Emerging Church

Great, then tell me what primary sources you have read? Tell me what you thought of Driscoll's video clips I posted?

 

THAT is the rankest form of heresy. The guy who wrote it doesn't have a clue about the spiritual comphension of scripture.

BY CONTRAST, this is Great Stuff: :thumbs:

YES!

:jesus:

 

I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

 

Is that what we have come to around here?

I came to that conclusion from your lack of understanding of any of the major concepts and authors that are in the middle of the topic. I also posted several video clips of one of them, and yet you refused to comment and just went on.

So I will ask again:

 

I do not care what Driscoll has to say. I am aware that Mark Driscoll has made comments distancing himself from men like McLaren and Paegett. But then he hosts a conference that promotes the same junk they espouse to. Also Driscoll does not define the EC all by himself. I am not looking at the the EC from just one persons perspective I am looking at it by reading writing after writing for the last 6 months. As far as having an understanding of any major concepts of the EC, that is quite an admission. Since I have been told by several in the EC that the movement or "conversation" is not "monolithic" and I should not try to define it. Apparently you disagree since I do not understand any of the major concepts. As if they are all that difficult to understand.

 

Driscoll is one of the leading figures of the emerging church and yet you don't care what he says. Need I say anymore why you make judgments without referring to primary sources?

This is one of the major problems in these type of discussions. You are not alone in this. Many people, including big name pastors and authors, who are simply making judgements without honestly dealing with the people who make up this movement.

I will ask this one more time. I would think three times would be sufficient for you to understand what I am asking.

 

Well for staters Reggie Mcneal "The present future. Six tough questions for the church.

In 14 chapters he criticizes the church and offers resolutions. But in all of the 14 chapters he mentions scripture I do not think more than one time. And that was so he could criticize how Paul handled Mars Hill.


Here are a couple of blogs;

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/07/the_myth_of_exp.html


http://www.next-wave.org/may03/kimballinterview.htm


I am constantly searching the net for blogs by emerging folks that are not well known. This way I get to see what the average laymen is saying and not just what the guys that some like you want out front. As I said Driscoll has lost any credibility as he attempteed to distance himslef from McLaren and some others but hosts a conference that includes them.

This is another problem with the EC it is ecumenical. And Christians have no business associating with men who deny a literal judgement of God. The truth is I get the concepts of the EC clearly. I do not make any attempts to make them palitable.

 

So you haven't read any primary sources. Thanks for finally clearing that up.

I think you are the one who has lost credibility in the discussion.

Instead of actually reading the work of the men who started and who have ministered in this movement, you would rather read about them by everyone else.

 

Did you not read my last post? Do you know who Reggie Mcneal is? Maybe you should get his book. I gave you three primary resources and you dismiss them because they are not Mark Driscoll. Apparently your view of the Emerging Church is rather narrow and limited as you do not seem to be aware of what is being written not only by those who are considered leaders in this heresy but by the average laymen in it.

 

couple of quick thoughts and I'll return.

1. I'd be interested to hear of anyone that suggests postmodernity is just a subculture thing, who has read Foucault, Lyotard, Derida to get a postmodernist perspective on these things.

2. Also if we are talking founding documents: has anyone who is questioning the cultural anthropomorphic foundations of postmodernism read Stan Grenz's A Primer on Postmodernism, which has received much acclaim as a general introduction reputable sources inside and outside ecclesial circles.

3. I'd be interested in reading any reputable philosopher who think postmodernity is just a subculture thing and not an entire epistemological shift.

just some quick hits...

 

McNeal is not one of the original primary sources of the EC. For you to claim that he is shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

No actually you didn't. McNeal is not a primary source and neither was the two blogs you posted.

I am curious, do you even know what a primary source is?

No actually my view isnt narrow. I am not sold on the movement, but I do respect a lot of what is coming from them.

My entire point in this thread has been if you are going to have a critical view of them atleast do your homework and read the original works that deal with the movement.

 

The power of Wikipedia is quite baffling.

I actually wrote that line on the Wikipedia entry for the Emergent Church as an explanation for how I understand the characteristics of biblical interpretation in the Emergent Church to be.

Let me know if you want clarification of the quote.

 

I consider postmodernity to be much more than a subculture. It is the current culture. Postmodern philosophers like the ones you list tried to articulate postmodern philosophy at the times of their writings. But their writings are static snapshots of something that is constantly evolving. I would say that they give a good introduction to where postmodernity came from. But aren't that great at describing what postmodernity is now.

I have only heard good things about Grenz's book from all sides.

What do you consider to be the point at which a subculture becomes an epistemological shift?

 

Our Sunday School class took a brief look at the EC while going through Chapters 2-3 of the Book of Revelation.

Our conclusion was that generally speaking while the EC movement basic underlying philosophy is well meaning the methodologies of reaching the “unchurched” are often unorthodox.

However, IMO,the underlying flaw is that of motive (And that is not to say that the "fundamental" or "established" church is in a better postion before the Lord).

It seems that they are energized with misplaced motives and perhaps they have “left their first love”.

Not “love” as needing an object to love but that state of being “love” (Revelation 2:4).

IMO, the EC movement is a response to a real problem with the 21st century church but those actions coming out of that response perhaps being wrongly motivated with their methods often suspect and sometimes appearing to having been designed to be flaunted in the face of the “establishment” church (not a noble motive).

There has always been that sentiment within the human heart to become weary with the old and traditional, sometimes it is a valid influence, sometimes not.

But if we have left off living our lives according to that highest form of love, that state of being "love" coming down from the Father in heaven then we will surely miss the mark whether emerging or fundamental.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.​

NKJV 1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.


HankD

 

While it is true that many parts of the EC movement are weary of old and traditional, may other parts of the EC have taken great delight in rediscovering the old and traditional. It just happens to be the old and traditional before the 1800s.

 

I have been following a thread on the EC and Postmodernism on another Baptist forum. In the interest of full disclosure, I have already posted a comment similar to this one on that forum. I'm curious to compare any responses.

I feel that the church as a whole is moving into a period of reformation. Over its history, this has happened several times, the most obvious being the Reformation. But there are other less obvious and less extensive reformations that have occurred. In any case, when the church comes out of this period of change, it will have a new shape, and there will be a new expression of Christianity.

This period parallels that of the society-at-large. Postmodernism is emerging as, potentially, the next great worldview. The question is how the church will relate to this change. It can participate and have some influence on the process. Or, it can deny the validity of what is going on around it and be left out and have no influence. Or it can find some intermediate position that might or might not have some effectiveness.

Our problem is that the whole process is still in its preliminary stages, and the church may have to wait until Postmodernism has begun to achieve its final form before the church can begin its process in earnest.

The problem that we start with is that our understanding of what the church is is so entwined with the Modernist worldview that it is hard for us to separate them.

I'm going to conclude with a couple of quotes from an article by H. Richard Niebuhr that appeared in The Christian Century (March 2,1960). "Reformation: Continuing Imperative" was part of their series "How My Mind Has Changed", a series that they revive every ten years or so.

I think Niebuhr's words challenge us to active participation in that process. It will be the opportunity to reframe the Gospel message to meet the needs of a new value system in society, a system that will stil be imperfect and incomplete, and just in need of the Gospel as Modernism was.

Tim Reynolds

 

as do I. I believe postmodernism is an entire cultural shift.

maybe I wasn't clear on this.

here is where we shall disagree. I don't believe postmodernism has taken root in our culture fully yet. There is a (quiet) war going on between modernism and postmodernism as to who shall be heard...but postmodernism is not completely the culture yet.

there is certainly truth here. I agree they are principle starting point for an intelligent conversation about postmodernity, its foundations, beliefs, etc. I would suggest that there are still some overarching metaphors and thoughts which apply for the current situation.

For instance Lyotard's definition of postmodernity, "Incredulity towards metanarratives" really nails it for me. The rise of the widespread acceptance of any metanarrative is going on in our midst right now. Also Derrida's deconstructionism is going on in our universities and colleges, as well as in many a Starbucks, on a routine basis.

That said I do acknowledge that there is quite a ramp up for postmodernism epistemology to be accepted by all, and some modifications will need to take place.

yeah, his book Beyond Foundationalism is a must read for anyone doing substantive and meaningful ministry in the 21st century imho.

Sadly he won't be able to contribute anything else, yet I rejoice in his receiving his reward.

well I don't consider postmodernity a subculture. If anything it is the culture as I mentioned before...another way of looking at it might be to consider it the uber-culture.

The axiological motifs that are informing the epistemological shift that is coming have been laid years ago in our culture. It should take very little to really begin moving us over to a truly postmodern culture.

Imho, the current generation that is in college is more closely postmodern than any before. When I go and talk with them every metanarrative gets a far read. This is tremendous opportunity to really talk with people about spirituality.

 

I have some news for you. Driscoll doesn't define the entire EC. He does not define what is being believed by the average laymen as well as the average Pastor in the EC. Just how primary he is is irrelevent. What is relevent is what beliefs are being carried form day to day. The multiplicity of hundreds od blogs speaks much clearer than one man named Driscoll.

Apparently you do not. But since McNeal is an author who is being read, agreed with and understood he is just as authortative to the EC as Driscoll. The EC doesn't begin and end with him. Infact if you have actually spent any time with those from the EC they will tell you that this movement has begun in the hearts of many prior to any outspoken prson coming on the scene. McLaren, Pageatt, and McNeal are all primary sources that many would like to avoid but they are never the less. And since Driscoll recognizes them as leaders in the EC which is evident because he hosts a conference with them then this shows your error. You cannot remain distanced from men who hold to hereticl beliefs like no judgement of God and organize conferences with them. This is to support their heresy.

This standard is based on the false premise that the EC begins and ends with your chosen authors. But what counts is what is actually going on on the street.

 

sub·cul·ture /v. sʌbˈkʌltʃər; n. ˈsʌbˌkʌltʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. suhb-kuhl-cher; n. suhb-kuhl-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -tured, -tur·ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1.Bacteriology. to cultivate (a bacterial strain) again on a new medium. –noun 2.Bacteriology. a culture derived in this manner. 3.Sociology. a.the cultural values and behavioral patterns distinctive of a particular group in a society. b.a group having social, economic, ethnic, or other traits distinctive enough to distinguish it from others within the same culture or society.

 

I think this is part of the danger is trying to make criticisms towards the whole "movement"...if you want to call it that. There isn't just one person who is the representative. Most people point to Brian Mclaren as the "emergent guru".

Here is a question....how would you define "emerging"....since there are clearly those who are a part of it that are changing theology, ect. But, you can't deny the fact that there are those who may be classified as "emerging" but that aren't changing their theologies. People like Driscoll, who may not even classify himself as emerging, but others do. He is defnitely reformed, but also clearly outspoken against methods of the traditional church. There are others that I think pose no problems, such as Erwin Mcmanus, Reggie Mcneal, who are not teaching anything heretical. So......how do you define emerging when there are so many, whether they like it or not, that are being classified this way? Maybe we should get rid of the term all together and stop playing little name games: What are you? Well I'm a Calvinist. What are you? Well I'm emerging. Maybe this just causes more confusion and debates that are necessary. I don't know....just thinking outloud....except you can't really hear me.