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
Friday, December 23, 2005
Attention Torn ACLU!!!
Sorry to put this here...But if you are still reading this blog, have you read D.A. Carson's book on the Emergent church?
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!
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. : )
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"?
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 on
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.
8 comments:
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!
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?
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 on
Anotnio
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.
Post a Comment