Share your thoughts...
Carla, I've loved alot of your writing over at challies.com, but I have to admit that this site bothers me a bit. I've been reading for awhile, biting my tongue. I'm not a huge fan of much of what is going on in the EC movement/conversation/whatever. But what good is really coming from all of this? All I've been able to see is people who have already made up their minds and are not really listening to what others are saying.
I mean, honestly, I think this response that these guys have written is a good step toward dialogue and clarification. But insteand, here at emergent no, it's been disected line by line with commentary and insult. "It's good for them to admit they've been less than charitbale?" Has anyone from emergent no made the same concession? (Because there have been many less than charitable comments made).
I think what bothered me the most is the talk of "we're not defining any circles". Why did I get messages asking, "Are you emergent? You say you 're not, but then you read sites that are..."(not a direct quote). So there is definitely a "are you EC or against EC" circle being set up...
I could say more, but not sure it would do a lot of good. Sorry this comment has been rambling a bit - just a little frustrated with all of this. I'm looking forward to hearing what others thought of the article above.
I agree with Bill, this site clearly has no genuine interest in being in dialogue with the emergent church and you seem only too content to resort to snide remarks and proof-texting as shortcuts to humility and being correct - I sincerely hope that you would consider yourselves to be equally open to the same levels correction that you wish to apply to the emerging church.
Simply claiming that you are 'scriptural' is really just a smokescreen as I have yet to see you actually do anything more than hurl a few proof-texts (and a few insults) at the emergent church without actually making any helpful suggestions about how the church should function in a postmodern society, which is of course what the emergent church are trying to do - and with a great deal more humility too I might add.
Whilst there is much to commend about this blog it is increasingly sounding like the paranoid ravings of reactionary traditionalists who are only really intent on beating down those who differ in their opinions.
How would you respond to postmodernism? We're all ears.
Excellent work Carla. I don't think you were too harsh at all. The leaders of the EC movement have to be held accountable to scripture. Moreover, it's simply unfair for them to hurl criticisms and then cry foul when someone returns the favour. What they don't seem to acknowledge is that there are plenty of reasons to disagree with their ideas that are principled and sound.
To be sure, there are some in the emerging conversation that aren't open to dialogue and bristle at all critique. I think it's a little unfair to characterize everyone that way, though. I've found many open to dialogue and even correction.
I agree with some of your assessment of the emerging church at times. I think it would be good to see more of a search for common ground while still maintaining (strongly when needed) areas of concern.
Growing up, our old church covenant used to talk about being "slow to take offense". I applaud your efforts to be Scriptural; when it comes to the interpersonal side, I'm not sure I understand statements like, "That offer of friendship and/or Christian dialogue was nipped in the bud right there." Do we have the right to not extend friendship to a brother or sister? Maybe only after they've offended us 491 times?
Carla,
I couldn't help but notice that you conveniently chose to NOT include the section of the Emergent statement where they affirm their commitment to biblical orthodoxy.
Thanks for posting a link to their actual response. I urge all of the readers of this post to visit that link and see for yourselves.
Here's an abbreviated list of the things they affirm (since you've already acknowledged that they reject relativism, I won't include it again here, although I note that you left out the first part of that sentence where they affirm that truth matters):
1) "yes, we affirm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history"
2) "yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus"
3) "no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors"
4) "yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ."
"What saith Scripture?" -- Carla, please feel free to show how these statements from Emergent's document contradict or devalue Scripture. I've numbered their statements for easy cross-checking of your anticipated response.
Just read their statement in its entirety. Looks like a great statement. I'm surprised you're viewing it so negatively.
Hey Carla -
I do tend to lean towards the emergent position in much of the dialogue here. I have actually been banned from this site from home, which is a little of a shocker when I compare my comments to others.
But...
I resonate with how you are describing some of your experience with "EC" folks. I don't always agree with your perspective or analysis of EC and critique of the statements made, but I do think how you have been treated is probably un-charitably...unloving. I for one, will apologize at the moment for one statement (talk to me if you want to know which).
I speak from experience within the EC community as well. This statement particularly hit home to me in my experience:
"...if you dare strongly disagree, publicly, with the the doctrine or pactice of many of these folks, you’re cast off as some ignorant boob who can’t figure out how to tie his shoes, without some help."
I think that is a harsh judgmental comment, but probably a valid assesment. It is easy for those who lean towards an EC position to think that if someone doesn't agree they just don't "get it."
I REALLY REALLY REALLY want this site and others to start taking specific Scriptures and dialoguing about those and the interpretation and application to life.
Let's see some Scripture and interpretation and then discussion of that. I really would want that myself, though I agree it will take more work on everybody's part.
matt
C'mon guys it is called 'emergent no'.
It's not here to give an even playing field but is interesting none the less.
I have connected to others through this who have mailed me privately about the emerging church and shown more interest.
The 'editors' from my observations are here 'Exposing and examining those things which are connected to, and promoted by, the 'emerging church' movement. - from their blog tagline, but that's fair enough we can't all agree on everything can we?
It's good that they are having the conversation and giving the EC greater coverage.
carla- you're right. it does come across harsh. You need to remember the words of Scripture- A gentle answer turns away wrath but harsh words stir up anger.
Re: Carla's comment - "This seems to be a neverending impression. It doesn’t matter if you’ve read all the books, been to several different churches, or seminars, or websites of these folks – if you still come away in disagreement with them, you haven’t been fair, you haven’t visited the RIGHT church, or dialogued with the RIGHT people, and therefore your conclusion was hasty and erroneous."
Actually, there are several people who disagree heartily with the goings-on at emergent, and they have done so in grace-filled and caring ways. These people have been welcomed into the conversation - I recommend checking out www.anewkindofchristian.com where McLaren posts several criticisms of emergent that he expresses desire to learn from. There are other examples as well - I urge you to seek them out.
Carla,
I'll echo the above concerns (by Robbymac) about your selective reading of the document. It seems rather convenient. What, were you hoping people wouldn't click through and find those affirmations of biblical, orthodox, evangelical, apostolic faith?
Hmmm... rejecting moral and epistemological relativism; affirming Trinitarian Christian faith and its confession in the ancient Creeds; commitment to learning from the history of the Church; proclamation of Jesus as the Savior through whom alone may people come to the Father; love for and obedience to Scripture. Yeah, those are all dangerous things that need to be opposed at ever turn.
As for your concern about "arrogant absolutism" being a swipe at Sola Scriptura, here's a hint: Sola Scriptura means (among other things) that Scripture interprets Scripture, with the power of the Holy Spirit. Arrogant absolutism means (among other things) that a peculiar, sectarian, human interpretation of Scripture is finally and decisively authoritative.
Of course, your rush to interpret this in the worst possible light only makes me think they have hit close to a nerve here. All I know is this: the proponents of Sola Scriptura that I know all seem to be a lot more charitable, loving, and joyful in their disputations (all the while maintaining solid conviction) than I find on this blog, and that it is arrogant absolutists who sound much more like what I find on EmergentNo. I pray that I am wrong. You'll doubtless tell me that I must be. Perhaps the vehemence and tone of the response would be most indicative.
The abiding peace and joy of Christ be unto you and your house.
hi, carla -
i appreciate the critique of the "response" - thanks for posting your own heart in this matter.
hi carla
found the link to you on doug pagitt's blog - i didnt know he was a fan also.
yes- harsh as usual - but that is why i come over here - to hear the other side or to hear someone just rip from their heart. And i am glad you have place to do it and a place for us to read it.
We really need a place to say "Emergent Sucks!" and not be considered wierd or heretical or uncool.
As you know, I was the first published critic of Emergent with my harsh and sarcastic article written in 1999. (beat you to it!!!) But i also have a heart for what God is doing in the emerging culture and so I throw my lot in with emergent and lots ofother networks to stand up for them when they need it. I think I am inside and outside.
Anyway- keep the site going and keep blogging. I think you are harsh but also reasonable - i liked how you took Meekins article off your site - and i am not saying that to play both sides - you know that.
anyway - blog on. i will post a link when i get to it.
Evers, and those who commented in a similiar fashion, the statement sounds great to me. It sounds like orthodox Christianity, and so do statements issued by Mormons, JW's and every single cult i've ever experienced. The issue is how those things are interpreted. What is meant by affirming "the creeds" and that Jesus is the only way? I've seen plenty of people define that as Jesus' character as seen in all religions is the only way. That's a lot different than the meanings given to those things historically by the Church. Until I see real affirmation of the historic meanings given to the historic words, I don't trust statements like this any more than I trust that when McLaren says he's a Calvinist, he's honestly declaring he believes anything close to what Calvinism believes.
So now it's not enough to say "we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus"???
I have a feeling you will never be satisfied until you smell the smoke coming from Servetus'... I mean McLaren's body.
too aghast has a point...
Let's imagine for a second...
What would things look like if those who wrote the letter, the leaders and EC, just kind of disbanded? What would all the people who say they resonate with all those questions do? Would they go to your church or be involved in your church body?
would the questions go away?
Would the criticisms of church go away?
What would happen with all those who still have the same questions and thoughts?
just raising a curious thought
Why is every criticism of EC harsh and uncharitable? There's plenty of things to criticise within EC. Come on everyone, we're big boys and girls and I think we can handle it. I think the responses here and at A-Team blog are quite astute. I don't expect the EC to agree but lets all stop playing the victim.
"Why is every criticism of EC harsh and uncharitable?"
I have to ask a question. If you were criticized in this manner, how would you react? Seriously? There have been a number of critiques that have been generally well-received. Ones that are given in the spirit of love, assuming the best as 1 Corinthians instructs, and of grace, knowing that none of us are perfect, even in doctrine and interpretation. Andrew Jones has identified a number of these.
jeremy-
There's a difference between astute and unkind. One can be both at the same time.
it's not that every criticism is harsh and uncharitable. Just critiqueing doesn't make you harsh or uncharitable. Being harsh and uncharitable makes you harsh and uncharitable.
Carla, you said: "I do not mean to come across harsh, or unloving, but I cannot and will not compromise what I know to be true, for the sake of someone’s feelings. At the end of the day, feelings matter not. What does matter, is if we who call ourselves after His name, are walking worthy of that calling."
Okay- so you didn't mean to come across as harsh or unloving... but you did. Do you bear any responsiblity for that? No one wants you to compromise. Everyone wants you to speak your critique with words that are full of grace and seasoned with salt. In my opinion you've fallen short with this response.
Feelings may not matter to you, but there's a reason we're commanded by Scripture to:
gently teach those who oppose the truth (2 Tim 2:25)
gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path (Gal 6:1)
respond gently when evil things are said about us (1 Cor 4:13)
God's Word says gentle words bring life and health. I think emergent's response to critics was a model of this. Your response to them fell short. You say that you listen to critiques of your site and when they are on target, you change. Well, here's a chance to prove it. Your final comments showed you had some reservations about your tone and you were right.
Evers,
What kind of comment is this?
"All I know is this: the proponents of Sola Scriptura that I know all seem to be a lot more charitable, loving, and joyful in their disputations (all the while maintaining solid conviction) than I find on this blog, and that it is arrogant absolutists who sound much more like what I find on EmergentNo. I pray that I am wrong. You'll doubtless tell me that I must be. Perhaps the vehemence and tone of the response would be most indicative.”
Now that’s cute. In one short paragraph you have implied that Carla is neither charitable nor loving nor joyful. Instead we are to believe that she is an arrogant absolutist and that she will surely respond in a vehement and ugly tone. (Gasp!) Of course, according to the EC model of criticism you may not say anything to her until you have read all her books and attended her church to ‘dialogue’. I think this is a good example of the two-faced EC response to criticism. EC is full of nice guys until you dare to hold them up for the very same criticism they ladle out so quickly. But I think you really take the cake with this parting line…
“The abiding peace and joy of Christ be unto you and your house."
Who are you kidding? Their was nothing of Christ’s peace or joy in your post. Ending with this little tag line is just disingenuous. There’s something abiding in your post, but it sure isn’t Christ’s peace and joy.
I notice that we're still not responding to Emergent's statements with Scripture. Except for LittleC's comment that Emergent doesn't mean what they say, which doesn't count because it's not Scripture.
Disappointing.
robbymac -
'cause that wouldn't be any fun 
Seriously...
I laughed at your post...thought it was a funny and true observation.
But from what Carla said ("The appeal to Scripture where it suits them, is interesting.") I think the response would be just that. That EC appeals to Scripture when it suits them.
That might be true. It also might be understood as EC appeals to a certain type of interpretation when it suits them. And sometimes it suits them when they are trying to say, definitively, what they believe rather than raise questions/dialogue and push boundaries.
Ok, I only say that (the above post) from experience.
There was a time, after raising many similar questions that come up in EC, I just got tired and started just saying what I believed without any dialogue or questions connected. I just got tired of being pounded for my "process or interpretive process (hermeneutics)" of how I got there so I quit talking about how and just said my conclusions.
I think that's what that list is (the ones robbymac points out above). I think they are saying, "forget the process and all that we can't agree on or you don't understand or don't like for a second...this is what we believe..."
Jeremy,
I find little charity, joy, or love in many of the posts (and comments) of this blog. I have no idea if Carla is charitable, joyful, or loving. I do not find many of her postings here to be so, however. I find instead a willingness to always find the worst in others, and a blistering double standard. You think my comment was harsh? Over the top? Compared to what is often levelled at emergent folks on this blog, it was a walk in the park.
Besides, I actually meant what I said. The words on this blog often sound like what I would expect to hear from "arrogant absolutists." I hope that I would be wrong in drawing the conclusion that the posts come from such a perspective. Again: I hope I would be wrong to draw that conclusion.
I also never stated that I expected an ugly response. The vehemence and tone of a response would be telling. A response with a tone of strong, gentle reproof, with more conviction than vehemence, would tell a great deal; as would a blistering, vehement response.
I do, in all seriousness, regret that you found nothing of Christ's peace or joy in my words. But that was my sincere wish for Carla, and it is my sincere wish for you, that the peace and joy of Christ be upon you. Yes, I critique what I find to be worthy of critique - for instance, Carla's ignoring the rather strong affirmations of classical Christian convictions in the emergent document. But I do not critique to tear down. Those who run this blog are my bretheren in Christ, as are you. For any harm that I have caused, I seek forgiveness.
May the Lord have mercy on us all. For we clearly all need it, myself most of all.
But the whole point of ec originally is that Christianity isn't in creeds. I agree with that, but the difference here is that this statement seems to me as a "cult-like" move that wants to keep its claim to be Christian, but wants to define things differently. I did BTW mention the fact that a lot of the emergents I know would define Christ Alone differently. Does Christ alone mean the Biblical idea of coming into a submissive relationship with the Lord through the truth that reveals who His person is, what His work by which we glorify Him is? Or is it, as I said before, that no one comes to the Father apart from the Christ-likeness one might see in other religions regardless of whether one knows Christ through the Gospel/Bible? I have similar questions on all of these things. Didn't I see TD Jakes awhile back as one who was considered a Christian? Yet He's a modalistic monarchian (something I think the creeds dealt with). So creeds, especially issued by emergent who already think they're a joke, mean nothing to any thinking person. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY YOUR CREEDS?
I suppose that criticising something will always seem unfair but Carla you should have put the whole article on -seems a little strange just to prove (or not in this case) a point.
LittleC - Whilst I admire your honesty all you do is attack the EC, don't really understand it myself. That doesn't make for any conversation.
Everyone is an arrogant absolutist. That's why everyone gets ticked at something they feel is attacked. Even if its the idea that Christians shouldn't attack. Stop the self-refuting nonsense and deal with what is said, not the way it is said. Do you think the Pharisees saw Jesus as loving and charitable? I doubt it.
aghast, I find it absolutely funny that you rebuke Carla for her tone and you are mockingly using my old name when you post. You're a hypocrite par excellence.
Good point littleC. Jesus wasn't just a nice guy was he? I have to agree on this creeds issue. I would like to believe that the EC agrees with the creeds but their work can be so dishonest at times that I don't know what to think when they say the believe the creeds. I suspect they apply a very different hermeneutic to the creeds than biblical christianity has.
A few have been asking for a discussion of scripture. What scripture? The EC response to critics contained no scripture (I just checked again) and neither did Carla's post on this topic. Debating scripture is great but it doesn't seem relevant here. The issue at hand is the back and forth criticism between EC and the conservative church. If someone wants to apply a relevant scripture that would be fine but I don't see what matt b or robbymac are on about.
oh funny...which one did tooaghast write and sign littleC?
what matt b is "going on about" (you must be british, right?)
(is this really matt b btw?)
What is it, Scripturally, that is in disagreement? You're right, it gets really off-track after a statement is made.
robbymac posted what the EC said they believed. littleC made a comment, saying something like it sounded Scriptural, I'm in agreement, but I still think they are heretics.
Well, cool...heretics for saying they believe orthodoxy? I think rather littleC meant hypocrites - saying they believe one thing and living and really believing another.
Since it is my personal rule not to partake of anything remotely EC on the weekends, I'll briefly respond to all these comments.
In a word? Wow. See what happens when you dare critique these EC folks?
I've become unloving, uncharitable, unkind, harsh, evasive, and who knows what all else. Funny, if you go back and read my repsonse to their "response to the critics" I made it very clear that this is all about DOCTRINE and PRACTICE, and whether it lines up with Scripture.
Fact is, much of it does NOT. I've written (and so has Surphing and Nina) many many posts here, lining up some of the doctrine and practices of the EC, and giving ample Scriptural support for the position I take. Some of you have read them, others keep saying "where's your address on this from the Bible?". Please, go back and read through the archives - it's there.
I did not have any reservations about posting my response today - but while proofreading I anticipated the "you're so mean, you just hate everyone" cry. I've come to expect that from pro-ec folk.
Here is my hope:
Every man, woman and child, associated with the whole emerging church conversation, go somewhere alone, open their Bibles, pray, and begin studying. Those who are genuinely searching for a deeper relationship with our blessed Lord and Saviour, WILL find it - but they're not going to find it in a labyrinth, or in a breath prayer.
God, through His Holy Spirit, has set the boundaries, and the way to know Him better. They are to be found here:
2Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
I'm off now, to have a blessed weekend with my family. Try and conduct yourselves in a Christlike manner. 
I can't speak for all of the writers of the EC response and will accept it in the spirit of charity. It may be a good start, but it does not settle the concerns, IMO. There is enough in what McLaren has said to call into question what he actually believes the creeds to say. I am talking specifically about statements he has made that seem to undercut the notion of the necessity of individual salvation and things he has said about redeeming creation. So, to me, the response is a good start but just that. There are still a lot of open questions.
Also, there have been false dichotomies created by many of those who wrote the response. Those have created unfair, untrue caricatures of people in the church. I just find it interesting that when the microscope is turned the other way, there is a lot of whining. It would be helpful to talk about the serious issues involved.
As to the specific creeds issue, it seems that in some parts of the EC this is more related to a communal experience of reciting some words than actual belief.
One more comment - since I missed this somehow, today. Sven, you asked "How would you respond to postmodernism? We're all ears."
Please go here
http://www.fellowship.ca/theolog...logy/missional/
and read the discussion I initially had, when I first began to research the EC (even though I didn't even know it was called that, then). This should clear a few things up, as to where I stand, Scripturally.
It's alot of reading - and the format is somewhat choppy on that forum, but my posts there are from C.Rolfe.
Sven: Your question above was how would you respond to postmodernism? I think the answer is pretty simple: just like the church has responded to every philosophical trend since its inception: by boldly declaring the Word of God and the truth of the Gospel.
I think the ECers (some of them) have a tendency to think that PoMo is somehow something unique historically that needs some radical new response. The Church has always faced this. The trend has been to respond to culture rather than to respond biblically. You could see the trend develop with the marketing techniques of the church growth and seeker sensitive movements.
The time we live in is, I surmise, not all that unique. I suspect that if we unpacked the philosophies of the Roman world of the 1st century AD (where tolerance, within limits, was a guiding principle) we would find a world very similar to the tolerant PoMo world (or post-PoMo) world of today. Thus, the church does not need to adapt and change like the ECers (and the CGM and seeker sensitive types before them) claim. Let's be Christians, biblically informed and ready to give a defense of the hope that lies within us. Watering the message down will not work that is a certainty.
My $.02.
One more comment...
"still aghast" whoever you are, I have banned you under several different IP numbers.
You keep coming back, disregarding the obvious fact that I dont want you here, commenting on my blog.
You make it a point to let me know you can sneak by the IP ban, by posting again and again.
Haloscan offers blog owners the tools to remove unwanted commenters, and I'm exercising my option to do just that.
I'm asking you to respect the fact that I dont want you commenting, and leave once and for all.
Perhaps you're a bit too quick on the ol' ban trigger? 
I was reading some of Bonhoeffer the other day and became convicted. He writes that Christians should "hold their tongues, refusing to speak uncharitably about a Christian brother [or sister]; cultivate the humility that comes from understanding that they, like Paul, are the greatest of sinners and can only live in God's sight by his grace; listen "long and patiently" so they will understand their fellow Christian's need, etc.
It was a good reminder to me that we have an enemy, that he is here, and that he will try to get us to think that Carla (or whoever) is the enemy, when in fact she is a dear sister.
Debate the issues, but remember who the real enemy is.
P.S. Sorry to be so preachy!
Keep up the good work Carla. I personally didn't know about that blog site and will look at it.
I read their response. I chuckled when I read under the fourth area - apparently it's not enough to read their books - no we must hear them speak and dialogue with them personally before we say anything!! So I guess reading all that I've read (which includes 4+ of McLaren's books) isn't enough!!
Interesting too that they ask someone like me to not keep reading their books!! Hmmm.. something's very strange here.
Interesting how they want to remain seperate and remind the critics that ec can't be defined and labeled; however, doesn't common sense say something when all these people (emergent - us) have joined together to do something and they endorse each other's books, etc. They are "one" - and it's the ec!!!
Can someone tell me where the label "emergent church" comes from. Who first coined the term????
Funny, I sent one email to Carla asking her to review a blog post before I posted it. It was about the beliefs of the people behind this website. I received no response. After a few days I posted it anyways. Shortly after there is a post on EmergentNo about being misrepresented on other blogs. I'm afraid that not all the "emergent" emails she has received were supposed to be kept private.
I tried enaging on specific issues like women in leadership using scripture and there was a negligible response. Why? Because Carla has enough time to do this mountain of research, but no time to respond to any challenges in the comments.
When I read posts that purpose the EC is just a trojan horse for New Age prayer everything gets a little surreal for me. It is outlandish statements like these that speak to the credibility of the content of this blog. When challenged on this particular the point the response is "we link to anything we want to, you are supposed to figure out whether it is worthwhile or not, be a Berean."
This is a tacit admission that there really is little discernment that goes in to the content of this blog. The refusal to engage in the comments provides a convenient way to avoid a direct challenge and accountability for what is said.
There are good critiques of several elements of the EC. D.A. Carson's book is a good challenge to McLaren's view of truth if anything else. As far as I'm concerned the lack of a willingness to evaluate the credibility and relevance of specific evidence renders the critiques of this site next to useless.
I'm with LT on this one. I find no evidence on this site of:
(A) the humility on the part of the contributors here to consider that they might be wrong, even occasionally
(B) that their reporting has to neglect things like Emergent clearly stating what they affirm doctrinally, and then
(C) refuse to biblically document why what Emergent affirms is erroneous, and instead hide behind
(D) that they're sure (at least, LittleC sounds sure) that whatever Emergent says it affirms, they really don't or they're probably redefined everything to hide their true agenda
(E) complaining how EC people are harsh and uncharitable, and yet act in precisely the same manner, but if someone points out their harsh demeanor, they excuse their bad behaviour by claiming "passion for truth" -- which never justifies un-Christlike behaviour
(F) and then have the gall to admonish the commenters here to conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner.
Rob, please, you've just described yourself as well. Let's just all admit that we think we are right. Now let's discuss whether we are. What are the issues?
BTW I get that re-interpretation of historic creeds and theology from ec leaders like McLaren who redefines half of the theological positions he states he is. I'm not saying it out of nowhere.
nah...
I think at a certain point we have to cut our losses.
You can't have a discussion under these conditions. There are those who want to critque emergent, but do so with at least a modicum of generosity and love. That's not going to happen here and I'd like to suggest that we're just giving this site credibility by coming here.
Dialoging with critics who actually want to have a friendly discussion is where this needs to go. Emergent No is like a car wreck- captivating viewing, but not doing anyone any good.
our presence here lends credence. Time to just let the true remnant be the true remnant and do their own thing...
I for one have wasted too much emotional energy here.
It is what you make it. If you have learned nothing. It is because you were teachable to nothing. So be it.
A few thoughts.
I think Carla raises a valid point about there being an official reponse from a conversation that isn't ready to be called a movement. It does sound a bit double-standardish to me. On the face of it, a good pick up and a fair point.
There are a few times when I think Carla is being a bit too sensitive in considering comments to be backhanded insults. For example, Carla insists that this is isn't about who's in and out, but it is "all about what is Biblical" as though there is only one possible understanding of what is Biblical. I think that's a) assuming the worst intention on behalf of the author, and b) ignoring the fact that there have long been divisions within the church which revolve around how the scriptures are understood, with both sides claiming biblical mandate for their position.
Likewise to take offense at the statement's plea to "remember the poor" as though it implies that they are the only ones concerned about it misses the point that the poor are still being forgotten. It's as though someone has pointed out a beggar to them and they have stormed off feeling insulted that someone assumed they'd never seen a beggar before. But the point is the beggar is still destitute. The point is that we, the church, ec, non-ec, all of us, aren't doing anywhere near enough.
Carla concludes by saying the following: "when I say this is certainly not a controversy over words, I would point back to Scripture, and ask once again “what saith Scripture?”." But in fact, Carla, that isn't what you're saying in practice. What you're saying in practice is "what saith Scripture according to my way of interpretting it." On those occassions when the statement has explicitly drawn from scripture you have mocked them with comments like "The appeal to Scripture where it suits them". It does appear that the writers of the EC statement are not the only ones guilty of double standards.
The truth of the matter is that this debate is not about what Scripture says at all. The truth is that it is about whether people agree with Carla's hermeneutic and method of interpretting and applying scripture. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if one wants to make a meaningful critique of the emerging church then one needs to critique their hermeneutic and epistemology, not merely throw versus around which appear to contradict some EC teaching: because the problem is not that they don't read the bible, it isn't even that they don't believe it. The problem is that they don't believe it the same way you do. And until people grasp that fact and attempt to address it by a robust and meaningful critique of the emergent methodologies and a robust and meaningful defense of their own, then we are wasting everybody's time. I don't care if you believe SOLA SCRIPTURA. If you can't provide a defense for why your interpretation, your framework, your hermeneutic is the more accurate and faithful, then all yo
I'm really bad at this 3000 character thing. *sigh*
... (from above) I don't care if you believe SOLA SCRIPTURA. If you can't provide a defense for why your interpretation, your framework, your hermeneutic is the more accurate and faithful, then all you're really saying is "I disagree I disagree." And I, for one, have already heard that message loud and clear. I know you disagree, and that's fine, like Andrew Jones said we need disagreement and we need debate. But I believe we need debate that goes beneath the surface snitching of "they only use scripture when it suits them" .
It's actually not about hermeneutic. Hermeneutic is directed by one's underlying theology, i.e., one's belief system. The problem many have with ec is their theology which then leads their hermeneutics in a different direction. Belief precedes hermeneutic. I think we don't share the same underlying theology and that is the issue.
just to clarify for example,
I don't have the same hermeneutic as Augustine in the Early Church, nor of Anselm in the Middle Ages, nor even of Luther or Calvin; but my underlying theology and core beliefs are the same. Obviously then it has to do with something other than mere hermeneutics. it has to do with faith in orthodoxy--the truth/Christian worldview the Church has always taught and what is consistent with it. Once receiving it, we then see the Bible from that perspective and are able to go on and further our understanding of other issues, but without it, people seem to be lost.
I don't see it being quite so clear cut as that. As I see it, we start by reading scripture according to how we understand God and the world, but what we encounter in scripture challenges our understanding of God and the world. So I would hesitate to say that theology precedes hermeneutics, or vice versa. They are interconnected and related, much like partners in a dance. So emerging theology both directs and flows out of their hermeneutics, and both are significantly shaped by their understanding of how we 'know' things. As I see it, it's a package deal: if you want to talk about the way I use scripture, you need to also talk about how I understand 'truth', how I understand how we understand things, and how all that shapes the my theological constructs derived from what I encounter in scripture according to all the above.
I'm interested by what you're saying about "truth/Christian worldview the Church has always taught." If I'm hearing you right (which I may not be) it sounds like you think we need to grab hold of the framework / worldview that the church has always taught in order to be able to correctly understand the biblical story. If that is what you're saying, that's very enlightening as to the general EC debate, given that such a premise (that we can only properly understand the biblical story having subscribed to that view - we cannot reach truthful conclusions and arrive at sound doctrines without someone else teaching us that view) would be entirely unacceptable to many of the EC people I have talked with. Is that what you're saying? That we need to be taught what is orthodox, and to read the bible through that lens, in order to understand it correctly? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth so please correct me if I have misheard you.
Hi Krrly
Where does the term 'emergent church' come from. I think you may mean emerging church.
Emerging church as I understand it comes from the move from the modern to the post-modern world. The ideas that are coming to front have emerged from this new post-modern culture.
Not sure who termed the phrase emerging church but that's more or less what it means...I think:~)
emergent are just a part of the whole emerging thing...not the spokesman, just a group of christians connected through discussion and ideas...
Quote:It is what you make it. If you have learned nothing. It is because you were teachable to nothing. So be it.Quote.
LiitleC - However I read this it comes across as nasty. I know we can get heated here but this seems a bit strong.
Ross:
"If one wants to make a meaningful critique of the emerging church then one needs to critique their hermeneutic and epistemology."
That is a great statement that gets to the root issues. Thanks for clearing through the haze.
One more thing (not directed at Ross): I know it's easy to react when we think someone is unfair to us. I think we need to move beyond attacking in return. As Jesus said, if we only bless our friends, we're no better than...
Krrly and Marc
re: origin of the word "emergent"
i have some thoughts at emergAnt< /a> under "vocabulary"
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.co...d.com/emergant/
but basically, around 2000 - 2002, many groups involved in missional work among the emerging culture adopted the name. "Emerge" was a huge gathering of European networks from UK, Spain and Germany. Baptist General Convention of Texas formed their work under "Emerging Church Network" (emergingchurchnetwork.com) and there were websites using the name. We change from "youth churches" and "GenX" churches and "Pomo churches" because Emerging Church spoke to more than age, culture or worldview, but actually spoke about the organizational structure of the new churches which could be described using Emergent vocabulary.
Emergent vocabulary and emergent behaviour and emergent theory are connected to the concept of how an organism "emerges" from a simple chaotic life form to a more sophisticated organization and how it does it without a hierachical leadership structure but through pattern recognition, constant communication, simple structures, etc.
Ant colonies (Prov. 6:6). flocks of birds, slime mould, wiki, visa card, are all examples of emergence in action. The internet is a good example of emergent behaviour, as are the simple house church movements around the world in the global emerging culture - which i also include among "emerging church".
Sorry to go all PROFESSOR on you, but i hope that clears up the question.
And guys - let Carla enjoy her weekend by doing what she says - play nicely!!! and if she wants to ban your butt then thats her perogative - it is, after all, her house and we are the guests.
. . i meant guys and girls (i call my 4 daughters "guys")
. . . oopps. i almost forgot the emergent village part of the story. One of the groups in USA was called Young Leaders and was sponored by Leadership Network. It changed its name briefly to Terranova and then, about the time i left USA, called itself Emergent. This is the group that wrote the response. They represent a very small part of what God is doing worldwide and of what goes under the term emerging church or "emerging-missional church" but have a much higher profile among traditional American church folk who read Christian books published by mainstream evangelical publishing complanies who focus on seminary trained authors.
I love the people of Emergent Village as friends and partners. Personally, coming from a fundamentalist background, i dont always agree with what they come up with, but feel united in the Great Commission calling on our lives that is focused on the emerging culture.
Kester Brewin's book "The Complex Christ" is the first book to explain why "emerging church" is not always "emergent church" and why the two should not be confused.
I am hoping the emergent/emerging-missional church networks and movements around the world will not have damage inflicted on them by some North Americans who did not realize this whole thing is a lot larger than they realized.
I have heard one or two newly forming churches under the "emerging" banner have already lost their support from their denominations, and unfairly so.
littleC -
RE: "It's actually not about hermeneutic. Hermeneutic is directed by one's underlying theology, i.e., one's belief system. The problem many have with ec is their theology which then leads their hermeneutics in a different direction. Belief precedes hermeneutic. I think we don't share the same underlying theology and that is the issue."
Is this reformed theology saying God must reveal truth first?
(different question) If belief precedes hermeneutics than where do we get our theology before reading?
(I think these are questions towards reformed theology and not necessarily applicable here in this post - my questions none-the-less.)
Andrew -
"...and if she wants to ban your butt then thats her perogative - it is, after all, her house and we are the guests"
It is her perogative and it's proper to ask people to respect her. But it's nothing like a house.
Interesting comparison and perspective on blogging and the internet. Especially to compare it to a house. If someone posts a website, one particularly designed and targeted for public discourse, then bans people it is like building a house and locking some people out? It's nothing like that.
I think it's more like trying to put a speaking podium for speaking (and responsive discourse) in a public park and then takig tape and saying "you have to stay out where you can hear but not comment." People go under and around the tape to participate in the discussion.
She has the perogative to put the tape up and let people know she doesn't want them at this public setting nor like their comments or interaction. She has the perogative to take the site down, too, if she doesn't want their interaction or discussion. Or hide the hurl and keep it in her own local community, too.
But it's not anything like a house.
sorry . . are you trying to woo me into a "wrangling over words" argument over the usage of figurative language in describing blogs? (funny how the micro mimics the macro)
because if you are . . . i would rather lose the battle and win my brother,
let it be known that this blog will never be called a "house" again by me.
now on to more important things like partnering with God to reconcile all things and learning how to get along as a spiritual family and getting back into training to govern with God . .
I don't know that I follow all of that...
but I am ashamed now. Whether right or not I don't know.
my apologies
hey - andrew here again
matt (above post) just sent me a heartfelt email saying that i made him feel small by my comment.
And the thing is . . he is right. In an underhanded way, i pulled a nasty on him so i am pasting my short apology to matt here for you all to see (thanks carla for a few lines for my apology)
"Yeah – now that you mention it
It is kinda sucky of me to say that . . I can see how it could be something an older paternalistic guy would pull off with a smirk on his face .. .and then I pounce off like a smart arse without giving you a chance to come back
That sucks"
Sorry Matt. thanks for coming back to me and i really appreciate the private email rather than the public shaming.
To say the least, keep up the good work.
I've read the "response" and, well, I'm dissapointed. It hardly can be considered a response at all. It was more like a lengthy "We're on the same side" and "Chill out" statement. Thankfully, Matthew 7:1 was not put forth- and that is the only positive statement I can give to it.
The Emergents rather absolutely maintain that it is "arrogant" to claim absolute truth, and happily tone down doctrines, like Hell. What will happen next? I don't know. But I can say one thing- It's either God's way or the Highway, whether we like it or not. And the Bible is very clear where the highway leads.
God bless and I ask you to continue what you are doing- To contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Soli Deo Gloria.
I found my way to this blog via the emergent us post originally, and I like the way I can follow threads of the discussion happening all over the blogosphere, as I'm keen to hear different people's views and understand the issues more. However, I have to say as a relatively new blogger I'm quite shaken by the experience of reading this post and the comments, and I'm left wondering whether its good for me to read stuff posted by those I had thought would be looking for the best in others, as I'm finding it hard to wade through the mudslinging and harshness to hear the issues. I'm sure no-one means to cause offence, but I'm wondering if its a bit like road rage or something - Christians speaking and behaving in ways they never would in real life in order to let off steam??!
Anyway, yours in optimism, Heather
I have to admit this site used to bother me more than it does now. Occasionally it's right, and I'm glad. We need to hear it then. Other times it's wrong or overstates the case, but I find it hard to get too worked up about it.
It's starting to bother me more that we are proving Carla's statement right: "See what happens when you dare critique these EC folks?"
Some of the comments are almost more damning than the critique Carla offers.
Anyway, thanks Carla. We're all learning to behave a bit better under critique. It's not easy for any of us.
Just a note to clarify - the EC response did not say that all absolutism was arrogant, or that it is arrogant to maintain belief in absolute truth - rather, they said that there was a brand of absolutism that is "arrogant" and dangerous, as there is "radical" forms of relativism. I know many absolutist (and I am one, in my own way) who are not arrogent, and I'm sure the writers of the Response have had many fruitful discussions with them.
It seems to me that those in the emergent church are attempting to question the standards and systems by which we measure "correct theology", such as SOLA SCRIPTURA...but the proponents of those standards and systems (like you, Carla) are measuring the validity and propriety of their questions with the very standards and systems they are questioning. Perhaps the difficulty you have encountered in your attempts to dialogue with those in the emergent church movement is the result of your resistance to questions about the system you hold up as the only standard for following Jesus.
Aly,
there is only 1 standard that our heavenly Father has given us to follow Christ, and that will be found, in Scripture. Everything we do, say, think feel, participate in, etc., must be measured with the teachings of Scripture.
Anyone who denies this, makes the statement that Scripture is not sufficient for teaching us how to live out our faith.
Anyone who denies this, demotes the Scriptures to helpful guide, but not the only guide, on how to live an authentic spiritual life.
This is dangerous territory to be fooling around with.
So, Carla, what about Ross's well-stated observation that this isn't about scripture per se, but about interpretation of scripture? I derive my positions from the same scriptures you do, although it's clear that we disagree on several matters of interpretation. Is it possible that two people can read the same "1 standard" and arrive at two different understandings? Isn't it just as dangerous to hold that your own interpretation is infallible and not subject to the correction of another's interpretation? (I'm not saying that you or anyone else here has said that, just pointing out that there are other nuances to your position that it doesn't appear you've addressed.)
I have found that when I use Scripture to show a foundational truth, EC folks are not happy. I've even had one tell me that I ought to stop ending my posts with Scripture! This seems to affirm that many (though not all) ECers aren't interested in what Scripture says. I find that sad. When God says He holds His Word above all else, that ought to tell us that WE should do the same. Sadly this isn't the case. Rather, many folks in the EC movement hold their opinion higher and question God rather than question their views.
This is nothing more than a war on the Word, and complaining when a group or teaching or movement fails to stand up to the biblical test.
I thought the EC movement didn't have official 'leaders'? Why are McLaren, Burke, Pagitt, Jones, Kimball, Jones and Seay responding with some sort of 'official' response to us who criticize the EC?
They don't, according to some EC folks, speak or represent the movement or its people.
And why do the followers of the EC movement then use that as if they speak for them?
Hmmm.
ScottB: so your position is that we all have fallible positions; what is the point: that we can never be certain about anything? That's not a coherent position.
I'm pretty sure that Carla would not hold that her positions are all infallible (but thanks for building that straw man), but that does not mean that there the bulk of the scriptures that God gave us can be ascertained. The position to which you hold is that certainty can never occur because it is always subject to the individual's interpretation. That is a denial of scripture.
As for Aly, scripture also tells us not to be taken captive by man's thought systems. So your statement that the "systems" on which you rely to call into question the clear teaching of scriptures deny the validity of scripture.
"The position to which you hold is that certainty can never occur because it is always subject to the individual's interpretation."
I didn't say that, but I'm glad you could get all of that from my short post. Could it be that your interpretation of my message is incorrect? Also, if you read the post very carefully, you'll probably notice the line at the end that says that Carla would probably not say her interpretations are infallible. It was merely an example intended to communicate a point. So no straw man here.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about - a while back there was a long discussion here about the Jesus prayer. Both sides presented scripture to support their position. I think it's hardly fair to characterize either side of not basing their belief on scripture - instead, what was at stake was the interpretation of that scripture. This is quite important, I think, because it changes the character of the discussion significantly.
In short, if you're looking for straw men, there's one running around with the phrase "We base our positions on scripture" firmly pasted to its forehead.
Surphing - the official response was from the Emergent group, in particular a number of folks who are at some level of responsibility in the organization. The Emergent group does not necessarily equal the emerging church and vice versa, something that I think they'd be the first to point out. If Andrew drops by again, he can weigh in on that probably better than I.
Can someone provide a link to the "Jesus prayer" discussion that ScottB refers to? I would be interested in reading that.
Surphing-
your comments "I thought the EC movement didn't have official 'leaders'? Hmmmm."
something to understand is that
"Emergent" has a coordinating group. That is always public and on their web site. It is a loose structure, but there is leadership to Emergent.
The "Emerging Church" is not a formal organization, but an adjective really. It simply is a term that describes those rethinking church for missional reasons. So that includes a lot of different people. The term simply means "what is coming to the surface" and there will always be different expressions of church emerging.
The names on the response to critics was not a formal "emergent" thing, as it was the names are people who have published books or web sites and have been criticized (or some of them). So it was a response on behalf of the individuals really, not an organizational thing.
Mike - here's the link:
http://emergentno.blogspot.com/2...sus-
prayer.html
It says there are no comments, but if you click the link, they'll show. It's quite lengthy.
ScottB says: "The Emergent group does not necessarily equal the emerging church and vice versa, something that I think they'd be the first to point out. If Andrew drops by again, he can weigh in on that probably better than I."
Yeah - i'm kinda too skinny to weigh in on anything really, but, yeah. The emerging-missional church is the churches response to the emerging culture in their own context. The Americans have a number of networks and groups (Emergent is one) but some countries have been going much longer and are more established (and have less criticsim) - other countries (Portugal) are just starting out. At our Roundtable this year in Germany we expect 30 countries to send one leader each - and the American that was chosen is not from Emergent this year. The Canadian is from the Underground Railroad network.
Regarding statement of faith and affirmations, this is what i subscribe to:
As an evangelical, I "affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice." (Lausanne Covenant )
I publicly affirm the statement of faith as given by the World Evangelical Alliance I also publicly affirm the Iguassu Afirmation from the Global Consulation on Evangelical Missiology, the Lausanne Covenant, the Manilla Manifesto and the Apostles Creed
hope that helps to pin my down a bit more.
Carla -
Your response fits exactly the dynamic I'm suggesting is at work in your attempts to dialogue with the emergent community. "There is only 1 standard", etc. is language that does not invite dialogue of any kind; it puts a period on the conversation that makes it difficult to continue. Essentially, you are saying, "Here are my requirements for fruitful dialogue," and the emergent community responds, "Well, we'd really like to discuss those requirements," and your response, in turn, is "Nope." Can't really go anywhere from there, can ya?
I have read books by all of the leaders who crafted this response, and nowhere have I found a disregard of God's Word. I see a high regard and honor of Scripture, and a desire and willingness to have It be the "norming norm" of the Jesus-following journey. What I don't see is an insistence that God has chosen His written Word to be the sole revelation of Himself. It seems to me that Scripture clearly teaches that the Person of Jesus is the ultimate revelation of the Godhead (the Word became flesh), and He truly is risen and present with us through the Holy Spirit. 2 Tim. 3:16 says "ALL Scripture..." not "ONLY Scripture..."
Aly,
first of all, you've made the mistake of assuming I'm attempting to "dialogue with emergent". I'm not making any attempt at all, and never have. Now before anyone gets up in arms about that statement - let me assure you it's not meant to be inflammatory. It's simply factual - the purpose of this blog is threefold:
1. to replace the "what's new page" at the main site, with a blog that allows for easier, daily updates
2. for the contributors to share their insights and viewpoints on what they (we) have read concerning this subject
3. for those with questions about this "conversation" or "movement" to have a place to ask them, or contact one of us.
I don't necesarrily have any desire to dialogue with emergent - but I do have a desire to see those professing Christ, to be doing so in a Biblical fashion.
Secondly, your point about what you've read in the books of these "emergent leaders" is very revealing, in and of itself. Now I'll grant you that I have not read all their books, but you say (of their books) "What I don't see is an insistence that God has chosen His written Word to be the sole revelation of Himself."
I find this very interesting. You go further and admit that you yourself believe that the Bible is "a" source, and not "the" source, of God's revelation to man.
This is where we (and if your statement is accurate of the emergent church leaders, them also) part ways, BIG TIME.
If the Bible is just "a" source, and there are other sources of what would be considered the final authority in spiritual matters, divine revelation, or Godly discernment then there is something very wrong with this passage:
2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Verse 17 will have to be removed.
If the Bible is only "a" source, then the man of God cannot possibly be perfect (Greek - artios - fitted, or complete), or throughly furnished (Greek - exartizo - furnished perfectly) unless he also relies on another source, in addition, to Scripture.
I would like to say that I have misunderstood you, and you meant something else, but the more I research what the ec folks believe, the more I realize that many of them do in fact believe exactly as you've said:
"2 Tim. 3:16 says "ALL Scripture..." not "ONLY Scripture..."
I would add, this question:
If God, has indeed not chosen His very word, to be the sole revelation of Himself, as some believe, then please list for me the other ways God has chosen to reveal Himself to His people.
I'd like a list of ways God has chosen to do this, and also your verification that it is indeed God doing this (source of information on how you know this is indeed God working).
I very much look forward to your answer.
Carla - you said: [Quote] "3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." Verse 17 will have to be removed.
If the Bible is only "a" source, then the man of God cannot possibly be perfect (Greek - artios - fitted, or complete), or throughly furnished (Greek - exartizo - furnished perfectly) unless he also relies on another source, in addition, to Scripture. [un-Quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong: You challenged Aly on the assumption that she was saying there is more than one way for God to reveal himself, and that one must experience all of them in order to, as v.17 put it, "become perfect." That seems to be a misrepresentation of her position. Unless I'm mistaken, she was saying that God may reveal himself in more way than just scripture, but is not required to - God could reveal himself completely through scripture to someone, or through scripture and another means. God is surely powerful enough to reveal himself completely/perfectly through scripture, and to my knowledge neither Aly nor anyone else has said otherwise. If they do, then by all means call them on it using this argument.
There are good arguments that question EC and the various doctrinal goings-on that occur within. You don't need to use bad ones.
BTW, not just EC people believe that God reveals himself outside scripture. I know many people who are wary/critical of EC that believe God reveals himself outside of scripture. Feel free to let me know if I've mishandled what you said.
Hebrews 1:1-3 "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word..."
John 17:20-23 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me..."
Romans 8:9-11 "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus fromt he dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you."
1 John 5:9-10 "We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God HAS THIS TESTIMONY IN HIS HEART. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son."
These passages are only a brief survey of the wealth of biblical affirmation for Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God (Heb.1), the unity of the believers with and through Christ (John 17), the indwelling of Christ's very Spirit (Romans 8 ), and the ability and propensity of God to testify directly to our spirits (1 John 5).
I firmly believe in testing spiritual experience of Jesus against the "norming norm" of God's written Word - but I do not think the biblical witness excludes the ongoing presence and activity of the Spirit of Christ in the lives and hearts of believers.
Aly,
It would appear that we are (in a sense) talking past each other. Let me go back to the beginning.
You said “Perhaps the difficulty you have encountered in your attempts to dialogue with those in the emergent church movement is the result of your resistance to questions about the system you hold up as the only standard for following Jesus”
To which I responded: “there is only 1 standard that our heavenly Father has given us to follow Christ, and that will be found, in Scripture. Everything we do, say, think feel, participate in, etc., must be measured with the teachings of Scripture.”
To which you said: “I have read books by all of the leaders who crafted this response, and nowhere have I found a disregard of God's Word… What I don't see is an insistence that God has chosen His written Word to be the sole revelation of Himself.”
And this is where the topic shifted, in a sense – which is probably my fault for not staying focused on the topic at hand – that being “the standard for following Jesus”.
When I asked you to give specific sources of God revealing Himself (His will for His people) outside of the Scripture – I meant those references that clearly teach us how to follow Christ (i.e., what pleases God, what grieves Him, how to pray, why to pray, and essentially everything else associated with living a true Christian faith).
Now if you’re saying that the authors of the “response to the critics” have all written books that tell us Scripture is not the only place God has revealed to us, how He expects us to live to please Him, then you are saying they do not hold Scripture as the final authority – since you cannot have more than 1 final source of authority. You’re also saying that there are other ways (written materials? Traditions?) that are on equal par, with the inspired word of God.
If this is not what you’re saying at all, and I have completely misunderstood you, please do clarify. Going back and re-reading your statement has left me questioning what it is you really meant.
SDG,
Carla
It was interesting to come across a site created by Christ-followers which is dedicated entirely to being against something. Please don't write me off immediately, but I can't help but to be reminded of the Pharisees who were more interested in what they were against than what they were for.
Christ seemed to be about seeking the kingdom on earth. He lived that out by helping the hurting and the oppressed. I wonder if we are spending more time talking about what we are against, rather than acting on what we are for.
I’ll come out and admit that I am a friend of the Emergent Church. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everything they say. It simply means that I respect the efforts they are making to seek the kingdom of God and wish to support the positive influence they have. Tell me this, how important is it to disprove the theology of others (Christian or not) when there is so much hurt and injustice in our world.
I am not saying that we should end the conversation, simply that we need to prioritize our time. I would never ask for you to get rid of this site but I do ask you to humbly reconsider the mission of this site. You obviously receive a lot of traffic. What could Christ accomplish through you with that influence?
With love and respect,
Ryan Poe
www.thenamelesschurch.com
Poe, you have painted a false picture and then concluded with a moral imperative based upon it. Let me explain. You painted the Pharisees as those who were negative and about what they were against. However, the Pharisees were the positive force, i.e., going with the flow of their culture/religion of the world system. So in the here and now, people would have seen them as the positive ones. Christ actually enters in as the negative, the counter culture/system. He comes in and says don't do this, don't do that, you were told this, but I tell you do that, etc. He is the absolute negative to this world's systems. He is the destroyer of all worldly unity ("Do not think I came to bring peace but a sword, for I came to pit a father against son, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law, etc.). He is the absolute positive for the eternal flow/ the eternal system and kingdom, but that is going to look very negative in the world religious systems because He is the wrecking ball of the devil's ideas and practices. Let's not redefine Christ as Robert Schuller.
umm, littleC, I think your history needs a little work. The Sadducees and High Priests were the ones who were "going with the flow" as you put it. It was they who were complicit with Roman occupation and were happy to work in with whoever was in power.
The Pharisees were far from that. If you read the history of Israel for the 150-200 years or so prior to Jesus you see the Pharisees are the ones agitating for rebellion, encouraging the brigands to pull down the roman eagles from around (in? can't quite remember) the temple area. The Pharisees were a moral pressure group concerned about all the compromising with the Romans (of the high priests) who wanted to maintain their stance of purity by beign separate, and were willing to back that up with force if necessary. They were overwhelmingly negative in their approach. See N.T. Wright's "New Testament and the People of God" for further reading.
Umm, Ross, I know about the Pharisees and the Maccabean revolts. I've got a couple degrees in NT and much of it dealt with the 2d Temple Period. My point is that the Pharisees were the established RELIGIOUS group. Everyone would have seen them as the religious norm. Therefore, their religious system was one which was normal and not a whole lot of Jews would have considered them counter to the current religious system (they were the main religious system). The point I was making is that what Christ taught was not established and therefore would have been perceived as negative and stirring up trouble (as it was) for both the religious community and the culture at large (please note the fact that the religious individuals who opposed Him worried about the trouble He would cause for the Jews in general--the "secular" leaders also saw Him as one who was stirring up trouble). BTW, I wouldn't reference Tom Wright for NT Backgrounds because he's a deconstructionist and tends to distort the data to support his theology. Instead I would suggest you read primary sources like the Mishna and Qumran Scrolls to know the RELIGIOUS attitude of the time period. Josephus gives a more secular version of what goes on and there seems to be too much reliance on his data for modern historiographers.
AND if you think the Pharisees were pressure cookers in the culture, then Christ, who was more radical than the Pharisees on numerous issues would definitely be seen as more negative (He took the more extreme positions, which would have critiqued not only the general culture, but the Pharisees as well). So negative He would be. That's why I think many in the ec would rebuke Him for negativity and harshness if He stood in front of them and taught them something (of course if they didn't know who He was, since everyone would say they would receive Christ well if they knew it was Christ).
BTW, the Pharisees were quite diverse. They're not a monolithic group as some have made out. But what is said is generally true of many of them.
I have come to a sad conclusion. I am not the intended audience of this site. I am unashamedly pro-ec. I am pro-unity and pro-reconciliation. I have tried to point out to Carla on more than one occassion that I believe the very idea of running a site devoted to the failings and incorrect doctrines of other Christians but refusing to attempt to explain these failings to them patiently through discussion and dialogue is both unscriptural and unbiblical. Indeed I am confident the very idea offends God deeply: that if these people did have a firm grasp on the truth they refuse to attempt to persuade their sisters and brothers of their errors, even when explicitly asked to do so.
I agree that we should avoid fruitless controversies and endless debates. But to take the line that they will - worse, are led by God - to post reports (sometimes of various accuracy, at times downright slanderous) allegedly detailing the erroneous doctrines of their Christian siblings, and then to refuse to enter into discussion with those who question the validity and veracity of those claims, or even simply ask clarifying questions or for justification of one's view, that to me seems the epitomy of ungracious, un-Christlike condemnation. There is no grace in this, there is no love nor compassion nor truth in this. There is but cold, distanced condemnation. I'm sorry folks, but this does not glorify God in the slightest. And with the repeated statements on Carla's behalf that it is her express intention not to enter into discussion, nor to try and explain her views and opinions to those who do not share them, I have given up hope that either I can learn from her, or that she can learn from me. So I can't see any point in returning.
I'm sorry Carla. I have tried to talk to you about this several times as you know. I have attempted to explain to you my concern - that in your quest to uphold the truth, you have forsaken both truth and love, and you have chosen to attack rather than to nurture the body of Christ. And though I disagree with your theology it is not for this reason that I rebuke you - there are many who disagree with me and I with them - it is that you have chosen to conduct yourself bereft of all Christian charity, compassion, wisdom, and grace. If you truly do have some leading to 'expose' anything, you ought to imitate Jesus in attempting to seek and save the lost, not act as a portal for collecting accusations which you only share or discuss with those who agree with you. There is no grace in this, God receives no glory. Your actions forsake Christ's love for his church. I pray and beg for you to reconsider, and to take seriously the Christian’s responsibility to the whole body of Christ, not just those who agree with you.
Ross,
Re: your comments: “I believe the very idea of running a site devoted to the failings and incorrect doctrines of other Christians but refusing to attempt to explain these failings to them patiently through discussion and dialogue is both unscriptural and unbiblical.”
This is precisely what the apostle Paul did! He didn’t dialog with those in error, he exposed them.
“Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:18-20)
“Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.” (2 Timothy 4:14-15)
Scripture is clear that we are to “fight the good fight”, to “contend for the faith”, and to expose erroneous teachings. Where in Scripture do you ascertain that dialoging with those in error is preferred over exposing? It is true that we are to do it with humility and gentleness, but to appease error with dialog that implies that contrary positions are equal is what is not biblical.
An explanation of why erroneous teachings are wrong is in order, but not a “dialog of equality” like the EC movement worships. That is what is unbiblical. Truth is truth regardless if the “community” agrees with it or not. And if the “community” disagrees with biblical truth, it should be examined and exposed just as Paul has instructed.
Matthew 16:11
How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Ye and spake?
marc,
that is what stands out to you from Matthew 16:11? King James is quite "orthodox".
It seems strange to me that people would use olde english to connect God to people...each to thou's own :~)
Hey, if God can speak to us through inanimate objects like trees and candles and can speak to us through movies, poetry, eastern chanting He SURELY can speak to us through His living word, even if in old english :p
(how could I help it -- you left that one wide open)
Verily. Thou could'st be right:¬)
Pleeeease, would some of you give me at least one point over which you are actually arguing? I mean, a specific issue, not just affirmations of who is orthodox and who is a heretic. I understand that Jesus or Paul didn´t converse with heretics, as authors of this blog say. But here I have two problems:
(1) If EC people are heretics, why do you have this discussion with them on this blog? If they are, you should not even greet them (2John 1:10-11). Btw, Jesus or Paul didn´t fellowship with the heretics, but they also didn´t spend their days endlessly quarelling with them. Isn´t it better to light a candle than try to "refute" darkness?
(2) If EC people are heretics, could you clearly accuse them of which heresies they are guilty? Maybe I overlooked something, but would you please state here on which points they err? That´s how the Reformation was taking place - clear theses were stated and publicly disputed. I do not see it here. Only general accusations. Could someone please make a clear statemnet of their position?
Btw, if someone is in error here, are the others trying to show them a more perfect way? If someone is deceived, are you gently leading them out from their deception?
Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Sasa, if you could produce a single doctrine that "ec" believes, I'll be happy to say whether it's heresy or not. I think you're going to have trouble locking down much though, which is part of the problem.
Hi littleC,
from what I have seen and read, I think that it is quite typical of all EC-ers to uphold a belief that Jesus is the Christ, the only Lord and Savior of the world. The recent "Response to our critics" document states that doctrine pretty clearly and openly. I had no trouble to "lock this down" as you say - it is plain for everyone to see. Now please tell me if that is heresy.
I feel like I should not continue this debate, I think everything has been said by now. I am reminded of the strife between the different groups after Martin Luther´s death, as to who hold the real Lutheran orthodoxy. At that time an irenic Lutheran theologian Peter Meiderlin coined a famous adage (often wrongly attributed to Augustine). I will leave you with those wise words that have helped to calm down so many unnacessary Christian in-fightings in past generations:
In Essentials, Unity;
in Non-essentials, Liberty;
in All Things, Charity.
Shalom.
Yes the creed that destroyed unity in the truth. I've heard it many times before. What is unorthodox about the ec statement that Christ is the ONLY Savior of the world is that many ecer's define that differently. Many think that simply means the Christ-likeness a devout follower of Hinduism finds in his religion can save him if he follows that path. Therefore Christ (through His character) reveals Himself implicitly through another religion and is therefore the only Savior because Krishna doesn't exist. Christ then saves through a mystical "revealing" rather than a verbal one. That's quite different than the orthodox doctrine. Some ecers believe the orthodox one, some don't. Most don't care if people believe one or the other. That's the problem.
BTW, the monoergists were the true Lutherans. All you have to do is read Bondage to know that one. The others (like Melancthon) simply wanted his name. So there was a correct group in that as there usually is.
OK littleC, time to back up what you're saying. Name a single EC books - name one - where that view you just put forward is articulated and associated with the emerging church. I've just read that particular chapter (the one dealing with other religions) in McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy" which I am finding to be a tragically disappointing book, but ignoring my pain at wasting $25US on it his book doesn't come anywhere *near* a view which you've just described. And neither has any single book on or associated with the EC that I've ever read. Not one. So please, enlighten me. Give us a book to discuss, and lets see whether there are any EC people (here at least) who will come to its defense and endorse it.
Ross, I've gotten this from talking to numerous ecers who adopt the Vatican II ruling, which teaches what I said above. You can look at my discussion on the EmergentUS site.
BTW I find it interesting that books aren't supposedly the main source for the ec and yet people always want books quoted. I've said numerous times before that if Christ is the only way to God and that means no one comes to the Father without coming through the spoken Gospel of Christ, then great. But from what ec has given back to me is that I am right. It is being defined differently.
Another thing, where is there a single doctrine explicitly taught by ec period? You have to press them on points to get out of whoever you talking to what they believe. They don't explicitly put the explanation of their doctrines in books.
That's because there are no doctrines. It is diverse and new - so at the moment there are none, that is why there are no books with them in.
LittleC I have to say you don't seem to be able to back up many of your statements about the EC. It's easy to say I spoke to this person or that...so come on i'm with ross..let's see some hard referencing:~)
WHAT! You just admitted yourself Marc that there are no doctrines and therefore they are not explained in books and now you want me to back up what I said with quotations from books about doctrines not discussed? That is ridiculous. So I'll just ask you boys. Why do I need a book when speaking about a movement that doesn't use them as their primary media? Do you believe no one can come to the Father unless the hear and submit to the Gospel of Christ, and that there is no other way for one to come to God? And do you think everyone of the leaders who signed the document would say the same thing and why?
BTW if there are NO doctrines, then what is the doctrinal statement they just gave?
As I said i'm with Ross...come on all this stuff you claiming, you don't seem to produce any evidence at all...
Umm, if you go to the emergentUS conversation then you will know that there are people who believe it in the way that I said. So please move your fingers over to the site and you can see for yourself. Otherwise, this is just nonsense. It's the old ec trick. "We didn't technically claim any position and therefore technically you can't say we believe one way or the other." And you didn't answer my question Marc. I know you believe that someone can be saved apart from the Gospel, since you believe that people can worship God through all sorts of things. Would you like a reference on that?
littleC, I hear your frustration. It does sound a bit like shifting goalposts when I insist on print media quotes. I didn't mean it like that.
There's a number of issues in play here. Firstly, the EC doesn't have a Calvin or Luther (yet, though I suspect it never will). That's not an avoidance technique, that's just a combination of infancy and dispersion. EC ideas aren't being formed in dialogue in one church or city, they're bouncing all over the world. So there is no 'one view' yet which represents even the majority of EC. To those wanting to critique, that is frustrating and probably seems underhand or suspicious. To those who would align themselves with the EC it simply reflects the fact that they haven't come across any single person's books or ideas which they agree with 100%, so they take the bits they like from McLaren, Sweet, Grenz, Nouwen, and build something for themselves. When I say you can't judge me by what McLaren says, it isn't because I'm trying to be difficult, it is because I don't agree with everything he says. Ditto any number of websites you could point to, such as the emergent-us site. They have some good stuff, and some stuff I don't agree with.
Secondly, EC thinking varies greatly geographically. from what I've observed, in the US it is very retro / coffee and candles; in the UK, very reflective / alt worship; in Australia (where I am) it is very mission focused - living lives where we are in mission 24/7. And again, these are generalisations and you can find exceptions to each of these.
So when I asked you to name a book, I wasn't trying to pull a shifty and try and trap you into only dealing with an outdated medium - I was trying to move the debate beyond some of the extreme positions which can be more easily published online without anyone knowing how "mainstream" (in the EC context) or how well supported that view is. I was trying to move towards discussing something which has some measure of robustness in terms of its distribution - beyond a website with half a dozen fans, through to a book that is available across several continents. Because if you want to try and talk about the EC as a whole then I guess you need to try and talk about stuff that is common to the whole EC - which is why I went for large distribution books.
Is that avoidance? My sister lives in the Philippines - does that mean she's avoiding family reunions? The world has changed, and the EC's diversity and fluid nature reflects that. But in the absence of a uniting figure like Calvin with a big fat book that says "this is it", people are left to define it as best they can, and not everyone will agree. So if you want to critique EC, be aware that at best you'll be critiquing a caricature, which may or may not relfect the people who read your critique.
Ross, let's back up a bit because I think what I said before was not understood. I am not saying everyone in ec defines the exclusivity of Christ like I mentioned. What I am really asking for is that the "leaders" who put their name on the statement to define what they mean by the statements. Otherwise, because of many conversations and things said by ecers, I don't trust the statement. I think some people, like Andrew Jones, would define it historically, but I don't trust that McLaren would and perhaps some of the others. So if I am wrong, let them put my and many other's concerns to rest by simply explaining what their statements include and exclude (i.e., what they mean and what they don't mean and the degree of importance they place on the doctrine for one's salvation and claim to be a Christian). I don't trust creeds and frankly, because of all of the redefining of everything that goes on, no one should.
ok, you're right. I didn't understand what you were saying.
Ross & Marc (and littlec too):
I'm not sure if creeds should go the way of the buffalo, but I hear where littlec's coming from. Saying "I believe in Jesus as saviour" is something that, unfortunately, many people take and twist in various directions (mormons were mentioned earlier, and that may be a good example). And while I'm not sure if I share his concerns re: McLaren - having read all his books and been to his website many times I have heard him expound upon his beliefs - I do think that they could have been more explicit with their meanings. I think their Response was well-written and done so with the best of intentions, but it was an unfortunate oversight considering how closely their actions are being scrutinized.
Dan-D from Canada
LittleC Quote:I know you believe that someone can be saved apart from the Gospel, since you believe that people can worship God through all sorts of things. Would you like a reference on that?
No thanks we have done that conversation.
Amen and amen!
I've visited one of these EC churches in Santa Cruz, CA called Vintage Faith where the pastor Dan Kimball is the pastor.
So far I've read a handful of your blog entries, and what you say is right on the money.
The EC "movement, that is not a movement, but a conversation" does attempt a form of existentialism to attract people to God. As sincere and good these intentions may be, they are as you point out in violation to biblical doctrine and truth.
John 4, sets the pattern for true worship that is comprised of SPIRIT and TRUTH. Many of the reformers identified true worship as defined in this chapter of John's Gospel as the regulative principle for worship.
That principle in general staes that "if scripture doesn't command it, it's forbidden." Apply that to worship it would be that God defines worship and any attempt of worship that violates His definition is not worship.
Ever since I've visited that church, read Dan Kimball's commentary on his website, about his book, this is clearly not a conversation but a movement. One that unfortunately does not submit itself to the authority of scripture.
Carla, I've enjoyed visiting your site and keep up the great work! To God be the glory.
Patrick Quote'That principle in general staes that "if scripture doesn't command it, it's forbidden." Apply that to worship it would be that God defines worship and any attempt of worship that violates His definition is not worship"quote end
So what did the early church do when there was no bible?
Marc:
The Bereans in Acts went home and compared the apostles' teaching to scripture. What do you mean: "no bible"?
There is good evidence that the letters of Paul had fairly wide distribution in the early church. So, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what was going on in the early church.
That may br true - but does one letter give the whole picture. The bible did not exist until the 2nd or 3rd century. YOu had many writing some of which made there way into the current bible, some which didn't and then some that did initially and then were removed...can remove the word of God?
marc,
The early church had the gospels and letters between AD 45 and 100. They also had the bible widely distributed by 150AD. They also had the apostles making the rounds, as well as the Christians under their direction to keep the true gospel pure from the false teachers who immediately came in with different doctrine. Ultimately, of course, the will of God was for us to have revelation of Him and so He simply made it happen Interesting, I just learned that by AD 200, the bible was translated into seven languages.
Patrick, there are many who would say that the regulatory principle is a creation of humans, not something found in scripture. And let's be honest - if THAT's where you're getting it from, well, it couldn't be farther from what that passage is talking about.
Kerri. I'd love to where you got the info from...mine is from a rather old book and I know that thought about the history of the bible has changed in the last few years. Have you got a link?
No link. Just my homeschool materials for my fourth grader...
I'm learning all the stuff I never learned the first time around
I collect stuff from all over.
Some great reference guides can be ordered from www.rose-publishing.com
Thanks i'll check that out.
I do not know if I am EC or not. I find that "church" as I have seen and experienced it spends far to much time saying "do as I say" and not enough energy walking as Jesus instructed or as scripture says " you will hear a voice behind you saying this is the way walk in it when you turn to the left or to the right." The loudest voices I hear are saying you are dieing and going to hell if you do not do everything as I believe. You can go into every major denomination today and find things they do that are in direct conflict with what scripture teaches yet we are defending them as though they are absolutely right. I question much of what I see in church and none of what I read in Scripture so if that makes me a heretic as I see on this site then so be it.
Wow.
All these comments, and STILL no-one (including Carla) will explain, point by point, why each of the statements from Emergent doesn't line up with Scripture, and which specific Scriptures would contradict what Emergent has written.
I can only conclude that Emergent's statement is both orthodox and acceptable, otherwise surely by now somebody here could have provided Scripture to refute each point of their statement.
c10785 6c4c3b0ddf
Yeh, I am impressed. How do you find the time to do all this. You must be working all night. home mortgage refinancing
Commenting by HaloScan
