down to a cockroach infested dining hall to eat slop. Literally slop. The mission mixed all their food donations into a huge cooking pot, creating something that looked like pourage from Satan. It certainly tasted like it. It was repulsive. When we got our bowl and one piece of bread, we had to spoon through it to insure that there were no cockroaches swimming in it. Where were our preacher/hosts? In six months on the street I never once saw them in the dining room. They were off to eat a Sunday brunch (a fact they often mentioned) where I'm sure the food tasted good. If they loved us they would make the effort to provide a meal that they themselves would be willing to eat. I knew they were phony. Everything about them made me mad.
I swore that if I ever got off the streets, I would do something to help the people I left behind. I did and I did. I went back to that same mission as a youth minister. I told our teenage girls group basically the same thing I just told you. They wanted to do something. So we asked the members of the church to donate food that we could prepare for the missions Sunday evening service. We created a menu for the times that were available to us, and once a month we went to the mission with a feast. At first hardly anyone came. I know why: its impossible to stomach two of their meals in one day. But word got out and over the months people began to realize our schedule and the place filled with hundreds. One thing I told the girls was that if you ignore the appearance (and the smell) they would discover that many of these people were really nice to be around. So, after we were done serving them their meal we sat down and ate with them. Before long, guys who had cooking experience would help us with our cooking. We went out of our way to serve them and make them feel special to us, and they returned the love by serving us when we sat down.
One last thing that is to the point of our discussion: I got an opportunity to preach one evening in the early months of our ministry. I didn't dress in suit, I didn't refer to my charmed life. Instead I preached the gospel and explained that believing in Jesus didn't guarantee anyone would get off the streets, or get a good job, or one day have their own home. Though Jesus could, and very well might open those doors - there were no guarantees. But I could guarantee one thing: if they follow Jesus in faith and submit to His lordship, Jesus would love them and transform how they see the world. The result would be that whether they were on the street or in a home they would be filled with joy and it would be okay.
My point for telling this story is that our mesage did not change. However, the way I, my wife, and the girls presented ourselves to these people, as people who cared about them and understood them, rather than as distant suburbanites who didn't really care, insured that if the message was rejected it likely wouldn't be because of the messenger. We present ourselves differently to different folks in order to facilitate a hearing of the message - not being phony, but being sensitive to apperances and behaviors that might make them see us as something other than we are not. I know the director of the mission as a fellow minister, and he truly loves the people he ministers to, but he presented himself in such a way that people didnt believe him. His presentation was far louder than his words and actions that consistently demonstrated that love. As a homeless man I couldn't see it through the noise. So we become all things... but we don't change the message.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 8/13/2008 2:08:44 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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 2:13:54 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
quote:
Are saying my very conservative and observant Muslim neighbor who demonstrates love by helping the elderly folks in our neighborhood by doing odd jobs they cannot do for themselves is a redeemed disciple of Christ?
For one thing the only one they are going to help is their own. For another thing if a person leaves their religion. yare to be found and killed. So you are not comparing apples for apples. But something that it total opposite of what Judism and Christianity pratice or should do.
mcleod,
Your avoiding the intent of my question. Is anyone that shows love a redeemed disciple of Christ, even if they reject the gospel or worship other gods?
I'm not sure how the fact that muslims will likely be killed for leaving their religion as anything to do with my question.
Edited to Add: I know muslim's living in Arab countries who regularly and openly help and even shelter non-muslims. I think you might misunderstand the beliefs, practices, and values of everyday muslims.
_____________________________
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: Emerging/Emergent Church Movement. - 8/13/2008 2:31:22 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 531
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
If a missionary were to travel to a foreign land and use the same kind of presentation of the Gospel to the native peoples that he would use in his home country, how effective do you think the presentation would be? Would you be as quick to blame the native peoples' "rejection" of the Gospel on their own disbelief, or would you put some of the | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
