What's the Emergency? Emergent and Emerging Churches

The fact that you're a conservative Republican has nothing whatsoever to do with a discussion of the emerging church. So what?

 

It was there hiding behind your vagueness...
:laugh:

 

First of all, I want to suggest that the rejection of mind-body dualism is a very minor part of emerging and postmodern Christianity that is rarely talked about. I would agree with Bruce Bishop in the article I posted earlier that it is a part of postmodern Christianity. But the time we've spent on the topic in this thread is disproportionate to its importance.

Aaron, you feel that rejection of this dualism is unscriptural but I think you are misunderstanding what Dallas Willard and emerging Christians are actually opposed to when they reject mind-body dualism.

I should also point out that while Dallas Willard has strongly influenced the emergent church with his writings, I don't believe he identifies with the emerging church.

The article didn't use the phrase but its thesis was to address the possibility of the spiritual sanctification and redemption of the body while highlighting the many scriptural passages about this possibility.

It addresses the primary fallacy of mind-body dualism that the physical body is separate from the mind/soul, is the source of our sin and is an unredeemable part of us.

I would agree with this and would suggest that Dallas Willard and emergents would agree with you as well. I would express it that the sin nature that we have pervades our entire being, both body and mind/soul as a unified being. Our sanctification is one that includes our body and our mind/soul.

I think we are very close in our concepts of sin and its relation to body/soul/mind. But we have different ideas as to what the concept of body-mind dualism suggests and what rejection of the concept suggests.

While I essentially agree with you here, I would suggest that subjection to the law of Christ involves both our minds and our bodies. And while it appears that our bodies are subject to our mind most of the time, our mind is also subject to our bodies some of the time and not always in sinful ways.

Those who reject mind-body dualism recognize the "sinfulness of the flesh" and the subjection of our bodies to our mind. It just isn't the whole picture of the body-mind interaction.

I'm not trying to poison anything but to point out the origins of this concept from Plato. I also failed to mention the Gnostic influences of this concept as well. Both the Platonic and Gnostic influcences of mind-body dualism predate their use by Christians. I point out these influences to highlight what Dallas Willard and some emergent Christians may object to.

These influences do not make the concept wrong or pagan in and of themselves, but acknowledge their earlier influences. It is through scripture that we see mind-body dualism as wrong and I think Dallas Willard does a good job of highlighting the relevant passages.

I agree. But this has nothing to do with mind-body duality. We die to our sin nature which is not simply our body. If that were the case, Paul would have to be physically dying daily for his statement to be true.

I think we should quote these phrases in their context.

KJV - 1 Tim 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Yes, godliness is more profitable than physical exercise because of eternal reward. That does not mean that the body is unredeemable.

KJV - Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Yes, the deeds of the law do not justify/glorify the flesh. But ...

KJV - James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

I disagree but you are welcome to that opinion.

 

Aaron, I found another Dallas Willard article that more directly deals with mind-body dualism that may help you understand what exactly is being rejected.

 

I try to respectfully address your points (often with agreement) and you dismiss it as sophistry? I'm sorry you don't appreciate someone who carefully reads and responds to your words.

Agreed. Before his incarnation, Christ was not a human person. We are talking about human persons.

This is the core of the mind-body dualistic tension.
I guess we won't agree on this point and leave it at that.

I enjoyed this discussion and learned a lot and dug into scripture as well as some excellent writings in the process. Thanks!

I think we've successfully killed the topic of mind-body dualism for now, which is a very minor part of emerging Christianity. If you have any other issues to discuss, feel free to bring them up.

 

Never disagreed with that.

Christ was a person before his incarnation.

Christ was a human person after his incarnation.

Careful with dismissing the body of Christ and his humanness as part of his personhood. You are treading awfully close to the heresy of Monophysitism that was rejected in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

 

I was talking about the type of clothing not the style in which it is worn. In fact I criticised the dissheveled look such as you have indicated.

 

Statements like this are exactly why much of the Emerging and Emergent Church exist...

 

That statement is rather lucid and specific. Which is contrary to what generally is said in defense of the movement. Usually it is expressed as "complex" so as to avoid making or allowing specifics of this movement.

 

What was Jesus' manner of dress?

Like the "religious" Pharisees?

Or the common man?

Hmmmm....

 

You are right, Jesus dressed to attract the common man....
Not to say,

"Hey, look at me... I am dressed reverently..."
That's why you should listen to me....

Amazing that the common man heard Him Gladly...
I bet his feet were dirty too!

But we all know he carried around a comb, and shave kit...
Imagine this conversation...
"Peter, don't forget the Gillette, when you go into town to buy supplies"
"But Lord, that is Judas' job"

Or John wakes up one morning, and asks Jesus, "Which tie matches this Suit?"

Some churches would turn Jesus away if he were to walk into church.

 

The pharisees were lost and without God.

 

HELP!!!!! It's comin!!! It's comin!!! :tonofbricks:

I am so glad I am in a good mood today!

I believe in dressing neat... but to equate jeans, untucked shirt, and hairstyles to sin....

Well.. .now that is misinformed, or deceitfully legalistic...

And yes I said the "L" word...

And I mean it...

Anyone that thinks they can do anything to make them holy, and therefore more loved by God is legalistic.... and that is the classic definition.... doing something for God's love.

What does the Bible say? Our righteousness is as filthy rags...
So no matter what we wear, or how your hair is combed, greased back, or put up, we are all unholy...

That is why Christ came, and I know you agree with me here...
It is by HIS righteousness that we can even come into the presence of God.

I am not a big fan of the emergent churches.. I think they have a tendency to go to the extreme...

But so do the "suits only" churches...

There has to be a balance.

Now since you pride yourself by thinking you are more informed, I will back off, and go have fun with our church today at our harvest day... and you can inform the rest of the Board of clothing styles in the Bible...

"Now where did I put that tunic? I have to go to church.

Honey!!!, Why did you put up my sandals? It is only October."

 

Sad, but true. How many churches, generally, would want a homeless preacher, who only owned one change of clothes, speaking to them, if the truth were really known?

http://www.geocities.com/onesolitarylife_isJesus/Lord-and-Savior.html

Ed