Pursuing truth and not traditions...
“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” –1 Timothy 4:16
No, but I have read reviews both good and bad on it. Carson says that he likes parts of the emergent church and doesn't like parts of it, so he isn't particularly for or against it. If you go to wikipedia there are some links to some stuff on it also (under DA Carson), particularly 3 messages Carson gave on it and a review of Carson's book by a professor from Cedarville who, although he is a fan of Carson, challenges Carson on whether postmodernism is primarily/only an epistemological change. But as others have stated, the emergent chruch has taken a walk down the road of postmodernism, but it is not well-versed enough in the movement itself to know where it is going or where it really goes. I wish Carson had visited some emergent churches myself, but there aren't many in the Chicago area, if any at all. Carson's site where you can downlaod his lectures, (although it costs a few bucks) is www.christwaymedia.com. Personally I feel that there are a ton of good qualities in the emergent movement, qualities that the chruch as a whole has forgottten and I plan on starting a church someday that takes the good and bad of the emergent church and the traditional chruch and making one super duper church (of course it has to be Reformed).
Wow, thanks for the quick reply! Really interesting...I am always too quick to dismiss a whole philosophical view because of what I've only heard about it without actually researching it myself. These are some good things to think about. A super-duper church would be nice... :) Thanks again, and I continue to search this system of thought. God bless you, this Christmas!
http://www.modernreformation.org/dac05emerging.htmI keep on forgetting you are moderating this thread and I type everything twice. A couple of questions:1. How do you get your picture to accompany posts in this comment thread?2. How do you change your profile so blogger doesn't automatically make it seems like you ask dumb questions like "What kind of tape is best for creating a sculpture?"
Well, I see your picture now. So, whatever you did worked. To not have the question on there, just don't answer the question and it should be gone...maybe, sometimes these things are inconsistent.
If I'm understanding correctly ... isn't a main distinctive of the EC to make the church relevant? A big word within this circle tends to be "resonate". This seems good because there's nothing more relevant to our lives than right thinking about God - theology. The concern with the EC is that instead of theology being the anchor, relevance is. This is why you end up with a lot of various traditions practiced within the same movement. Personally I don't get the mix of Christianity and postmodernism. Concerning truth I hear a blend of "absolute" (Christianity) and "relativism" (PM). Seems like these epistemologies are at odds because with one, truth is absolute, and with the other, truth is true if it resonates with you (sounds like a bad bumper sticker). So if you wanted to start an EC some day that was "definitely" Reformed then your anchor would be the theology and not relevance, and it seems your theological emphasis would remove you from being Emergent. I suppose the good to be taken is to emphasize the relevance of theology, but the danger would be doing so to the extent of your epistemology becoming postmodern. Embracing postmodernism seems unnecessary and ultimately antithetical to Christianity.
Not a fan of the "emergents" myself... sorry. I think we could do without the movement. Most of the people who like parts of their philosophy say that they are big on "application." My question would be, "So what?" The emergents can't know what they're applying since they water everything down. We have plenty of solid preachers out there doing plenty of applying, so we don't need a doctrine-bashing movement to tell us what to do. Nevertheless, I respect everyone's opinion on this blog and don't mean to come across as hard-nosed (I have a few friends, or at least one, who reads the works of Brian McLaren). But, were it up to me, I'd banish the movement in a heartbeat. : )Respectfully,A.C.
A.C.-Agreed.I don't get what a Reformed E.C. would be.Maybe a church with sound doctrine plus alot of bells and candles?
It wouldn't be a Reformed Emergent Church, just a Reformed church, maybe a Reformed Baptist church that takes the good of the EC and puts it to use.
Torn ACLU,You've said:"I feel that there are a ton of good qualities in the emergent movement."and:"I plan on starting a church someday...that takes the good of the EC and puts it to use."I'm asking as an honest question:What do you see as the "good qualities in the emergent movement"?
Who cares if they are refomrmed or not, really?The elect will believe apart from your any efford at God's specified time and the reprobate will not.At least God will have more ammunitiont to damn the reprobate who had attended an emergent church, becase, at leat there there was some form of persuasion going onAnotnio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_ChurchI think a number of the distintives the EC is known by are entirely Biblical. These distinctives are not held in monopoly by the EC, but the larger EC has brough them into the light, well at least more than any other denomination or church group has that I have seen.
1. Seen the book, haven’t read it. I have studied the movement and like parts of it and dislike others. However, it is very fragmented as a movement itself and is really a bunch of non-denominational churches. I think it is just a newer form of evangelicalism, which is constantly evolving. Though I am very much am a reformed evangelical, I see that the emergent church represents the logical conclusions of evangelicalism. Modern Evangelicalism is based on privatized biblical interpretation. The ever to popular “well, that’s your interpretation of the Bible.” The logical conclusions is that anyone can interpret the bible however they please and if you don’t like one interpretation, you can go start your own church. Truthfully, that is Protestantism for you—anyone who wants to start a church can and fly it under the protestant flag. So I think that the idea of banning the movement is quite illogical, because Protestantism is based on what this movement is doing—break off and start your own church. I don’t really see how you can be a protestant and say this movement shouldn’t exist, because it represents Protestantism itself. Unfortunately, that is Protestantism—we are a very fragmented bunch. 2. Someone said they don’t like the infusion of postmodern thought and Christianity. I can understand, but it happens. What has traditional evangelicalism done? If has infused enlightenment thought (i.e. modernity) with Christianity. The whole approach to apologetics and theology is very much presented in the enlightenment pattern of modernity. In a Church history class I read some documents that were very much against the combining of modernity with Christianity, but it eventually happened. Now I think postmodernism is a lot more complex than one word, especially since it has gone off in so many different directions. It is a critique of modern thought, but not all “postmodernists” advocate relativity and such. Some postmoderns may be more amodern thought, though.
Oh Antonio, you sound like a guy named chappie from the Derek Webb board. If you are going to knock Reformed theology, at least get it straight.
Oh Antonio, you sound like a guy named chappie from the Derek Webb board. If you are going to knock Reformed theology and its relevance to evangelism, at least get it straight.Back to the EC, the parts of the EC I am fond of are the parts that other "denominations" have been doing well for years. The EC has just highlighted these aspects, but that doesn't mean that I don't like certain aspects of the EC.
Post a Comment