Emergent Church: please define

[Dale Cozby]

Ok, so we have a new buzz word flying around. Seems like every couple of years or so we add a new spin on what the church "is"

So perhaps some of the adherents to the "emerging church" could explain exactly what it is to us "old schoolers" that are being dropped overboard and left in the wake.

I pulled this from wikipedia, that always bubbling fountain of knowledge:

"Their(emergents) reliance on open dialogue rather than the dogmatic proclamation found in historic Christianity leads emergents to a diversity of beliefs, standards, and interpretations of Scripture within the movement as well as to an acceptance of diversity itself."

Maybe I missed something, but that sounds like plurality wrapped up in a nice package.

I thought the Church was about UNITY NOT DIVERSITY.
About Obedience to Christ, NOT acceptance of Sin.

This sounds like a slippery slope to me and I am not going there.

Also they called proclaimation of historic Christianity dogmatic.

Dogmatic: characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts.
I didn't know historical Christianity were just strong opinions. I thought they were based on Biblical text.

I am afraid this new idea(heresy) is another way to embrace relativism and plurality. Oh, and for those who would ask if this is a bad thing the answer is a resounding YES. Of course this is just my opinion based on my reading of the Bible and the Church Fathers, so in the pluralistic world that is 1 vote.

So until an Emergent can "converse" thier opinion to me in a convincing way, I will believe this is a door to pluralism.

[Jim Franklin]

"Emergent" from what begs the question, what is being left behind that is so unworthy? Are we to accept the premise that every new buzz word describing some variance from "the old, old story," has to be accepted as the only way to draw closer to God or is this just another nickname for what used to be called, "modernism?" I am in support of Dale's query.

[Jerry Frank]

I am afraid this new idea(heresy) is another way to embrace relativism and plurality.


When I first read McLaren's first book some 5 years or so ago, I saw the danger of relativism / humanism on the horizon. We seem to recognize it more now as the movement goes beyond just asking questions (as the book does) to developing a theology around it.

I am still reluctant to use the term, heresy though some of it's concepts might be considered as such. From your quote, "Their reliance on open dialogue rather than the dogmatic proclamation found in historic Christianity leads emergents to a diversity of beliefs, standards, and interpretations of Scripture . . ."

This diversity could be as broad as the diversity that occurs within denominational Christendom. To me this diversity means that some people within orthodox Christianity might adapt or adopt certain so-called emergent ideas or practices without buying into the heretical parts of it. Some care therefore needs to be taken in labeling all participants in the emergent movement as heretical.


Jerry

[Dale Cozby]

from Websters
emergent:
1 a: arising unexpectedly b: calling for prompt action : urgent <emergent danger>
2 a: rising out of or as if out of a fluid <emergent coastal islands> b: rooted in shallow water and having most of its vegetative growth above water <an emergent plant>
3: arising as a natural or logical consequence
4: newly formed or prominent <emergent nations

I am wondering if they see themselves as:
"rising above" the rest of the church
"calling for action"
"The new and improved Church"
"The Church Evolved"
The Church using the lowest common denominator of what God and faith is.

Come on somebody that is an "emergent" jump in here and help out.

[Hans Deventer]

Dogmatic: characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts.
I didn't know historical Christianity were just strong opinions. I thought they were based on Biblical text.

Yes, that is a good description of the modern mindset.

I am afraid this new idea(heresy) is another way to embrace relativism and plurality. Oh, and for those who would ask if this is a bad thing the answer is a resounding YES. Of course this is just my opinion based on my reading of the Bible and the Church Fathers, so in the pluralistic world that is 1 vote.

So until an Emergent can "converse" thier opinion to me in a convincing way, I will believe this is a door to pluralism.

They will never be able to. Again, it is a mindset. The very idea that it would be an opinion that need to be "conversed" to you is not post modern but modern. We're not voting either.
It's like trying to explain that baseball is better than golf. There is no better. It's a different game with different rules.

The sheer fact that people are changing towards post modernism is not something to be resisted. In fact, it cannot. It is to be taken for granted unless one is willing to preach to an ever diminishing crowd. Though of course, there may always be some moderns around, as there probably are still those with a medieval mindset.

[Hans Deventer]

Some care therefore needs to be taken in labeling all participants in the emergent movement as heretical.

Jerry, from a modern point of view, the very idea of a post modern theology is a heresy. All of it. And the moderns will be very concerned and not at all careful in labeling it as heretical. From their mindset, rightfully so.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Disclaimer: This is an oversimplification....

Whether we like it or not, whether good or bad, there is a whole new culture emerging. For lack of a better term we call it "postmodern."

The Emergent Church is simply the church that is responding to this emerging culture. That doesn't mean it accepts and endorses all postmodern assumptions and philosophies. It just means they try to understand and connect with this emerging culture (without compromising on essentials).

One example: Postmoderns are more likely to be concerned with social or corporate sin than with personal sin. For instance, a "modern" person would be all up in arms about a man having an affair with the neighbor lady while ignoring the corporate sex-discriminatory culture that this neighbor lady works in. The postmodern person would be more likely to fight the corporate sex discrimination while having the affair. An emergent church strategy might be to join the fight against sex discrimination in the work place then use that common ground to open dialog about personal responsibility rather than just railing on the affair.

Don't think of the Emergent Church as the enemy. Think of it as a missionary church to the emerging culture.

Wilson

[Jerry Frank]

The Emergent Church is simply the church that is responding to this emerging culture. That doesn't mean it accepts and endorses all postmodern assumptions and philosophies. It just means they try to understand and connect with this emerging culture (without compromising on essentials).



Emphasis in quote is mine.

Wilson,

This is what I mean when I suggest that there seem to be many varieties and forms of being "emergent". You seem to imply that the emergent church is different because of the way in which it relates to culture. That is true. I also believe, in the reading that I have done, that it is also developing a theology that may, in parts be heretical. For example, in the originally referenced Wiki article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church

you can find this comment, "Many of these critics seem especially concerned about unorthodox views in the emerging church movement on doctrines such as blood atonement, salvation by faith, hell, and the sovereignty of God (Carson, 157-187)."

IF it is true that many in the emerging church are following such theological deviation from orthodoxy, is it still unfair to be concerned about at least some components of their teaching?


Jerry

[Brad Mercer]

Ok, so we have a new buzz word flying around. Seems like every couple of years or so we add a new spin on what the church "is"
This sounds like a slippery slope to me and I am not going there.

I am afraid this new idea(heresy) is another way to embrace relativism and plurality. Oh, and for those who would ask if this is a bad thing the answer is a resounding YES.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, to see if anyone who considers himself sympathetic to what you've already belittled as a fad and attacked as a heresy has accepted your request for more information, but it would be hard to think why they would.

Both you and Jim Franklin have pretty clearly already judged and dismissed them. If you just want to attack something with which you pronounce yourself unfamiliar, you could have just dropped the request for an adherent to explain it to you more fully. If you really wanted to learn or understand more about it, you might have saved the belittling and attack until after someone had been gracious enough to give you what you wanted.

I think, even if someone is a heretic or a pagan, that it's possible to listen for a while first, before pronouncing our judgments. That might give us a chance to discover that, although we still see the viewpoint as a heresy, we actually like the heretic and are glad we've given ourselves a chance to get to know them and become friends with them. The second benefit is that if we gave ourselves a chance to listen humbly and respectfully to someone whose viewpoints are new to us or different from our own, we might discover that, among all their confusion and error, there were little individual gems of insight from which we could ourselves benefit. Tony Campolo said "we have met the enemy and they are partly right."

At any rate we don't, either as individuals or as a church get much chance either to learn or to establish relationships if our initial approach is to say "I think you're a dupe of passing fads or a heretic; prove me wrong." Most people aren't going to feel obligated to accept that challenge and the loss may be ours.

Christianity ought certainly to be more than mere common courtesy but it ought never to be less.

Brad

[Jerry Frank]

Is it possible to be neither modern or post modern? Not fundamentalist nor liberal? What is the dividing line for these labels? I've just been introduced to the term panentheism as opposed to pantheism. Who makes up these labels, anyway?

There is no question that I am living in a post modern world and I am trying to adapt. I like some of the things that the emergent church seems to be doing to adapt. (What they are doing, not necessarily what they are saying.) Yet I remain conservative in my doctrine and theology. I attended a church recently that uses post modern ideas to relate to its community. Their service however did not relate to me. Certainly they are reaching out to the young people that attend. But what is the message they are hearing? Is it really orthodoxy couched in post modern terms or is it heretical?

Does all this that make me modern, or ancient or what? Or I am just getting old and decrying the changes in the church, just as my parents, and their parents did before me?

Just me and my rambling thoughts, concerns and questions. And my apologies to Dale as well. I know you are hoping to hear from some hard core emergents but I also hope to see answers to my questions.

Jerry

[Wilson L. Deaton]

This is what I mean when I suggest that there seem to be many varieties and forms of being "emergent". You seem to imply that the emergent church is different because of the way in which it relates to culture. That is true. I also believe, in the reading that I have done, that it is also developing a theology that may, in parts be heretical. ...

IF it is true that many in the emerging church are following such theological deviation from orthodoxy, is it still unfair to be concerned about at least some components of their teaching?


Heresy is nothing new within Christianity. Naturally, there are strands of thinking within the emergent church that may be considered heretical. The same is true for the "modern" church.

It is absolutely fair to be concerned about "some components" of their teaching, but it is unfair to stereotypically generalize the emergent church as being a heretical movement.

Meanwhile, it's also fair that we be concerned about some of the modern church teachings we're so accustomed to.

For example, the postmodern church is criticized for its connection with the pluralism of postmodern society. But at the same time we wink at the way the "modern" church has bought into western modernity's culture of individualism, nationalism, and capitalism (to name three).

Wilson

[David Pettigrew]

As someone coming to the emergent table very late, here is my best shot at a "definition":

Communal vs commuter - emergents are interested in living life together on a daily basis. Emergent congregations can often live w/in five minutes of each other and their central meeting place. They are not interested in building a church in the suburbs in order to escape urban squallor, and driving twenty minutes to get there once a week.

Ancient vs. Modern - They hold to the ancient practices of the Church (the seasons of the church year, the lectionary, meditative prayer, etc.) This spills into worship and devotional life.

Correct practice vs. correct doctrine - It's more important to emergents to do good than to be right. Social justice, racism, and environmental issues are of concern over Wesleyanism vs Calvinism, atonement theories, and eschatological issues. This is not to say that theology is unimportant to them - most of them are far more theologically literate than the average evangelical pastor.

Image vs knowlege - Living, loving, and seeing the way the Jesus lives, loves, and sees is more important than apologetic knowledge of Him. In other words, showing non-Christians the love of Christ is better than arguing with them.

This is by no means a comprehensive definition, and I am by no means an authority on this subject.

If this movement is heretical, then the Church of the Nazarene is in trouble. At least one of our generals has embraced it. It was a major theme of our recent evangelism conference.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Is it possible to be neither modern or post modern? Not fundamentalist nor liberal?

Ironically, the standard "modern" answer would probably be, "No, you must be pigeonholed into one or the other." Postmoderns would likely say, "Sure, be fluid in your thinking and don't be boxed in by categories."

Certainly they are reaching out to the young people that attend. But what is the message they are hearing? Is it really orthodoxy couched in post modern terms or is it heretical?

This should not be an "emergent church" question, but a question about that particular service at that particular local church.

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

I wonder if, from a modern point of view, the church has ever come to terms with the Biblical notion that the truth is not a teaching, a dogma, a confession even, but a Person.

[Marsha Lynn]

For example, in the originally referenced Wiki article at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church

you can find this comment, "Many of these critics seem especially concerned about unorthodox views in the emerging church movement on doctrines such as blood atonement, salvation by faith, hell, and the sovereignty of God (Carson, 157-187)."

Uhmm.... Could it be that maybe as Wesleyans, whether modern or postmodern, we're already in trouble with Carson? I don't know where he's coming from, but I have observed that what is orthodox to us in some of these areas is heresy to those into extreme Calvinism. On beyond that, I've seen Nazarene theologians not associated with postmodernity or the emergent movement accused of heresy for scripture-based views on topics such as atonement.

You certainly don't have to join the emergent church or dismiss the clear teachings of scripture to earn the label of heretic.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

You certainly don't have to join the emergent church or dismiss the clear teachings of scripture to earn the label of heretic.


Now that is a word of truth! One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.

Interestingly enough, after having written this down, I thought that this statement in itself was already a post modern statement, until I realized it was also true in the days of the Reformation and before.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Now that is a word of truth! One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.

I had a professor tell us that "orthodoxy" was a fancy theological term for, "the majority view."

My daughter has had a poster on her wall for years that simply reads, "The majority is not always right." Her usage was in the context of, "not conforming to the world," but I see other applications...

Wilson

[Donna Beukelman]

One resource to help understand the emergent church is http://www.ginkworld.net

Here is an article written by John O'Keefe. http://www.ginkworld.net/articles/theology/a-new-wholiness.html

Donna Beukelman
Phoenix, AZ

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

So far, it seems that I gained a little more understanding from the small bits that Hans has posted.
Are we speaking of the types of churches that are coming out today, that do not go under a denominaltional name, but try to reach people of all Christian believes? When a person begins attending, they may realize the part that is denominational at times, but it is not the main theme that is expressed.
Am I just dense?

[Kim Hersey]

Hey all...

I'm late to the topic at hand... life is just a bit busy these days (working as a part-time youth pastor and a full-time long term substitute h.s. teacher... you can do that math!:basic04 ) Too busy, in fact, to be stereotypically labelled as heretical and a few other great things.

Still, I've had a conversation or two with Jim before, and know that there's a great heart behind strong posts, so ... if Dale (and others) are really interested in an honest, gentle, open-minded conversation, I'll converse. If not, I've got better things to do with my time than have an online debate....

I'm a 30-something, born too early to be "post-modern" in my educational process, and too late to be "modern" in my thinking. I describe myself (including to those on the committee doing my ordination interview) as a native post-modern who has learned to speak a second language of "modernity".

What does that mean? It means, among other things, that I think differently than generations before me. I don't first think in a linear, sequential way... it's more a web of connected ideas, and one will lead to four or five others, which branch out to others, some of which return to the primary thought, and... (imagine web page design as a thinking pattern.) My "modern" friends tell me this is illogical thinking. My schools taught me "logic", but they haven't changed my primary patterns.

What else? It means that I value DIVERSITY within UNITY. All too often, UNITY has been a code word for UNIFORMITY... anda my generation and those who follow me are not willing to settle for that.

What else? It means that I'm primarily concerned with changing the sinful systems that keep people in bondage (read: social justice issues, poverty, human rights, worldwide issues, racism, unfair employment practices, et. al.) rather than primarily focusing on personal sins (read: gossip, stealing, lying). Not to say that I think personal sin is un-important, just that I (and others) think that if you change the system that keeps people in poverty, you might help end petty theft, instead of telling a lone hungry person not to steal food.

What about with regard to the "emergent church"? Can I employ a "I know someone who..." statement, to protect the innocent/guilty (depending on what your viewpoint is). I have more than one friend who is sick and tired of "going" to church, sitting in a pew, having their head filled with solid biblical knowledge, raising their children in Sunday School, ....

and discovering that it doesn't make a lick of difference in their neighborhoods. I have friends who INTENTIONALLY "skip" church in order to have time to BE the church... instead of warming a pew, they gather with 8 or 10 people and go clean an elderly neighbor's yard up. I have friends who want to LIVE the Christian life together, not just gather to listen to a talking head....

See, we "postmoderns" learn primarily by doing and by experience. You can't just tell us how to live the Christian life... show us. Involve us... walk with us and allow us to walk with you....

Oh yeah, and don't waste our time with committee meetings, and elected positions, and some big deal about lines of authority... don't ask us to support a system (the institutional church, not the organism of "church") that we percieve as a product of the 1950's... an organization that has long since passed by effectiveness....

My hunch is that the last paragraph is where we "postmoderns" really get ourselves in trouble. The Builders gave their lives to establish what their parents worked for, the boomers tweaked it to suit their tastes... and it's pretty tough to "let go" of stuff you've worked that hard for. It isn't that we think the organization is "bad" just that it's not effective any more, so why not do something different?

now, you have to figure out how much is honest... how much is tongue in cheek, and how much is "wrong."... :basic05 But I typed it, so I can take whatever comes my way for it.

[Jim Franklin]

Just trying to figure out what you youngsters are posting about so that I can better understand Whassup.

[Jerry Frank]

1. It means, among other things, that I think differently than generations before me. I don't first think in a linear, sequential way... it's more a web of connected ideas, and one will lead to four or five others, which branch out to others, . . . . .

2. What else? It means that I value DIVERSITY within UNITY. All too often, UNITY has been a code word for UNIFORMITY... anda my generation and those who follow me are not willing to settle for that.

3. Oh yeah, and don't waste our time with committee meetings, and elected positions, and some big deal about lines of authority... don't ask us to support a system (the institutional church, not the organism of "church") that we percieve as a product of the 1950's... an organization that has long since passed by effectiveness....

My hunch is that the last paragraph is where we "postmoderns" really get ourselves in trouble. The Builders gave their lives to establish what their parents worked for, the boomers tweaked it to suit their tastes... and it's pretty tough to "let go" of stuff you've worked that hard for. It isn't that we think the organization is "bad" just that it's not effective any more, so why not do something different?




1. Aha! My boss recently told me that I was a linear thinker which causes some problems for me in certain aspects of my job. I won't get fired for it but it helps to recognize it. I suppose that also extends to my concerns regarding the emergent church.

2. A question regarding this comment. It concerns me more than any of your other statements. Is there a limit to your value of diversity? It is one of the features of McLaren's books that caught my attention and which I fear may yield to humanism. Not all aspects of humanistic thought are bad but if it replaces Christian thought, we are in trouble.

3. I did pose the following question in a previous post on the topic, "Or I am just getting old and decrying the changes in the church, just as my parents, and their parents did before me?" Certainly I recognize this problem within myself. Item 2 is a larger issue for me than this one but it still raises a question. While I recognize the problems with committees and systems that do nothing, I must ask what it is that replaces authority? Usually it is anarchy in some form or another. What is it that replaces the existing system?

So, two questions which I hope you consider to be discussion generators, not attacks on your ideas.


Jerry

[Jerry Frank]

Just to clarify, my use of the term orthodoxy does imply a majority view but only in context of what has been basic Christian teaching for the last 2000 years as codified in particular by the Creeds. There is lots of room for diversity and disagreement within that view.


Jerry

[Kim Hersey]

I'm always willing to have a conversation :basic05 It's one of my favorite things about being "postmodern"... I "get" Brian MacLaren's statement, "We need to stop counting conversions and start counting conversations."

So, you wrote:
1. Aha! My boss recently told me that I was a linear thinker which causes some problems for me in certain aspects of my job. I won't get fired for it but it helps to recognize it. I suppose that also extends to my concerns regarding the emergent church.

2. A question regarding this comment. It concerns me more than any of your other statements. Is there a limit to your value of diversity? It is one of the features of McLaren's books that caught my attention and which I fear may yield to humanism. Not all aspects of humanistic thought are bad but if it replaces Christian thought, we are in trouble.

3. I did pose the following question in a previous post on the topic, "Or I am just getting old and decrying the changes in the church, just as my parents, and their parents did before me?" Certainly I recognize this problem within myself. Item 2 is a larger issue for me than this one but it still raises a question. While I recognize the problems with committees and systems that do nothing, I must ask what it is that replaces authority? Usually it is anarchy in some form or another. What is it that replaces the existing system?

So, two questions which I hope you consider to be discussion generators, not attacks on your ideas.


Jerry
1) That difference of thinking patterns is at the heart of a lot of mis-communication and mis-understanding currently happening both inside and outside the church, methinks. The biggest danger *inside* the church is that it even affects how people approach Scripture, and that can be a hotbed of, um, less than deep Christian love... (you'll just have to trust me on that one; I won't tell the war stories online... they are too close to home.)

2) Fair enough question about diversity. I'm not sure I'm safely summarizing for all postmodern types anymore... but personally, yes, there's a limit to my value of diversity. It's precisely equivalent to the definition of humanity. I don't value diverse puppy dogs or mutant sunflowers in the same way that I value the diversity of people on our planet. I'm not sure that's what you meant, when you asked... but I can't think of any other "limits" I would have. Jesus didn't separate people out as worthy of love and value or not worthy of love and value... and His harshest judgments were always for the religious-types who claimed to know better, not for the "wicked people of the world." I want to walk in those footsteps with everything I've got.

3) I'm not sure I know what "it" is (but I'm sure you can't find "it" on e-bay, no matter what the advertisements say!)... that replaces authority [of existing structures... is that a fair understanding of your question?]... but it's much more "ok" for me in my post-modern mind to live with that than it is for someone who by their very modern nature has to organize, plan, categorize and put into a structure every piece of life.

So, to make up an example (Thanks, Pete!), the Widget Committee is no longer effective... I don't need to have a replacement for the widget committee, a new plan for doing something besides making widgets, or new ideas for the widget committee to try. Let the widget committee die with dignity, for crying out loud, but let it die already. It's completely okay with me that there just isn't a widget committee anymore. I don't see that resulting in anarchy... just that there's no longer a widget committee. If you want to talk about a real example, pick one and we can see where it goes. (That's another thing about us postmodern-types; we do tend to be de-constructionists.)

Authority is an interesting topic in itself... You would be completely right if you say "postmoderns don't respect positions of authority". We tend to respect people who live with integrity, and who lead by influence and example. Dictators and hard-line, top-down administrators don't set well with us... or get much out of us... I'm not sure that's any different than in generations past, except that we are less willing to tow the "party line" and more likely to declare that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Thanks again for the chance to think through my own thinking some more... what new questions does that raise, and how badly did I misunderstand what you already asked?

Grace, and peace,
Kim

[Jerry Frank]

Thanks, Kim. Now for some further in depth questions.

1. I am going to use "modern" terms here but how will you minister to linear thinking people with the Gospel message? It seems to me that linear thinking is a personality characteristic that does not change too easily. Can you get them to understand you? Or will you only be able to relate to those who are like minded? Feel free to change the terms to what you, as a post-modern would use.

2. I think you are defining diversity a little differently than I am - or at least we are applying it differently. Again, a modern phrase that describes how I attempt to live (with great difficulty) is, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Let's try this example. We know from scripture how Jesus dealt with the religionists of the day. We also know that He cast out demons from ordinary folk. And we know that He and his followers warned against following false prophets. How would Jesus have treated the Mormon who comes to His door? Certainly we know ultimately that He would have loved this person. Would He have tried to convince the person that his theology was wrong? Would He have said, "Come on in. Join the party!"? How would He deal with this person who would claim that he was going to become a god? (Corallary: How would He have reacted towards Matthew, the tax collector, if he had not responded positively to Jesus' message?) How would you deal with this example of diversity? It is not a question, for me, of who is worthy of love and value. Every human being is. But how do we relate well to that person when YOUR values are so much different? If I am to reflect emergent ideas, do I fully embrace the values of my son's homosexuality (read as diversity) even though they are in such conflict with mine? Lots of questions but I hope they point to a common answer.

3. I am OK with someone being a deconstructionist but it seems to me that if you take something away you are left with - nothing. UNLESS, of course, you build something new. If you don't replace it with something new of quality, you will find the space taken by something which someone else builds. And that might be worse than the Widget Committee. We all want to, or should want to, imitate Christ in the way we live. We work at that as individuals but at some point we also need to do it in community. Community requires agreement, committment, leadership, and, eventually, some form of authority. Perhaps that community doesn't need the Widget Committee but it needs some kind of process in order to function. Certainly I agree that we should remove authority or authoritative systems that do not work but what are they to be replaced with? It is nothingness that I contend would result in anarchy. What will you put in place of authority that doesn't appear to be working?

I am enjoying this discussion as a preliminary to my lunch tomorrow with someone who indicated that it was "sad" that I do not understand emergents. Hopefully I will have eliminated some of that misunderstanding through these discussions.


Jerry

[Kim Hersey]

Jerry,

Thanks for continuing the conversation. Sorry I didn't get back to naznet in time to help you more. (As it is, I'm avoiding writing a paper for correspondence work... this is more fun!!)

I'm going to take the liberty of shortening your post a bit... haven't figured out the details of this quote feature yet... please forgive me and correct me if I delete something important to the ideas... I'm also going to separate the questions into their own posts... cuz there's a mouthful here :basic05

1. I am going to use "modern" terms here but how will you minister to linear thinking people with the Gospel message? Can you get them to understand you? Or will you only be able to relate to those who are like minded?
Jerry

My cynical side may kick in too much here... as I say, "There are already PLENTY of churches who minister to linear thinkers." There are PLENTY of resources written from outlines, in linear formats. There are plenty of pastors who always/usually use an ABC, 123 format to their sermons, and plenty who preach "verse-by-verse" in a linear way. So, on one hand, it's not a critical question.
On the other hand, the blessing of not being so either/or about life is that I can simply include the modern thinker in my pile of "diversity"... :basic05 not better, not worse, than someone else, just different. As such, and my self-proclaimed "bilingualness" about this thing is that usually, yes, I can get linear thinkers to understand me.

What may be at the heart of your question, I'm not sure, is more of a "can you get linear thinkers to agree with you?" And that answer, honestly, is "probably not." I'm completely okay with "agreeing to disagree" without having to have an answer to "who is right" about every issue. I can agree to disagree with social conservatives, be a social liberal, and totally believe that the "right" option is probably not where either one of those positions stand. Your diversity questions may strike at the heart of agree to disagree, but that's another post.


Kim

[Kim Hersey]

2. I think you are defining diversity a little differently than I am - or at least we are applying it differently. Again, a modern phrase that describes how I attempt to live (with great difficulty) is, "Hate the sin, love the sinner." Let's try this example. We know from scripture how Jesus dealt with the religionists of the day. We also know that He cast out demons from ordinary folk. And we know that He and his followers warned against following false prophets. How would Jesus have treated the Mormon who comes to His door? Certainly we know ultimately that He would have loved this person. Would He have tried to convince the person that his theology was wrong? Would He have said, "Come on in. Join the party!"? How would He deal with this person who would claim that he was going to become a god? (Corallary: How would He have reacted towards Matthew, the tax collector, if he had not responded positively to Jesus' message?) How would you deal with this example of diversity? It is not a question, for me, of who is worthy of love and value. Every human being is. But how do we relate well to that person when YOUR values are so much different? If I am to reflect emergent ideas, do I fully embrace the values of my son's homosexuality (read as diversity) even though they are in such conflict with mine? Lots of questions but I hope they point to a common answer.

Jerry

Oh boy...that's about 15 trick questions in one post :basic03 Easy summary answer... I TOTALLY agree with "hate the sin, love the sinner"...
That's at the heart of why I value diversity so much. I'm honestly CALLED to love peopleas I love God. It's one of two great commandments. It's the summary (and fulfillment of) the Law.

To keep it short(er), ... not avoiding the specific questions... but a slightly different angle... I think you expressed the struggle well "...with great difficulty". I think most churches struggle with living by that statement.

There are two sides of that statement on which to err... One can err by not hating sin enough, or one can err by not loving the sinner enough.

My hunch is that the modern church/mindset was very clear about what was sin and what was not (just look at our special rules, er, code of Christian conduct for some examples). The modern church/mindset was not nearly so clear about what it meant to love the sinner. Homosexuals are one group of people who might be quick to point out the Christian church's weakness in that area... as might current drug users, sexual offenders, the poor because they were foolish with their money, the undocumented immigrants...

My hunch is that the emergent/post-modern/pick your label church in the 21st century will NOT fail to love people. She might err on the side of not being clear enough about what sin is (that remains to be seen, but if it's a pendulum swing and not a quantum change, that's the linear, logical outcome! :basic05 see, I can be linear!)

Or it might be that the church is re-framing (changing paradigm? Pick another word if you'd like) what "sin" is... and placing it where it started (IMHO), in the context of violating relationship. For some further reading, consider Dr. Grider's theology as it stands against Dr. Wynkoop or Dr. Lodahl's (all Nazarenes).

Anyway, personally... I'd rather have Jesus not happy with me because I loved too much than because I was too judgmental about other people's stuff!

Kim :basic01

[Kim Hersey]

3. I am OK with someone being a deconstructionist but it seems to me that if you take something away you are left with - nothing. UNLESS, of course, you build something new. If you don't replace it with something new of quality, you will find the space taken by something which someone else builds. And that might be worse than the Widget Committee. We all want to, or should want to, imitate Christ in the way we live. We work at that as individuals but at some point we also need to do it in community. Community requires agreement, committment, leadership, and, eventually, some form of authority. Perhaps that community doesn't need the Widget Committee but it needs some kind of process in order to function. Certainly I agree that we should remove authority or authoritative systems that do not work but what are they to be replaced with? It is nothingness that I contend would result in anarchy. What will you put in place of authority that doesn't appear to be working?

Jerry

Another interesting writer, Dr. Leonard Sweet, put out a book quite some time ago, now, called "Aqua Church." It has been perfect for me as a picture of understanding. For years, and years, the modern world has built on "solid ground." We've used as language of metaphor, things like "rock solid, build on the rock, solid truth,..." and we've had as images of things trustworthy "fortress, castle, monuments (think Washington DC), etc."
The postmodern world is more like the image of a giant oceanm\, or water... the metaphors are "liquid, waves, momentum, change, current, flow" .

I think that metaphorical world-view shift may be at the heart of this question. Moderns like "built to last", postmoderns are fond of "disposable". Moderns like systems and structure, postmoderns like networks and associations that are temporary and "loose". We work well in teams... but on teams that come together around a common purpose or project and then are done and disbanded, not teams that are "trustees" and "stewards" because that's how the Manual says to do it.

At the center of it all may be something that will lose its edge as the postmodern church "comes of age"... I hope not... a willingness to risk everything. I'm completely willing to get rid of the widget committee without knowing what will take its space... I'm willing to chance that it might be worse, because it might also be BETTER... and what we've got isn't so great.

Is that too much of a stretch of your original question? More than the others, I'm afraid I've missed your heart/intent on this one...

Grace, and peace,

Kim

[Dale Cozby]

I wish I had time to respond to all these great posts, but I found this little gem in a book I read many years ago and had to share here.

I have somehow been lumped into the "Moderns" here. Here is what I thought about modernism and as a result I have never grouped myself with them.

This was written and published by Nazarene Publishing House in 1925. I will let you guess what book for now.

"Modernism, liberalism, higher criticism, modern biblical criticism, "modern scholarship" - whatever we may desire to call it- is the blighting spawn of damnation, freighted with the destroying power of doom, hatched in hell's seed plot of ruin, incubated in the pit. Its father is the devil, who first doubted God's word in the Garden of Eden.....after declaring thier belief in the fundamentals of our faith they begin to lead thier followers away from true Christianity."

The book goes on to accuse Modernists of stripping away the dynamic living Word from the Bible and reducing it to a book to be critically examined and dismissed bit by bit, essentially removing the divine inspiration from the Bible.
It goes on to condemn the Modernists of offering human conforts instead of supernatural healing for the sin sick soul. According to the writer modernists are too concerned about the temporal needs of man and not enough about the eternal needs of men. He says modernist meetings are too long on talk about the latest topic and too light on prayer.

I quote:
"The heartless, lightless, weak, emaciated social gospel is unable to...lift the soul from the sink of iniquity,...to take the load of guilt from the heart of a broken-souled Magdalene. It requires a Gospel of salvation to touch the human heart. Soups and sandwiches never ease the conscience. Civic righeousness is powerless to remove the ..sin that ruins the life....The cross with its bleeding Savior hanging thereon stands out as the one way of redemption from the power of sin."

So by age I am a raised in modernist thought. But I am convinced it is a personal relationship with the Creator God that matters, not your list of sins or your defense of the gospel through logic and reason. If emergents seek that same relationship then we can meet on common ground and discuss the "how to" of strengthening that relationship.

P.S. This is the 4th post I have written here tonight. But treh first to be posted. The first three got deleted by me as i thought about it. So thanks for making me think.

[Bruce Carriker]

I recommend the following "primer" on the so-called Emergent Church: A is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church; Sweet, McLaren, and Haselmayer; Zondervan Publishing, 2003.

Here are some excerpts from that book that I found helpful/informative:

"Emergence has two key components:
1. We make it up as we go along.
2. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts."
(p. 108)

"In 'traditional worship' we too often have lyrics that are meaningful, but not very understandable to the uninitiated. In 'contemporary worship' our lyrics are understandable but far less rich in meaning, poetry, texture, and depth. Something that's contemporary and meaningless is not a great improvement over something that's meaningful but not understandable..." (p.78)

"Are you consumers? Are you citizens? Are you Christians?
"If you are the first, your economics revolves around the question, Is this the best deal for me? If you are the second, your economics revolves around the question, Is this best for the nation? If you are the third, your economics revolves around a very different question, Is Christ calling me to do this?" (p.107)

"Postmoderns are finders who are open to new discoveries and new experiences...The facts are not as important as the feelings...
"Whereas moderns were greedy about accumulating money and things, postmoderns are greedy about accumulating experiences and relationship...(Note: Spiritual postmoderns can be equally greedy for pleasant spiritual experiences, which may in fact be a deterrent to authentic disciple making.)" (pp. 120-21)

"What God wants most is a living sacrifice, not praise songs or provocative dramas or PowerPoint sermons." (p.122)

"Give me ambiguity or give me something else." (bumper sticker cited on p. 131)

"It is only the shallow water that maintains clarity; the deeper the water you peer into, the greater the fuzziness." (p. 133)

"Holiness is wholeness. But even more, it is also wholeheartedness." (p. 148)

"Or as they put it in John Wesley's day, aim to be as good a Christian as God can make you.
"The gospel calls us to live a life of holiness - a larger life than we thought possible, a life larger than ordinary life." (pp. 148-49)

(LONG QUOTE COMING NEXT)

"From Muslims the Church can learn about prayer, fasting and almsgiving.
From the Hindus, the Church can learn about meditation and contemplation.
From the Buddhists the Church can learn about detachment from material goods and respect for life.
From Confucianism the Church can learn about filial piety and respect for elders.
From Taoism the Chruch can learn about simplicity and humility.
From animists the Church can learn about reverence and respect for nature and gratitude for harvests.
The Church can learn from the rich symbolism and rites existing in their diversity of worship." (quoted on p.160, from 'Look at it Our Way: Asian Bishops Respond to Rome')

(Next excerpt is fairly lengthy)

"Isn't the gospel the true metanarrative?
These questions are best answered with a question: Which version of the gospel?

- The prosperity (name-it-and-claim-it) gospel?
- The so-called full gospel that too often seems to focus more on the relief of Aunt Minnie's sinus problems than on the relief of the poor in our megacities?
- The fundamentalist gospel that restricts grace to those who have said a prescribed prayer or walked a prescribed prayer - two practices that have little biblical basis...
- The Reformed gospel that says that if you're the elect, you're blessed, and if you're not, too bad?
- The mainline gospel that says - actually, no one is quite sure what it says?

No, we'll say, it's not these contorted or distorted versions of the gospel; it's the gospel as WE understand it...
....whoever 'we' is, that 'we' is sure that their version of the gospel is the tru one that should correct all others..." (pp. 194-95)

"Find a hymn or song with the word 'doubt' or 'pain,' 'desire' or 'disappointment.' Sing it in church, and watch your postmodern people almost rise out of their seats, so grateful to acknowledge in public worship the darker realities of their lives...
"This honesty about failure, fakery, doubt, discouragement, desire, and pain trembles on every page of the Bible...
"The emerging culture may identify more with the suffering Jesus than the glorified Jesus...the Jesus who was single...the Jesus who shunned the fast-track...a Jesus who had no place to call home...a Jesus who was accused of choosing the wrong friends...a Jesus who could not get along with the established authorities..." (pp. 196-97)

"What if our groups had one simple mandate: Minister to one another? What if we diverted attention and energy away from formats and studies and structures and homework to this powerfully simple idea: Every Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. I'm going to show up at a living room with a roomful of people who want to minister to one another."

"Religion is what happens with the Spirit has left the building." (Bono, quoted on p. 260)

"Secularism: A hoax perpetrated on unsuspecting students by sociologists and other "modern" academics."



I found this an excellent little book that did a balanced treatement of the "emerging" church, willing to look at both its strengths and weaknesses. Another book in this vein is Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures, Gibbs/Bolger, Baker Academic, 2005.

[Billy Cox]

"Modernism, liberalism, higher criticism, modern biblical criticism, "modern scholarship" - whatever we may desire to call it- is the blighting spawn of damnation, freighted with the destroying power of doom, hatched in hell's seed plot of ruin, incubated in the pit. Its father is the devil, who first doubted God's word in the Garden of Eden.....after declaring thier belief in the fundamentals of our faith they begin to lead thier followers away from true Christianity."


Wow! What a string of verbal vomit. I don't know if someone could say 'modernism is evil' in a more convoluted, melodramatic, over-the-top way.

The Church of the Nazarene was wrong about modernism in 1925 but later embraced it wholeheartedly.

The jury is still out on whether it will be as ignorant about post-modernism.

[Dale Cozby]

We tend to be the bridesmaid following the train trying to keep it straight on most of the trends in churches these days. Oh, some churches may jump in early, but for the most part we hold back a few years.

I may have come off harsh on my judgement of this latest of trends in the original post, but I do that sometimes to create strong enough feelings that people feel compelled to respond.

Afterall, if an idea is worth owning, it should be worth defending when questioned right?:p

[Billy Cox]

We tend to be the bridesmaid following the train trying to keep it straight on most of the trends in churches these days. Oh, some churches may jump in early, but for the most part we hold back a few years.

I may have come off harsh on my judgement of this latest of trends in the original post, but I do that sometimes to create strong enough feelings that people feel compelled to respond.

Afterall, if an idea is worth owning, it should be worth defending when questioned right?:p

It is perhaps inevitable that as the Church attempts to be redemptive in a trend-conscious world, we cannot help being trend-conscious as well.

If someone were so inclined, they could make a case that chasing trends sometimes supplants God as our number one love. :basic03

[Scott Daniels]

Good CT article on the subject:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html

At some level Protestants will always be protesting the loss of vital faith, and Reformers will always be reforming the church.

[Jerry Frank]

Kim,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your view of the emergent church. I too ran into time problems so could not respond promptly. You have responded well to my specific questions so I see no need to belabor those points.

My final expression of concern relates to the broad range of theological and philosophical expression within the emergent movement. I am certainly not at a point where I am prepared to refer to any of the personalities as heretical. But it is important to understand that the movement goes well beyond that of the primary movers and shakers such as McLaren, Bell, and others.

For example, regarding worship:

Here is a description of one, self proclaimed, emergent worship service, "A eucharist based around Marvin Gaye's great soul album 'What's going on?', which is the only soundtrack. The newspapers provide material for prayer as the music cries out to God about politics, war, drugs and ecological crisis - sadly as relevant in 2005 as in 1971." as found at http://smallfire.org/cota_marvingaye.html

Or consider this one http://smallfire.org/echoes_survivalstruggle.html

Or, "Sacred Space Greenbelt 1999 based on Revelation 21: the seven candles and the tree of life. The space is lit only by UV light causing white objects to glow. Around the central altar are seven candles in a wide circle. In between these are seven cushions for people to kneel on when taking communion. Each communicant received bread, then wine, then a white stone. The branches of the Tree of Life were bare, wrapped in silver foil. The congregation wrote prayers on white paper leaves and attached them to the branches to create a glowing white and silver tree." With pictures at http://smallfire.org/holyjoes_gb99.html This certainly caters to New Age philosophy.

Here is an Anglican version of the emergent church - http://www.the-mass.com . Click on the "Meetings" icon and watch for the Tao symbol flashing by in upper right. Click on the "Community" icon and note the phrase, "This is more about US than about God." [emphasis is theirs]. All kinds of disturbing stuff on that site, "There is one flow, one divine energy, one divine word in the sense of one creative energy flowing through all things, all time, all space." And finally this page - http://www.the-mass.com/pakua.html showing the strong eastern religions (not orthodox eastern) influence.

You and others may not classify these examples as truly emergent but they are classifying themselves as such and there certainly is a fit within some parts of emergent thought. And while the worship itself MIGHT not be heretical, the influence of the New Age and eastern religions is clearly to be seen. And it is this which concerns me for the future of the Christian Church.


Jerry

[Kim Hersey]

Jerry,

Disclaimer: I only went to the three smallfire links you posted (and poked around their site a little, but not much more)... not to the other two sites...
I certainly don't discount their own self-labeling as emergent... that's up to them :basic01

A question, though...I wonder if you're confusing "sensory experience" with "New Age" ? From what I saw on the pages (in the pictures)I found nothing that was "new age" about any of those three services, especially in the larger context of the website. I did find some "hands on" and "experiential" worship settings, and some worship styles that some might be uncomfortable with, precisely because it requires engaging with their whole being, not just sitting in a pew and nodding in theological agreement.

I simply don't "get" what's wrong with praying about the social ills of the 21st century because they are the same ills as 1971... or what's wrong with using symbolism, setting, and lighting to help convey a message (that they have linked to Scripture) or create a connection. How is this different with writing prayers and nailing them on a cross, or laying them on an altar, or burning them in a charcoal pit or campfire? How is this different than passing a candle flame around the room at a Christmas "candlelight" service?
I
Except, of course, that it's unfamiliar and uncomfortable? Then let's call it unfamiliar and uncomfortable... but not heretical. The students I serve, and many of my peers, check in through every "active" part of a worship service, and check "out" for the sermon because it's a talking head-- except they manage to listen to the illustrations-- Why? Because they want to "DO" worship, not just sit and listen... that's not new age, just new culture...

Then again, I've had the humbling experience of praying in a labrynth, both a "Christian stations" version (or two) and just an outdoor labrynth path... I've been a part of worship services where we've been invited to paint, or draw, or sculpt as part of our expressions of praise (and doubt, confession, etc.)...

It looks a lot different from most American Nazarene worship services, but then again, so does African dancing :cool:

I'm tired tonight, and may regret posting this strongly tomorrow... so if I delete my post... that's why... it's not you... I'm just trying to learn to be clear and yet gentle online...

Following the footsteps of Jesus, together with you,
Kim

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems that there was an article in the recent Grow magazine about The Insurgent Church.

[Jerry Frank]

Jerry,

Disclaimer: I only went to the three smallfire links you posted (and poked around their site a little, but not much more)... not to the other two sites...
I certainly don't discount their own self-labeling as emergent... that's up to them.

Too late for you to delete now. :) You will have to look at the other sites to catch the progression of my concern - or trust that I am interpreting them correctly. As for the labelling, I just want to make sure that you and others understand that your emergent label can carry a broad range of meaning, as is the case for "fundamentalist", "evangelical" and other church labels.

A question, though...I wonder if you're confusing "sensory experience" with "New Age" ? From what I saw on the pages (in the pictures)I found nothing that was "new age" about any of those three services, especially in the larger context of the website. I did find some "hands on" and "experiential" worship settings, and some worship styles that some might be uncomfortable with, precisely because it requires engaging with their whole being, not just sitting in a pew and nodding in theological agreement.

I agree that I don't understand the need for the kind of sensory experience that has made its way into the modern or post-modern church. Exceptionally loud music, videos that make absolutely no sense, certain kinds of dance and drama, pastors dressed in Star Wars regalia to deliver a message - in a standard worship setting are things that make me very uncomfortable in an experiential way. However, my discomfort with the expressions in the examples I posted goes more towards issues of focus.

Lots of people go to Sedona, AZ for a spiritual high, to meditate, and to pray. But they do not go with any kind of Christian background. Lots of people attend the Universalist Church for spiritual support but pray to a god "as they know him to be". Both locations can offer lots of sensory experience. It seems incomprehensible to me to attend a worship experience, listening only to a Marvin Gaye record, meditating only on newspaper clippings, yet somehow directing my "worship" to the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, as I know Him.

As they state on one of the sites you did not visit, "This is more about US than about God." [emphasis is theirs] This experiential view of worship puts the focus more on us rather than on God, and, in my opinion, that is wrong.


I simply don't "get" what's wrong with praying about the social ills of the 21st century because they are the same ills as 1971... or what's wrong with using symbolism, setting, and lighting to help convey a message (that they have linked to Scripture) or create a connection.

There is nothing wrong with praying about the social ills of the 21st century but how does that constitute worship as implied by the description on the site? The "link" is to Marvin Gaye's music and to the newspaper articles, not to scripture. Perhaps scripture was part of the service. I don't know. But certainly the emphasis was on the secular links to the issue, not scriptural ones. There are all kinds of events that can bring our attention to a variety of societal ills and prayer can be a part of that but that does not consitute corporate worship where the focus should be on God and on Jesus.


<SNIP>
Except, of course, that it's unfamiliar and uncomfortable? Then let's call it unfamiliar and uncomfortable... but not heretical. The students I serve, and many of my peers, check in through every "active" part of a worship service, and check "out" for the sermon because it's a talking head-- except they manage to listen to the illustrations-- Why? Because they want to "DO" worship, not just sit and listen... that's not new age, just new culture...

Where there is smoke, there is fire. The vast majority of drug addicts can point to "harmless" marijauna as their introduction to drug use. Any one such experience may not be harmful in and of itself but I firmly believe that it can and will (maybe not for you personally but for the church in general) lead to a watered down, universalistic form of Christianity or, in extreme cases, non-Christianity.

And for that I point to the sites you did not visit - a site where the Tao symbol and other other eastern religion symbols are given prominence in the worship experience and where the cross cannot be found (at least not on the numerous pages I visited). There are numerous "spiritual" quotations on the site but none that I could see which came from the Bible.

Do I accuse you of being heretical? Of course not. But I am very concerned about the future of the Bride of Christ when it comes to the practices that are occurring. Such practices, I believe, can, have, and will lead to heretical theology.


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

It seems that there was an article in the recent Grow magazine about The Insurgent Church.

Did you intend to use 'insurgent' versus 'emergent'. They have very different meanings.

[Billy Cox]

Nearly 15 years ago in my first year of seminary, I did a magazine article review, some of which has stuck with me. (otherwise I couldn't comment on it, could I?) The article was an introduction to postmodernism and the title was 'Dialog across Differences'.

Postmoderns believe that Christianity does not have a monopoly on all truth. If that is true (and I believe it is), then maybe other faiths have said something about divine transcendence that we can benefit from hearing.

I can understand why this bothers modernist Christians. The modern mindset organizes faiths into silos and if you start digging around in the wrong silo, you might become tainted or worse yet, be assimilated into one of the silos that is going to Hell.

I can also understand that evangelism has been crammed down our throats to the extent that faith-oriented conversation with a non-Christian is pointless unless there is a chance of 'closing the sale.'

One other thing. The whole queston of 'sacred versus secular' is a false distinction in the postmodern mind. Can you point to anything that is not at least indirectly a result of God's creative activity? In the emergent mindset, everywhere we look, we can see and experience God.

[Barbara Moulton]

"To the Christian culture of medieval Europe, none of you today could be considered real Christians. True you might say that you believe in Jesus and that you follow the Bible - but that would sound like nonsense to them if at the same time you denied what to them was essential for any reasonble person to accept: the medieva worldview, which was the context for their faith. That brings me to an important question for you to think about: Is it possible that we as moderns have similiarly intertwined a different but equally contingent worldview with our eternal faith?"
~Brian McLaren: A New Kind of Christian~


One thing that sometimes get missed in these discussions is what I found most helpful when reading McClaren's books.

In all the concern about how the "postmoderns" have been influenced and how the church should respond to their culture, we don't always look at how those of us who would be considered "modern" have been influenced by our culture and what impact this has had on the church.

There are many people my age (47ish) who were raised in the Modern culture yet who struggled with some of the things taught as truth and right practice to us by our modern parents.

McLaren says that to be post modern is to have been changed by the modern era to the degree that one is no longer modern. Certainly I was taught to think and analyze by my modern upbringing. But that thinking and analysis hasn't stopped. I can't simply say "The Bible says it...that's good enough for me." I want to explore why the Bible says it and see what that means to me.

Consequently, if I had to write out a "creed" of the doctrines I felt to be absolute...it would be a far shorter document than one I would have written in my youth.

I guess that makes me somewhat post-modern.

It was helpful for me to understand the cultural mindset that shaped my parents and myself. Things had been presented to me as "truth" when the reality is that it was the truth as perceived by a modern culture.

For example, McLaren talks about the idea of God being in control. He says that the modern mind, because it has dealt with machines and industrial structures and control switches...hears the world "control" and thinks that God's control must be something like that. But the ancient mind had nothing that they could "control" in that way. So...if they thought at all about God being control, it was like God the shepherd. Directing and generally leading but not forcing certain behaviours or events upon His sheep.

That thought resonated with my spirit and I was rather relieved that I could relinquish the struggle of God's control. I could read the same Bible my parents read yet have a different interpreation of God's control.

It fit in with my journey to see God's will for me, not as one absolute path but a broad river...which had a great deal of flexiblity and choice and creative expression in it.

On a purely practical level, I was raised to believe that good Christians went to church every Sunday night and good Christian children went to Sunday School. I guess on some level I figured it must be in the Bible somewhere
:-)

Until one day it occurred to me that regular Sunday night services only became possible with the invention of the lightbulb and Sunday School itself was an invention of the modern age.

As I write this out, I think of when my mom was dying 23 years ago. One of her good friends spent Sunday mornings in the hospital with her...rather than going to church. It was more important for her (and in her opinion, more important to God) that she spent time with her dying friend...ministering on a Sunday morning...then it was to attend a formal worship service.

At the time, as a young Christian, still defining much of God's will by the rules that had been taught to me, I was astounded that she felt the freedom to do such a thing.

Now I look back and understand completely.

I think it is important for us all to recognize that we have been shaped by the culture in which we were raised.

I came here to NazNet more than ten years ago. And was surprised to learn that there were many good Christians who didn't think the way I did. If geographic, regional and ethnic culture can influence us so much, we need to recognize that the modern and postmodern cultures can do the same.

The answer for me on NazNet was not to assume that my way of thinking was better than those writing from the Southern US (for example) but to learn to accept a different way of thinking and appreciate how it was reflected in their spiritual experience.

Surely when it comes to modern and post-moderns we can do the same?

What a relief it was for me when I realized that it was ok for me to change. That I wasn't being unfaithful to Christ....simply some of the things taught to me by modern Christianity's interpretation.

[John Kennedy]

It's incredibly easy to attach baggage (cultural and otherwise) to the Christian faith. That raises lots of problems. One of the major problems is that when we begin to recognize that there's some excess baggage there, others can really be less than helpful when we decide to get rid of some of it. And knowing what to discard isn't always easy. Some noted theologian, can't remember who, once noted that we needed less beliefs and more belief.

[Jerry Frank]

Postmoderns believe that Christianity does not have a monopoly on all truth. If that is true (and I believe it is), then maybe other faiths have said something about divine transcendence that we can benefit from hearing.

We may not have a monopoly on all truth but we do have a monopoly on The Truth as embodied in Jesus Christ and as revealed to us in scripture. If we don't have that distinction, then we revert to universalism where everything is acceptable.

I can understand why this bothers modernist Christians. The modern mindset organizes faiths into silos and if you start digging around in the wrong silo, you might become tainted or worse yet, be assimilated into one of the silos that is going to Hell.

You may understand this about the modern. I do not understand why the post modern does not share this concern. If the silo is loaded with grain and you stand on it, there is a good chance you will be sucked in just as surely as you would standing in quick sand. I might trust the experienced Christian with playing around in the wrong silo but for the inexperienced and exploring, person, the result can be deadly.

I can also understand that evangelism has been crammed down our throats to the extent that faith-oriented conversation with a non-Christian is pointless unless there is a chance of 'closing the sale.'

No problem with that comment. There is no question that the modern church has not been good at evangelizing. I think a lot of good can come out of embracing some of the fundamental emergent principals. I'm not, however, convinced that embracing all that emergents offer (some of their worship techniques, etc.) is the way for the church as a whole, to go.

One other thing. The whole queston of 'sacred versus secular' is a false distinction in the postmodern mind. Can you point to anything that is not at least indirectly a result of God's creative activity? In the emergent mindset, everywhere we look, we can see and experience God.

I can most certainly go on a hike at Sedona, AZ and experience God in all His fullness through His presence in the nature around me. The New Ager, who considers this a spiritual hotspot on earth, will also go and experience a god, a false god. Similarly, the post modern Christian might attend a service such as described in my previous postings and experience God. But the New Ager who attends the same service will only experience a god. There is nothing in the service to direct him to The Truth. There is no reference to the Word. There is no Christian symbolism. In fact these are replaced with word and symbol which are opposed to The Truth. (at least in the examples I provided)

Surely there must come a point where the Christian must say something like, "I love you. I embrace you. But I am different from you. And it is important for you to see and know The Truth as I do." If you don't have that distinction, then all that is left is universalism. Much as I am trying to understand all that "emergent" implies, I can never accept universalism. Perhaps that is linear thinking but to me it is very important.

Maybe when push comes to shove, my thought process is just too linear and I will never fully comprehend. On the other hand, maybe the free thinkers have to acknowledge that there is also some good that can come from linear thinking.


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

We may not have a monopoly on all truth but we do have a monopoly on The Truth as embodied in Jesus Christ and as revealed to us in scripture. If we don't have that distinction, then we revert to universalism where everything is acceptable.

Universalism is a danger, but a manageable one. I believe that the great commandment is the antidote for universalism. The great commandment is what the Gospel calls us to.


You may understand this about the modern. I do not understand why the post modern does not share this concern. If the silo is loaded with grain and you stand on it, there is a good chance you will be sucked in just as surely as you would standing in quick sand. I might trust the experienced Christian with playing around in the wrong silo but for the inexperienced and exploring, person, the result can be deadly.

I think that the silo metaphor (so characteristic of the modernist mindset) is fundamentally flawed. To view a faith as a silo is to assume uniformity within that religion or faith. Whereas a farm silo will be filled with grain and little else, a 'faith silo' will have some grain, some nuts :basic03 , some carrots, potatos, maybe some rocks, ice skates, car tires, sheets of plywood or bottled water.

Modernist churches are far from monolithic so it stands to reason that emergent churches will defy definition and categorization.

I believe that the challenge for the emergent church is to jettison dogma without discarding truth.

Phineas Bresee talked about essentials and non-essentials, but this didn't help much because nobody can agree on what constitutes an essential. The emergent church will make a person nervous in exact proportion to the length of their list of essentials.

[Jerry Frank]

Well stated, Billy. I hung my hat on your silo metaphor because you attribute it to moderns. It is not necessarily one I would use personally. :)

You appear to have side- stepped one of my previous comments.

Surely there must come a point where the Christian must say something like, "I love you. I embrace you. But I am different from you. And it is important for you to see and know The Truth as I do."

Do you simply expect the person you come in contact with to observe your love for him/her and be drawn in some mystical way (moved by the Holy Spirit?) to The Truth? How do you demonstrate that you have something different, something unique, which they don't have?

Related to that, as a modern, I also have a strong commitment to living out the Great Commandment. I also have a strong commitment to living out the Great Commission. How does the emergent follow through with the latter?

And finally, you state the challenge of jettisoning dogma without discarding truth. How do you separate the the two? Surely someone who is holding fast to a particular truth is someone who is very dogmatic about it.

Jerry

[Dale Cozby]

The great commandment is what the Gospel calls us to.
You left out a word. "The great commandment is what God calls us to DO."
But this is a good starting point, too bad you began to leave the path rather quickly with the rest of your post.

I think that the silo metaphor (so characteristic of the modernist mindset) is fundamentally flawed. To view a faith as a silo is to assume uniformity within that religion or faith. Whereas a farm silo will be filled with grain and little else, a 'faith silo' will have some grain, some nuts , some carrots, potatos, maybe some rocks, ice skates, car tires, sheets of plywood or bottled water.

Uh...What you describe isn't a silo, sounds more like it is a garbage dump.
Perhaps if you had stopped at the edible portions.

The emergent church will make a person nervous in exact proportion to the length of their list of essentials. The fewer the essentials the better huh?

Hmm...this sounds like lowest common denominator thinking again. aka Universalism.

So the shortest list of essentials would be: What do they all have in common? Some sort of Golden Rule and some sort of higher supernatural power.

I believe Christ calls us to so much more than this. His Wisdom so much deeper. His Love so much fuller.

The more mature a person is the more they understand what those essentials are. As a baby, all you need to do is eat, sleep, cry for attention and make dirty diapers. All comes pretty natural to instinct. A "Short list of essentials."

"The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature."

"I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained." The chief proof of linear thinkers I suppose. Having a race to run and goal in mind. Oh and the arrogance to think that our way of thinking is the right one. Like God has to make it clear to you. How arrogant of Paul to say such a thing.

"Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."
Again the list grows as we mature.
Baby = Mom's milk Small essential list.
Try being 44 yrs old and drinking only milk.:p

Sorry if I pounced on this, but this is a big problem I see with the emergent theology.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Billy, I got mixed up. Sorry? I meant emergent.

[Billy Cox]

Well stated, Billy. I hung my hat on your silo metaphor because you attribute it to moderns. It is not necessarily one I would use personally. :)

The quest to understand and quantify everything sometimes leads to oversimplification. We often paint other religions and even other flavors of Christianity with a broad brush; assuming that all Baptists believe in eternal security or thinking that all Nazarenes are prone to gluttony.


Do you simply expect the person you come in contact with to observe your love for him/her and be drawn in some mystical way (moved by the Holy Spirit?) to The Truth? How do you demonstrate that you have something different, something unique, which they don't have?

If the Truth is living the Great Commandment within a redemptive community, then the answer is 'yes'. The Great Commission is about following Christ...maybe that requires conversion, maybe not. :eek:

I don't see a meaningful difference between the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.


And finally, you state the challenge of jettisoning dogma without discarding truth. How do you separate the the two? Surely someone who is holding fast to a particular truth is someone who is very dogmatic about it.


Ideally, dogma points to the truth. However, dogma run amok tends to obscure the truth, or worse yet, it supplants the truth altogether.

[Jerry Frank]

If the Truth is living the Great Commandment within a redemptive community, then the answer is 'yes'. The Great Commission is about following Christ...maybe that requires conversion, maybe not.

First of all, when I refer to The Truth with upper case T, I refer to Jesus Christ, true God, true man, saviour. At best, we can try to emulate that Truth in whatever community we are in. Certainly we often get too dogmatic about it which results in flaws. That is why it becomes lower case t when we try to apply it in our lives. I am quite certain that because emergents are just as human as the moderns, that they will have equal difficulty in living up to the task. But I do applaud them for trying.

Next, you used the emoticon so you knew you would be stepping on toes with the last phrase, "maybe not". I think you need to expand on that. By itself, the comment most certainly implies (to me) universalism. What does it mean for you?


I don't see a meaningful difference between the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.


The Great Commandment is about living out our daily lives, and certainly many of us moderns have failed misarably at that. I agree that we are in need of reform in that area and that appears to be one of the goals of the emergent movement. It seems to me that the Great Commission stresses the importance of conversion. It requires more than just loving our neighbour. It requires that we find a way to communicate (teach) them about our relationship with The Truth. I'm not saying that moderns have done that effectively or correctly. But to suggest that conversion may not be important seems to me to ignore the importance of the Great Commission.


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

First of all, when I refer to The Truth with upper case T, I refer to Jesus Christ, true God, true man, saviour. At best, we can try to emulate that Truth in whatever community we are in. Certainly we often get too dogmatic about it which results in flaws. That is why it becomes lower case t when we try to apply it in our lives. I am quite certain that because emergents are just as human as the moderns, that they will have equal difficulty in living up to the task. But I do applaud them for trying.

If Jesus is the Truth (which I happen to believe), then that Truth HAS to transcend cultural forms, doctrines, philosophy, religions, institutions and all of the other 'handles' that we use in our attempt to make the transcendent applicable to our everyday life.

Moderns have found it difficult to live up to the task, because the Christian life is not a task but is a redemptive relationship.


Next, you used the emoticon so you knew you would be stepping on toes with the last phrase, "maybe not". I think you need to expand on that. By itself, the comment most certainly implies (to me) universalism. What does it mean for you?

The emoticon :eek: was actually an acknowledgement that some people would find it shocking that conversion may not be as important as we think it is.

As I read and reflect on the Bible, I see very weak support for the idea that everyone needs to have a conversion experience. There are certainly examples of Bible characters for whom living the Great Commandment meant a radical change; a 180 degree turn, but for most, (including Paul) choosing Christ was more like a minor course correction resulting in a radically different destination.

What is the outcome of the Great Commission? It is NOT conversions. It is NOT decisions. It is a community of people seeking to love God which includes loving whatever God loves.

This is not an argument for universalism. One cannot hate the things that God loves (and vice versa) while living the Great Commandment.

[Jerry Frank]

I may have to back off on this discussion for awhile and reflect as I am getting rather confused. Paul's conversion a minor course correction?? He went from hunting and killing Christians one day to a follower of Christ a few days later. That is quite radical in my opinion.

What is the outcome of the Great Commission? Well for one thing at least, embedded in that command is the call to baptize people. Does that not imply a conversion, whether radical 180 degrees or course correction?

And finally, does my suggestion that emergents lean towards universalism suggest that I, as a modern, hate some things that God loves? I hope not. Does my teaching a class on cults (other "silos") imply that I hate people who are part of them? I hope not.

Perhaps you need to explain what universalism means to you. Perhaps it is just another "silo" you think that moderns have created. Is it good? Bad? Perhaps it is a non-term, something irrelevant and unimportant to you. If it is just a handle to transcend, how do you do it without becoming the same as the one you are ministering to (relating to in love)?

Is there anything that we, as Christians, should avoid? Is there any way in which we should be different?



Jerry

[Dale Cozby]

As I read and reflect on the Bible, I see very weak support for the idea that everyone needs to have a conversion experience

So you must not have the book of Acts in your Bible.

1. 3000 people had a conversion experience on the day of Pentecost
2. The conversion of the Samaritans in Acts 8 by Phillip
3. The Ethiopian Eunuch was told about Jesus, he believed and was baptized right then.
4. Saul was going to Damascus to hunt and kill the Church when he was struck blind and encountered Jesus as lord.
5. Conversion of Lydia
6. The conversion of the Jailer and his household
7. How about the teaching of Jesus about being “Born again”? Is that sufficient to be called a conversion? He said you MUST be born again(not optional)
8. What about Zacchaeus? Was he not converted in an instant?
9. How about the thief on the cross conversion experience while hanging next to Jesus?

Just to name a few I can think of off the top of my head.

If by conversion you mean some formal prayer and action to follow, then no.
But if a conversion experience is the mental ascent to the Truth. Then absolutely.
Every one at some time MUST ascend to the Truth of their salvation.
Repentence from sin + ascent to the Truth for our need for God to save us through Jesus = conversion.

Anything less is universalism.

[Billy Cox]

The fewer the essentials the better huh?

Hmm...this sounds like lowest common denominator thinking again. aka Universalism.

So the shortest list of essentials would be: What do they all have in common? Some sort of Golden Rule and some sort of higher supernatural power.

I believe Christ calls us to so much more than this. His Wisdom so much deeper. His Love so much fuller.

The more mature a person is the more they understand what those essentials are. As a baby, all you need to do is eat, sleep, cry for attention and make dirty diapers. All comes pretty natural to instinct. A "Short list of essentials."


Essentials have to be just as true in 1907 Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) as they are in 2007 Gardner Kansas. An 'essential' is neither time bound nor culture bound, so the list will have to be short.

I have mulled this over, and I don't buy the idea that with maturity comes an ever-growing list of essentials. Rather, we build maturity as we act on those essentials. Acting on 'essentials' shows some ideas/beliefs to be culturally-conditioned and thus 'non-essentials'. As one matures in faith, the list of essentials necessarily grows smaller, not larger.

A short list of essentials does not mean that there are no moral imperatives on our lives.

I am not that familiar with the Universalist church, but I have a feeling that they operate according to some shared purpose/imperative, otherwise they wouldn't be around to act as our whipping boy.

[Terri Knoll]

Essentials have to be just as true in 1907 Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) as they are in 2007 Gardner Kansas. An 'essential' is neither time bound nor culture bound, so the list will have to be short.

I have mulled this over, and I don't buy the idea that with maturity comes an ever-growing list of essentials. Rather, we build maturity as we act on those essentials. Acting on 'essentials' shows some ideas/beliefs to be culturally-conditioned and thus 'non-essentials'. As one matures in faith, the list of essentials necessarily grows smaller, not larger.

A short list of essentials does not mean that there are no moral imperatives on our lives.

I am not that familiar with the Universalist church, but I have a feeling that they operate according to some shared purpose/imperative, otherwise they wouldn't be around to act as our whipping boy.

I would say that the CoTN shouldn't be a whipping boy either :basic05

I had a dream (have been living it in sort of a way the last year) last nite, very vivid of a "church" outdoors that I started. I wasn't the preacher, but I was sitting in the almost back row (which I do in all churches I have ever attended) and one of my neighbors, a young rocker kid (that I made cd's for from all that purloined music on limewire lol) came in half way thru the sermon. I turned and embraced him, told him I was glad he was there, and he in turn told me, so am I. as I looked out over the congregation/meeting (it's Florida, warm, sunny, green grass) I observed children playing in the grass, people relaxing on white outdoor furniture sipping mint juleps (I hope, after all I AM naz, not catholic lol) all while the preacher was talking about our common Love, and it came to me that we were loving on children whose parents were sleeping cuz they worked all week and had only one day to sleep, and we didn't call them bus children or berate the parents for not being there. I knew the young rocker would someday lead a praise band. I knew any of our neighbors (that were sleeping while their kids were playing) could come to us with issues that would really be dealt with, and not just prayed for.
and that Love WOULD lead to that conversion when they met the
Man of Calvary who gave life to me.
Then I let the Spirit have control, His only to be
I've surrendered all my talents now
to Him I have made this vow
His guidance I will allow
Myself to deny

and that Love would spill over and over and just like that, we are doing church ;)

when I awoke, I was more in love with Jesus, knowing while He was "preaching" more often than not, children were probably playing in the grass nearby, and probably people were hearing His voice and coming in late to service.

the more I learn, the more I love.

[Dale Cozby]

Essentials have to be just as true in 1907 Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) as they are in 2007 Gardner Kansas. An 'essential' is neither time bound nor culture bound, so the list will have to be short.
I agree with the first part. right up til you say the list has to be short.

I believe that loving God with all your heart soul mind and strength takes alot.
I believe that loving my neighbor as myself takes just as much as the first.

If by essentials you mean what you wear to church or what songs we have to sing or some formalized prayer to recite, then I agree.

But if you mean by essentials, marginalizing the teachings and commands of Jesus as revealed in the Holy Scripture, then I disagree.
It is a challenge each day to live closer to Jesus than the day before. Give up one more thing, take up one more cross, love someone a little more than before.

I am a much much deeper person than I ever thought I would become when I first accepted Christ as Lord.
What once was a non-essential is NOW an essential and what seemed essential is "rubbish".

You don't wake up one day and say today I will be a Brain Surgeon. It takes years of study and practice before you can be declared one. The list of essential knowledge and skills and behaviors in no doubt very long. The essential skills of a first year pre-med student is far removed from that of a Brain Surgeon though.

If I was still an infant in Christ I would be held to another standard than I am today. When I was child I thought as a child but now I am a man and I have put away childish things. My responsibilties are that of an adult.
Likewise as a mature Christian; My list has grown longer as God has trained me in godliness.

Some things that wouldn't even enter the mind of a baby Christian are on my essential list. Why? Because now I am held accountable to God for that knowledge. Jesus said, From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

I suppose you could say ignorance is bliss then.

[Billy Cox]

I am a much much deeper person than I ever thought I would become when I first accepted Christ as Lord.
What once was a non-essential is NOW an essential and what seemed essential is "rubbish".


I think perhaps we are confusing the term 'essential' with the term 'conviction'.

A friend of mine once sold his very expensive Taylor guitar because he sensed that it was becoming an object of pride for him. It was a conviction for him, but by no means was it an essential to apply to all times, cultures, and people.

As one matures in faith, their convictions should grow, and those convictions may be vital to that person's walk with Christ, but they are 'nonessential' in terms of applying to all belivers in every culture at all times.

[Jerry Frank]

Essentials have to be just as true in 1907 Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) as they are in 2007 Gardner Kansas. An 'essential' is neither time bound nor culture bound, so the list will have to be short.

A good example of a short list to start with is the Apostle's Creed (or the Nicene Creed for a slightly longer one). It has stood the test of time for hundreds of years, is not culture nor denomination bound, and is Biblically based.

It is only three short paragraphs in length. It covers, in simple terms, creation, the Trinity, Atonement, and the Church, among other things.

Not all Christian denominaions will use the Apostle's Creed but usually, examination of their doctrinal statements will show that they are in general agreement.

Denominations will often add other distinctives (e.g. for the Nazarenes, issues of holiness; for Lutherans, the presence of Christ in communion and baptism; for Calvinists, predestination). Sometimes, in their zeal, these become essentials. But they are not and should not be considered as such.



I am not that familiar with the Universalist church, but I have a feeling that they operate according to some shared purpose/imperative, otherwise they wouldn't be around to act as our whipping boy.

There is a difference between universalism and the Universalist Church. Universalism is a philosophical system, doctrine, or concept that has been around for hundreds of years. From a Christian viewpoint, it implies that all of humankind will be saved. Other religions will take a slightly different tack but the general idea is that everyone is equal. There are also political and moral implications to universalism, often with humanistic implications.

A GOOGLE for Universalist Church will provide lots of info. Briefly - It grew out of Calvanism with an emphasis on the idea that, " . . . the God of love would not create a person knowing that that person would be destined for eternal damnation." It went on to embrace humanism and merged with the Unitarian Church. Unitarians hold to a variety of spiritual belief systems merging Christianity with Buddhism, Judaism, and others to form a very liberal and syncrinistic religious system. In doing so, they have forgone essentials of the Trinity, the idea of Jesus being true God and true man, the Atonement, among others.

I have sensed from some of your previous posts and from your use of the term, "whipping boy", that you perceive our defence of our faith as an aggression against other religions. That may be true in some cases and in your particular experience. However, I think that you will find that many in other religions will be just as defensive about their beliefs. Are we, as Christians, to perceive that as aggression against us as well?

I am in full agreement with the emergent movement regarding the demonstration of love that should exist in our relationships with others. And I agree that the modern Church (if you want to define it as such) has not done a good job of that. We know that Paul used concepts about Greek gods in his ministry to the Greeks. In his love for them, he adapted his ministry to them. However, he never once gave up on the essentials regarding faith in our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

A good example of a short list to start with is the Apostle's Creed (or the Nicene Creed for a slightly longer one). It has stood the test of time for hundreds of years, is not culture nor denomination bound, and is Biblically based.

It is only three short paragraphs in length. It covers, in simple terms, creation, the Trinity, Atonement, and the Church, among other things.



The thought had occurred to me that the Apostle's Creed would be the closest thing that we have to a statement of the essentials. It would seem appropriate for Christians that the Apostle's Creed is mostly about stating what we believe about Jesus Christ. So here, we agree on something.


Denominations will often add other distinctives (e.g. for the Nazarenes, issues of holiness; for Lutherans, the presence of Christ in communion and baptism; for Calvinists, predestination). Sometimes, in their zeal, these become essentials. But they are not and should not be considered as such.

Wow, I didn't see that coming, but I am nonetheless impressed.



I have sensed from some of your previous posts and from your use of the term, "whipping boy", that you perceive our defence of our faith as an aggression against other religions. That may be true in some cases and in your particular experience. However, I think that you will find that many in other religions will be just as defensive about their beliefs. Are we, as Christians, to perceive that as aggression against us as well?


I have observed that it is easy in discussion to label a group as 'universalist' whom we perceive as erring on the side of permissiveness. I'm sure there are some flavors of the emergent church that skate pretty close to universalism or perhaps embrace it entirely.

I also concede that there is a certain amount of smugness among some proponents of the emergent church...and that seems to contradict the idea of a generous orthodoxy.

[Ron Davis]

Please define

It just occurred to me that one of the characteristics of the postmodern is that they don't like to be defined, put in a box, or categorized.

[Jerry Frank]

Wow, I didn't see that coming, but I am nonetheless impressed.

I have observed that it is easy in discussion to label a group as 'universalist' whom we perceive as erring on the side of permissiveness. I'm sure there are some flavors of the emergent church that skate pretty close to universalism or perhaps embrace it entirely.

I also concede that there is a certain amount of smugness among some proponents of the emergent church...and that seems to contradict the idea of a generous orthodoxy.


Perhaps on this note our current discussion is drawing to a close. Just as many moderns are guilty of painting emergents with the broad brush of universalism, many emergents are also guilty of painting moderns with the broad brush of lack of love and care for fellow man. Both broad brushes are wrong.

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep each other on our toes. You are right to continue warning the modern church about its inward tendencies. I believe that I am right in warning emergents about the dangers of universalism that seems to creep in.

So thanks for the discussion, Billy. I have learned a lot. Hopefully you have too. Keep the faith. Stick to essentials. And never forget the empty cross as one of the most important symbols of Christianity that we can focus on. It is a constant reminder of the love of Christ, the sacrifice He paid on our behalf, and the fact that His death would be meaningless unless He was also true God.


Jerry

[Billy Cox]

Please define

It just occurred to me that one of the characteristics of the postmodern is that they don't like to be defined, put in a box, or categorized.

More accurately, the postmodern mindset is the proverbial jello that by nature cannot quite be nailed down...but that won't prevent modernist authors from attempting to do so in books and articles.

[Ron Davis]

More accurately, the postmodern mindset is the proverbial jello that by nature cannot quite be nailed down...but that won't prevent modernist authors from attempting to do so in books and articles.

There is money to be made from defining the undefinable. Also from creating enemies for us to rally against.