Four flavors of the emerging church

[Randy McRoberts]

C. Wess Daniels has done a nice job starting a conversation (http://gatheringinlight.com/2008/01/13/the-four-models-of-emerging-churches/) about the various strains of the emerging church. The EC is not a monolith, and we must be careful not to lump ECers together. For example, to assume that Brian McLaren speaks for the EC is a mistake.

Daniels' four models are:


Deconstructionist model
Pre-modern/Augustinian model
Emerging peace church model
Foundationalist model

The piece probably oversimplifies the situation, but I found it helpful.

[James Diggs]

Daniels' four models are:

1. Deconstructionist model
2. Pre-modern/Augustinian model
3. Emerging peace church model
4. Foundationalist model

That's interesting, I seem to resonate more with a combination of model 1 and 3 with some group 2 thrown in as far as praxis. I think over all these strands (there are probably more) are interwoven together quite a bit though.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Can you elaborate on what the "foundationalist" model is?

[Randy McRoberts]

Can you elaborate on what the "foundationalist" model is?

According to Daniels:Foundationalist Model: This model of the emerging church is more conservative in their reading of Scripture and modern approaches to ecclesiology (standard preacher-centered teaching, music for worship, etc) while seeking to be innovative in their approaches to evangelism. This may come in the form of people meeting in pubs, having tatoos, cussing from the pulpit, playing loud rock music for worship and adding a layer of “alternative-ness” to their overall church service. These churches can be found within larger church communities, or can be on their own, sometimes as a large (possibly mega) church. They follow standard Evangelicalism in that they aren’t attach to traditions, and come out politically and theologically conservative, while maintaining a more accomodational stance toward culture in the name of evangelism, they will ultimately look similar to older church communities theologically. This is where I think theologians like Millard J. Erickson or D.A. Carson have a lot of influence. And where practitioners such as Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, Erwin McManus and many “emerging services” within mega-church congregations like Willow Creek might be found.

[Thomas Oord]

Interesting taxonomy, Randy!

As I look at the titles -- and without knowing the details of what each means but guessing based upon what I know of those who prefer to use these titles to identify their own methods -- I wonder where Wesleyan/Holiness emergent churches fit.

The titles alone don't suggest any obvious correspondence. I know I wouldn't personally use any of these titles to describe the emergent movements I see going on the CotN.

Perhaps we need another category in the taxonomy. How about the "Revisionary Model?"

It would draw from wisdom found in the past and present, while anticipating how God might act in the possible futures. It would emphasize a loving, relational God and that God's call for loving cooperation. It would land in the middle between extreme relativism and dogmatic absolutism. It would emphasize persons in community, rather than isolated individualism or authoritarian communitarianism. It would blur the boundaries of the secular and the sacred, seeing God present in all things but more fully revealed in some rather than others. It would emphasize diversity and difference without affirming that "anything goes." It would...

Okay, this post is starting to sound like the opening lecture I'm putting together for NNU's upcoming conference with Brian McLaren, Scott Daniels, and others. Sorry. Must have this stuff on the brain!

Thanks for posting the taxonomy!

Tom

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Yes, Daniels really wrote things that would start conversations. What do most of you thnk of the things he has written? Maybe, some of it is a little too far out for the framework most of us worship in.

[Ryan Scott]

I think, from reading the descriptions, I would definitely be in the #3 camp. However, I find great value in the writing of both #1 and #2 in spurring my thought and challenging my practical expression.

It seems like the first two groups are more of a philosophy and the third is a theology, but none of them really supply a great deal of practical application (something the 4th group tends to do a lot of).

I still think we're years away from seeing anything we could term as a true emergent movement (although I suspect it will have a different name). Right now we have a bunch of people thinking, writing, and experimenting with new ideas that need to work themselves out on a much grander scale.

I don't think any of this exploration can be complete until serious attention is paid to globalization, something that is only just beginning to take place among post-modern Christians.

[Billy Cox]

Daniels' four models are:


Deconstructionist model
Pre-modern/Augustinian model
Emerging peace church model
Foundationalist model

The piece probably oversimplifies the situation, but I found it helpful.

In a Nazarene context, it seems that the models could be sorted based on which one would cause the most fear and consternation among modernists, with '1' being the one likely to generate the most existential anxiety.

I have firsthand experience with a Nazarene Church that was firmly in the foundational category. I found it to be a disgusting exercise in pragmatism with one foot planted solidly in modernism.

I can envision the Church of the Nazarene tolerating or even celebrating foudational churches because on the surface they appear to be bleeding edge pragmatists, but they pay their budgets, defend the sanctity of Sunday School, and do Faith Promise every year.

[James Diggs]

In a Nazarene context, it seems that the models could be sorted based on which one would cause the most fear and consternation among modernists, with '1' being the one likely to generate the most existential anxiety.

I have firsthand experience with a Nazarene Church that was firmly in the foundational category. I found it to be a disgusting exercise in pragmatism with one foot planted solidly in modernism.

I can envision the Church of the Nazarene tolerating or even celebrating foudational churches because on the surface they appear to be bleeding edge pragmatists, but they pay their budgets, defend the sanctity of Sunday School, and do Faith Promise every year.

I suspect this is true and will also be the result of "emergent in a box" type programs and seen as the latest church growth formulas. At the same time, I would not be too discouraged because I think models 1-3 are at the heart of the real emergent conversation taking place in our denomination on many levels, from places like NTS, some of our other colleges, grassroots conversations on blogs like www.emergentnazarenes.com, and even as it is reflected here on NazNet.

Yes I think the foundational model will be embraced by a lot of churches, I think this is mostly because this is the easiest to reproduce through our top down systems. However, the real meat of the emergent conversation is emerging from the bottom up and I would not be so quick to dismiss its impact. It seems to be rising up in pockets everywhere.

[Billy Cox]

I suspect this is true and will also be the result of "emergent in a box" type programs and seen as the latest church growth formulas. At the same time, I would not be too discouraged because I think models 1-3 are at the heart of the real emergent conversation taking place in our denomination on many levels, from places like NTS, some of our other colleges, grassroots conversations on blogs like www.emergentnazarenes.com, and even as it is reflected here on NazNet.

Yes I think the foundational model will be embraced by a lot of churches, I think this is mostly because this is the easiest to reproduce through our top down systems. However, the real meat of the emergent conversation is emerging from the bottom up and I would not be so quick to dismiss its impact. It seems to be rising up in pockets everywhere.

I take encouragement from the fact that three GS's who are most hostile toward the emergent church are all retiring in 2009. Even if they can't wave a wand and banish EC to hell, they do have a loud voice with which to spread ignorance and discord.

[Houston Thomas]

Very nice read.

Another nice compilation of Emerging Church perspectives can be found here:

Many Kinds of Emerging Church (http://www.djchuang.com/2008/many-kinds-of-emerging-church/)

[Dale Cozby]

I take encouragement from the fact that three GS's who are most hostile toward the emergent church are all retiring in 2009. Even if they can't wave a wand and banish EC to hell, they do have a loud voice with which to spread ignorance and discord.

So you are calling our GS's ignorant and discordant and are glad thier leadership is almost over.

*turn sarcasm to maximum*
I am so glad that the future of the church is going to be led by people like you and other emergents who show such respect to thier elders and the denominationally chosen leadership.

Once in power I hope that new emergents will show the same level of respect and loyalty to each other as they do for thier elders.

This is one of many reasons why I have grave doubts about the EC movement as a positive force.

I see some things good about the EC movement and others that need to be banished to .....that place emergents don't believe exists.

P.S. Concerning the thread: most emergents probably find it offensive that anyone would try to define them and put them in a box or grouping.

[Ryan Scott]

I take encouragement from the fact that three GS's who are most hostile toward the emergent church are all retiring in 2009.


Not all of them.

[Hans Deventer]

Not all of them.

You mean, right now we have only 2 generals who are not hostile towards the EC? Gracious :basic04

Well, at least I'm grateful I got to elect those two. No regrets.

[Hans Deventer]

*turn sarcasm to maximum*

I really wonder what makes you think sarcasm is such a great way to communicate.

Now as to the subject, there is a time for a certain type of leadership. One that may be a great leader at one time, need not be at another. That is not meant to put down a leader, only to recognize that there are few that evolve with the circumstances.

Best example is probably the founding pastor of a church. It takes one kind of leader to found a church, it often takes quite another to lead it from 100 to 500. Some, usually through a crisis, manage to change their ways of leading and remain effective leaders. But that gift isn't granted to all.

So if it is true (which I don't know) that some of our generals are downright hostile towards the EC, then obviously they aren't the ones to lead us in this day. Church leadership at that level requires a thorough understanding of the pro's and cons of current developments in church and in society as whole. And a clear understanding of the pro's an cons of the current situation as well. Any development has dangers and opportunities. One needs to be able to identify both.

[Randy McRoberts]

Dale, I believe that if our beloved denomination does not adjust to the changing culture, we will essentially be defunct (at least in the USA) withing twenty years. I say that as a fifty-five year old fourth-generation Nazarene whose great-grandparents were all Nazarenes (if that's not a Pharisee of the Pharisees, I don't know what is), so I'm not a newcomer rabble-rouser. If we want to hang on to the status quo, we will lose it.

[Billy Cox]

Not all of them.

??

Of the three retiring GS's (Cunningham, Diehl, Gunter), which one is a friend of the emergent church movement?

If we are talking about all of the GS's, it is a different story.

[Billy Cox]

Dale, I believe that if our beloved denomination does not adjust to the changing culture, we will essentially be defunct (at least in the USA) withing twenty years. I say that as a fifty-five year old fourth-generation Nazarene whose great-grandparents were all Nazarenes (if that's not a Pharisee of the Pharisees, I don't know what is), so I'm not a newcomer rabble-rouser. If we want to hang on to the status quo, we will lose it.

I don't think that the choice is between changing or not changing. Change will happen even if every Nazarene pastor, DS and GS opposes it, but in so doing, the institution might point more people toward hell than heaven.

[Billy Cox]

So you are calling our GS's ignorant and discordant and are glad thier leadership is almost over.


They are not ignorant, but in their more reactionary moments, they say ignorant things. The future of the denomination does not include rebuilding that which was lost in the 1960s.

[Hans Deventer]

If we are talking about all of the GS's, it is a different story.

That's how I read Ryan's comment, but I agree, it is open for different interpretations.

[Ryan Scott]

??

Of the three retiring GS's (Cunningham, Diehl, Gunter), which one is a friend of the emergent church movement?

If we are talking about all of the GS's, it is a different story.



It's the other way around. You said three most hostile. I don't think those three are the top three, let's just say that.

[Richard Call]

Sooo you are saying that to discount and denegrate the EC is to be ignorant and whatever? Then count me as ignorant and whatever because I am totally opposed to the EC and it theological meandering into who knows where. God bless the GS's who have the courage and influence to say "No way!" How unfortunate for the church to have those who would celebrate their retirement so that the church can go into the never land of theological uncertainty. May the Lord raise up men to replace them to keep us from jumping off the bridge into an uncertain future. We are holiness people with a holiness mission to bring men into the experience of entire sanctification and growth in spiritual maturity.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

I don't think that the choice is between changing or not changing. Change will happen even if every Nazarene pastor, DS and GS opposes it, but in so doing, the institution might point more people toward hell than heaven.

Given Richard Call's "Thank you for this useful post," I'm thinking that I either he or I is not understanding what you meant... Care to elaborate?

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

Fair enough...

[Billy Cox]

Sooo you are saying that to discount and denegrate the EC is to be ignorant and whatever? Then count me as ignorant and whatever because I am totally opposed to the EC and it theological meandering into who knows where. God bless the GS's who have the courage and influence to say "No way!" How unfortunate for the church to have those who would celebrate their retirement so that the church can go into the never land of theological uncertainty. May the Lord raise up men to replace them to keep us from jumping off the bridge into an uncertain future. We are holiness people with a holiness mission to bring men into the experience of entire sanctification and growth in spiritual maturity.

:rolleyes:

I respect the rights of another person to critique or to even hate the emergent church as long as their reason for doing so is more sophisticated than 'just because', or 'we have never done it that way before'.

Since when does the denomination go down a theological path because the Generals direct us thus? Since when does the denomination avoid a certain doctrine because the Generals say they don't like it? The general superintendents have considerable influence, but our polity renders them far weaker than the leaders of other denominations.

Incidentally, it wasn't so long ago that the melodramatic hyperbole about 'the never land of theological uncertainty' referred to the dangers of modernism; which we now embrace as though it were a treasured mistress from whom we cannot long be apart.

[Billy Cox]

Given Richard Call's "Thank you for this useful post," I'm thinking that I either he or I is not understanding what you meant... Care to elaborate?

Wilson

Are you suggesting that Richard would reflexively disagree with anything I say just by virtue of disagreeing with another of my posts?

I think that the biggest fraud around is this idea that we are supposed to change the world. Change is a constant, and I can no more to stop change than I can stop the sun from setting. I can do nothing at all and the world will still change.

It is far more noble to try and *influence* the course of change for good and despite my usually distrust of authority, I respect those who genuinely care for the things that God cares about. (even if they disagree with me about the emerging church) :)

[Randy McRoberts]

Richard, do you then oppose the Generals who are friendly to the EC?

[Richard Call]

I don't know which is which as far as the Generals are concerned. However, I would oppose anyone no matter his position in leadership who would take us down the path that has been proposed in some of threads herein. Viz, the emerging, or, emergant church, whatever. This is a path, as I said previously, is down the slippery slope in the world of theological uncertainty where hell is questioned, relative theology is the ideal of the time, and an watered down holiness theology designed to please the culture is the ideal idea. I fully recognize that this is very unpopular here. So be it. If our beloved church starts down this path we will end up in a "train wreck" and there will be a schism unlike what has been seen in the past.

To all who are concerned: I love the COTN and it has offered me the priviledge of giving my life to the cause of holiness. My children attended ONU and they are serving the Lord in their own professions. It was the message of holiness of heart that made a difference in my life and that of may family. I have a son in heaven today and it was my church and the message of holiness that prepared him for that grand transition. I know when the red flags go up and as God gives me the wisdom and love I will oppose any attempts to take us down the EC road. If the Generals, my DS, my pastor take this road then I will prayerfully oppose that action. This is more that the old adage, "we never have done it that way." Fact is we should never even give the EC the time of day.

I love my church. I love and pray for all those giving their allegience to EC. May God get us off this EC notion and back to the preaching, teaching, singing of the doctrine of ES.

[Randy McRoberts]

OK, Richard. But as I said before, we won't exist in twenty years if we don't find a way to reach the postmoderns. If you are satisfied with "us four and no more", have at it.

[Billy Cox]

I don't know which is which as far as the Generals are concerned. However, I would oppose anyone no matter his position in leadership who would take us down the path that has been proposed in some of threads herein. Viz, the emerging, or, emergant church, whatever. This is a path, as I said previously, is down the slippery slope in the world of theological uncertainty where hell is questioned, relative theology is the ideal of the time, and an watered down holiness theology designed to please the culture is the ideal idea. I fully recognize that this is very unpopular here. So be it. If our beloved church starts down this path we will end up in a "train wreck" and there will be a schism unlike what has been seen in the past.

To all who are concerned: I love the COTN and it has offered me the priviledge of giving my life to the cause of holiness. My children attended ONU and they are serving the Lord in their own professions. It was the message of holiness of heart that made a difference in my life and that of may family. I have a son in heaven today and it was my church and the message of holiness that prepared him for that grand transition. I know when the red flags go up and as God gives me the wisdom and love I will oppose any attempts to take us down the EC road. If the Generals, my DS, my pastor take this road then I will prayerfully oppose that action. This is more that the old adage, "we never have done it that way." Fact is we should never even give the EC the time of day.

I love my church. I love and pray for all those giving their allegience to EC. May God get us off this EC notion and back to the preaching, teaching, singing of the doctrine of ES.

If it's any consolation, the only thing that Nazarenes do quickly is get in line at the all-you-can-eat buffet.

Incidentally, the whole point of this thread is that emergent church is not a monolith of likeminded people who smoke weed, use bad language, and declare war on the Truth. There are certainly some EC proponents who fly a little to close to relativism, but the Nazarenes are not in any real danger of going that far.

In the early 20th century, Nazarenes warned of the slippery slope of modernism...well, we're at the bottom of that slope now and it didn't lead into the bowels of Hell after all, did it?

[Robin Hatcher]

I guess I don't have a good understanding of the emergent church. From some posts in this thread, it sounds like the EC should be avoided at all costs, but from what I've read (I'll admit its not much) it seems like they are focused on serving and loving people without excluding the gospel. Maybe there are different groups all using the EC name? I've been a Nazarene all my life (4th generation) and I appreciate the holiness teaching and see its value. I think what I'm finding now is we do need to have relationship with God, fellowship with His people AND get our hands dirty loving "the least of these." Its not enough to say I support the missionaries or I gave to the special offering or I cleaned up after the potluck. I realize there are some people who are unable to be actively involved in service for medical or other various reasons, but for those who can it seems God expects it and will bless us for it. So if reading about the EC gets me motivated to minister in some new ways then it can't be all bad.

[Richard Call]

Billy, no "slippery slope" theologically,or whatever, starts with a major shift. It starts with orginal approval and sanctioning, to a little participation in the "acceptables" at the time. However, the path is set and if one keeps heading the way he is going he will arrive at where he is headed. This applies to all that the EC represents. It will start with a small taste of what seems good and lead to the ultimate theological disaster and moral decadence....per the Episcopalians. The COTN does not need the EC to reach those needing Christ. It needs to be faithful to the gospel of full salvation from sin. That's were we started and since we have drifted away from it we are now seeking another answer (the EC of all things.) The theological vacumn in our midst will be filled with something unless we get back to the basics as Nazarenes and be about the business to which God has called us with a renewed zeal. This is not, as has been said on this board, an "us four an no more." That accusation lacks fact because no one on this board seeks to win the lost and grow the church more than I have and will continue to do. People in our secular culture are seeking truth that demands that they give their all. You know how many cults and false teaching are there for their attention and some want the COTN to give them a little bit of what these false teachers are giving them. Holiness demands separation form the world and its appeals. It takes the HS and his conviction to change a man. It is our duty, priviledge and responsiblity before the Lord, to be faithful to the clear, life changing message of holiness of heart. We have essentially abandoned this and a vacumn has resulted. We are becoming the "laughing stock" of the religious world. What we once preached with fiery zeal we now question, or, out rightly deny as valid. What we really need is not the EC but a Holy Ghost revival that we renew the fire within our church. May the Lord help us and may it happen before we drift so far that we pass the point of no return.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... lead to the ultimate theological disaster and moral decadence....per the Episcopalians.

Speaking of a slippery slope... Where might these kind of statements lead?

Perhaps to: "God, we thank you that we are not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like those Episcopalians."

Wilson

[Ryan Scott]

All of theology from the beginning of the Church has been one long slippery slope. Development and change are the only constants.

[Billy Cox]

All of theology from the beginning of the Church has been one long slippery slope. Development and change are the only constants.

In my thinking the 'slippery slope' argument is in the same category as sentences beginning with 'the Bible clearly teaches.'

It is just another rhetorical blunt object used to bludgeon people into agreeing with half-baked ideas.

[Ian Gentles]

The EC and PM still confuse me, we are being told it is so, its the only way to go, and other way is to die off as a church. Sorry, I dont totaly buy this, its all about our faith in Christ, this dosent change. On the hell issue, do we belive it because it got drummed into us, or because of the Holy Spirits witness to us?

[Genevieve Boller]

The EC and PM still confuse me, we are being told it is so, its the only way to go, and other way is to die off as a church. Sorry, I dont totaly buy this, its all about our faith in Christ, this dosent change. On the hell issue, do we belive it because it got drummed into us, or because of the Holy Spirits witness to us?

People within the EC movement have widely varying opinions on Hell, as well as a lot of other things.

[Ian Gentles]

People within the EC movement have widely varying opinions on Hell, as well as a lot of other things.

Well we better get it right or we are in a lot of trouble!

[Billy Cox]

From Acts 5:35-39 (Gamaliel speaking in regards to Peter and John)

"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

I draw two applications from this:

1. We must be slow to judge what is or is not from God, otherwise we may just find ourselves on the wrong side of God himself.

2. Having studied the origins of the Holiness Movement, I am acutely aware of how theologically sloppy 'our heritage' is; many parts of it being of human origin (see verse 38).

There are two forces at work now: a. the intentional effort to recast the doctrine of holiness based on responsible Biblical scholarship and, b. the natural process by which faulty theology falls out of favor because it doesn't jive with human experience. Wynkoop referred to this as the credibility gap.

The doctrine of holiness is in trouble due to design flaws. One does not overcome the limitations of a flawed design by returning to the original (flawed) design.

[Ian Gentles]

From Acts 5:35-39 (Gamaliel speaking in regards to Peter and John)

"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

I draw two applications from this:

1. We must be slow to judge what is or is not from God, otherwise we may just find ourselves on the wrong side of God himself.

2. Having studied the origins of the Holiness Movement, I am acutely aware of how theologically sloppy 'our heritage' is; many parts of it being of human origin (see verse 38).

There are two forces at work now: a. the intentional effort to recast the doctrine of holiness based on responsible Biblical scholarship and, b. the natural process by which faulty theology falls out of favor because it doesn't jive with human experience. Wynkoop referred to this as the credibility gap.

The doctrine of holiness is in trouble due to design flaws. One does not overcome the limitations of a flawed design by returning to the original (flawed) design.

Reguard holiness my old saintly grandad had a saying, in his Scottish tonge, "Its better felt than telt"

[Ian Gentles]

Can i raise a slightly controversial issues moderators, if you dont like it please take it off. The fear of hell has stopped many suicides, I worry if we take this away what might happen?

[Ryan Scott]

Can i raise a slightly controversial issues moderators, if you dont like it please take it off. The fear of hell has stopped many suicides, I worry if we take this away what might happen?


It seems like that might have stemmed from a faulty understanding of sin and salvation, not from a proper understanding of hell.

[Ian Gentles]

Well i dont think so, eternal destination does count!

[Dale Cozby]

Excerpt from an article in CT:

"It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they say things publicly they don't really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they've got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks."

*highlights mine

What a hoot, but at least partially true some of the time and twice on Sunday.:p

Stereotyping groups is a funny thing....no matter who does it, it always has exceptions.

here is a link to the whole article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Ian, you do not have to apologize for how you feel about hell. No matter what anyone says, I still believe the Bible, and what I have believed about it many years. The moderators are not going to take your post off because you mention it, or believe that way. You have a right to your beliefs, and don't let anyone change you.

[Hans Deventer]

Ian, you do not have to apologize for how you feel about hell. No matter what anyone says, I still believe the Bible, and what I have believed about it many years. The moderators are not going to take your post off because you mention it, or believe that way. You have a right to your beliefs, and don't let anyone change you.

Anne, it is not at all about views on hell, they can and have been discussed, it is about suicide. As a long time NazNetter, you should know. Dave has installed a policy of being extremely careful regarding this subject, exactly in order not to push anyone over the edge. We respect that and try to maintain it. Ian's question was a very good one and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his beliefs on hell.

[Hans Deventer]

Can i raise a slightly controversial issues moderators, if you dont like it please take it off. The fear of hell has stopped many suicides, I worry if we take this away what might happen?

Ian, Philip Yancey once wrote that we haven't preached grace unless we did it in such a way that it can be abused. I think he was very, very right. We actually distort the gospel if we don't preach it that way.

Let's put the question in different words: should we twist the gospel because otherwise, people with mental problems might take it in the wrong way?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Yes, Hans, I had forgotten about the suicide part. I was just thinking of the hell part.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... I still believe the Bible, and what I have believed about it many years...

I still believe the Bible, but I've come to see that, though sincere, I've made a lot of mistakes about "what I have believed about it many years."

Wilson

[Ian Gentles]

Ian, Philip Yancey once wrote that we haven't preached grace unless we did it in such a way that it can be abused. I think he was very, very right. We actually distort the gospel if we don't preach it that way.

Let's put the question in different words: should we twist the gospel because otherwise, people with mental problems might take it in the wrong way?

No Hans we shouldent twist the gospel. But its amazing how many folks with mental health problems press on with life as the believe in eternal destinies.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

It seems to me that there would be a better way to lead to EC and PM.
Instead of discussing it with church members, the pastors could gradually make sugestions on church boards, without labeling it, and possibly, gradually getting them to accept what you wish to do. Most things have to come about gradually. There have been articles in the Herald and Holiness Today, that were leaning this way, over the years without them being labeled.
What do you think?

[Richard Call]

Anne, Please excuse me, but your recent thread sounds like "stealth politics" or slipping things past those who support the church and pray for it. This is an unfortunate way to bring about the EC, which should never happen under any circumstance, and doing it under the table. The congregation must know clearly what this means and what is happening. If a vote becomes available the church board is not the one to make that decision this requires a congregational vote.

[Richard Call]

These threads have said exactly what I have predicted. If we go this way we will slide into a theological maze. We have lost the meaning and experience of ES and now we want to take it apart and try to remake it. For those thinking of doing this have you ever experienced, and do you now know clearly, the moment when you were entirely sanctified. Yes, or, no? If you don't know it for sure then do mess with it.

[Randy McRoberts]

If you can wrap your head around this, the emerging church is really nothing more than a renewal movement. Just like the renewal movement that gave birth to our denomination. The mainstream churches were becoming more and more stagnant. It was time for a move of God. The same is true now.

The things you are worried about, Richard, have nothing to do with the emerging church. In fact, they have more to do with modernism than anything else.

Yes, SOME people in the emerging church have theological stuff that doesn't make sense. So do some people in the traditional church.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Richard, the stealthy part is that I don't think the average COTN board will accept and pass most of the things they talk about.

For several years we have had some articles that seemed to be leading this way, without mentioning EC and PM. Who else besides young people that have been to seminary and those they have influenced have embraced this tooth and toe nail--as a whole?

Now that I look back, and from things that our 46 year old daughter has reminded me of, this has been going on several years, without it being labeled, like it has on naznet around six months. It will be a long uphill battle. They will have to wait for the "old heads" as they look at us as, to pass on, then maybe there will be a little lee way made. Then, the COTN will be more like the main line church that many left in the early (or sooner) 1900's. I cannot say, "mark my word," because we will not be here to know.
But, it is all not bad. Some of what I have heard, is basically the way Dwayne and I have operated over the years.

[Glenda Harvey]

What crosses my mind as read the opinions on this board about the Emergent Church movement and read the articles posted is that the Emergent Church is a type of worship style and that it is at a fork in the road in which some Churches are maintaining their Evangelical and Christian roots while changing in areas such as social conscience and legaliszm while some Emergent Churches are pulling away from their Evangelical and Christian roots and denying the existence of biblical truths. As has always been the case when visiting a Church particularly a non-denominational Church that has emergent characterisics a person would need to test the teaching against scripture and decide if the teaching is in keeping with God's word.

[Billy Cox]

Anne, Please excuse me, but your recent thread sounds like "stealth politics" or slipping things past those who support the church and pray for it. This is an unfortunate way to bring about the EC, which should never happen under any circumstance, and doing it under the table. The congregation must know clearly what this means and what is happening. If a vote becomes available the church board is not the one to make that decision this requires a congregational vote.

The church board could no more enact postmodernism or the emergent church than it could change the collective vision of the church by writing a vision statement.

[Randy McRoberts]

It doesn't have anything to do with church boards and passing motions. It has to do with the mission of the church. If the church is not accomplishing her mission, it is time for some changes. Hence, this particular set of renewal movements.

If you would kick against the church actually trying to accomplish what God put her here for, then you are aimed in the wrong direction.

[James Diggs]

Richard Call wrote, This is a path, as I said previously, is down the slippery slope in the world of theological uncertainty where hell is questioned, relative theology is the ideal of the time, and an watered down holiness theology designed to please the culture is the ideal idea.

Richard,

I would be interested what exactly about emergent/ post modern leaning theology in the church of the Nazarene you consider a “slippery slope”? Is a particular doctrine of “hell” the cornerstone of the solid foundation you feel we should be planted on? Where should our “certainty” rest in order to have the good footing you are concerned we are in danger of losing?

As far as I can see those who lean into the emergent church, especially among those Nazarenes that I know, have not abandoned Jesus Christ as our firm foundation- is their anything else that would be more firm than just him?

I think the lens of modernity often creates another type of foundation than Christ alone. It creates an elaborate system in which one can safely place the struggles and questions of life into various categories. These categories become our boundaries and handles in which people can interact with and feel secure. But this is not God and God does not fit so neatly into our categories. This kind of “certainty” is less about confidents in God and more about confidence in our systems.

It is no wonder that when these categories and systems are threatened that those who depended on them feel like they would have no footing without them and that it would become a slipper slope to question those systems and categories.

As far as “relative theology” goes, theology has always had a relative aspect as it seeks to understand life relative to God. God himself expressed righteousness even in the most ridged of form in the law on relative principles as Jesus taught us that the law can all be summed up relative to how we love God and our neighbors.

As for “watered down holiness theology designed to please the culture”; I would have to strongly disagree that the emergent church is “watering down” holiness. If anything they are putting the meat of it back in after modernity spent a time reducing it to just personal and individualistic piety. Somehow modernity has made even holiness selfish and we have forgotten that holiness is about loving God and others and not just ourselves. You talk about the message of entire Sanctification, but when this idea has been preached with the emphasis on individual purity to the extent that it has than it is no wonder that no one wants to get their hands dirty helping people and loving people in the world. If anything it is modernity that has watered down entire sanctification; conforming to the individualist worldly context of a western modernity and therefore conforming only to a form of godliness but denying its power to change the world around it.

The message of holiness in a post modern context does not aim to please our culture, though it does preach it contextual language, it calls culture to transformation. The message is how everything must change; how does such a transformational message get interpreted as “pleasing the culture”? For many emergent leaning Nazarenes we have gained a unique feeling of connection to the earliest movements in our Nazarene heritage because of the emergent church. We have reconnected the idea that holiness is as much about serving and loving the poor and marginalized as it is about our commitment to God; and the two CAN NOT be separated.


Richard wrote, I will oppose any attempts to take us down the EC road.

Be careful Richard, while I do think there are many wrong turns one could take in a post modern contest, much of the EC road is about trying to repent of the wrong turns we took in a modern context. I think there is much in the emergent church conversation that is God led and you may need to pray about that before you out right make up your mind to oppose anything EC.

Peace,

James

[Randy Dillon]

Speaking of a slippery slope... Where might these kind of statements lead?

Perhaps to: "God, we thank you that we are not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like those Episcopalians."

Wilson

Booo...c'mon brother Wilson, that's a bit too far in keeping the discussion in a respectable order.

[Randy Dillon]

Let's straddle the ol' fence here again, boys. Let's see what comes of it! Jesus warned: "Beware of false teachers," Gamaliel exclaims, "Leave them be; just sit still a spell. Say nothing-do nothing. And if they prosper, they will prove to be from God."

Are you kiddin' me??

[Randy Dillon]

Reguard holiness my old saintly grandad had a saying, in his Scottish tonge, "Its better felt than telt"

I know what he meant, God bless those wise grand pappys, but the ol' book is to be 'telt' before it can ever be felt. This kind of thinking supports the ec.

[Randy Dillon]

Richard Call wrote,

As far as I can see those who lean into the emergent church, especially among those Nazarenes that I know, have not abandoned Jesus Christ as our firm foundation- is their anything else that would be more firm than just him?

I think the lens of modernity often creates another type of foundation than Christ alone. It creates an elaborate system in which one can safely place the struggles and questions of life into various categories. These categories become our boundaries and handles in which people can interact with and feel secure. But this is not God and God does not fit so neatly into our categories. This kind of “certainty” is less about confidents in God and more about confidence in our systems.

It is no wonder that when these categories and systems are threatened that those who depended on them feel like they would have no footing without them and that it would become a slipper slope to question those systems and categories.

This is a bit like allowing the fox to watch over the hen house! The original "did God really say" argument. The ec is big on minimizing propositional truth and elevating felt truth - form more than substance -allowing doubts on God's propositional truth is likely the first step toward deception.

[Glenda Harvey]

My daughters Church has some elements to it that I think may fit the emergent category. They stress volunteering and getting involved in the community and have community days where people in the Church sign up to volunteer in various programs in the community, not all of the organizations they volunteer at are Christian based. My daughter volunteered at a Red Cross Blood Drive during one of the community days. They also have Church Services and Bible Studies at various places throughout the community in addition to the services at their Church. One of these meetings is at a Bar during off hours. One Sunday they did something called Church in a Box in which people picked up a box with a Dvd and Bible study materials and instead of going to Church that day everyone was suppose to have a family day that included watching the dvd and having Church at home.

I have attended Church with her twice and one sermon was on Holiness and another was on Sexual Purity. It did not seem watered down. Everyone is encourage to be part of small group for fellowship and Bible Study. They seem to be less judgemental of other Christians. The Holiness message they teach seems to be more about the condition of the heart rather than a list of do's and don'ts.

[Randy Dillon]

I, for one, appreciate your observations Glenda. However, the devil wouldn't be obvious in his schemes to contradict holiness theology, now would he? You have listed some favorable characteristics:

1. Getting involved in the community
2. Having extended Bible studies
3. Preached a sermon on holiness and sexual purity
4. Less judgmental
5. Heart emphasis without regulations

The problem: None of these express an authoritative proposition such as one must fully repent of sins to experience God’s forgiveness. There must be absolutes, and we cannot be inexact with them. What you call less judgmental I would call less discerning or less willing to defend the faith.

[Robin Hatcher]

Glenda,

I think being involved in community outreach Christian and otherwise can be very productive and I'm glad your daughter's church believes in social justice as well as holiness. I think they are both possible and don't have to be mutually exclusive. God definitely wants us to "do something that matters." We have to seek HIM to find out what acts of service HE wants us doing. I don't think its enough to say the Church of the Nazarene has missionaries all over the world, we give money to missions, we support XYZ, etc. God wants our money and our time and relationship with us. I'm being convicted now to evaluate how I live and what I invest in. Do I as Philippians 2:4 says, look not only to my own interests, but also to the interests of others? I think not if I'm completely honest. So if a church helps people step out of their comfort zones and into acts of service, I think that is great! Pursue holiness but also meet the needs of the "least of these." One day we will all stand accountable for how we used the resources God so generously provided to us so we could help those less fortunate. Pray that I quiet the noise and listen to the voice of the Lord and follow in obedience as HE directs!

[Glenda Harvey]

I, for one, appreciate your observations Glenda. However, the devil wouldn't be obvious in his schemes to contradict holiness theology, now would he? You have listed some favorable characteristics:

1. Getting involved in the community
2. Having extended Bible studies
3. Preached a sermon on holiness and sexual purity
4. Less judgmental
5. Heart emphasis without regulations

The problem: None of these express an authoritative proposition such as one must fully repent of sins to experience God’s forgiveness. There must be absolutes, and we cannot be inexact with them. What you call less judgmental I would call less discerning or less willing to defend the faith.

I cannot say for sure if this Church considers itself emergent. I am just going by what others on this board have described as emergent and see some similarities. The Church itself was a Church plant out of the Mariners Church in Newport Beach, Ca. which is one of many non-denominational mega Churches in California. They do emphasize Jesus Christ and forgiveness of sin as the way to salvation.

My thought is that there are probably many different Churches that could be considered emergent, some with solid theology and some with watered down theology. Christians who find themselves visiting or attending these Churches need to utilize God's gift of discernment and test the teaching against the scriptures.

[Glenda Harvey]

Another thought just occured to me. In the 60's and 70's we had the Jesus Movement. Non-denominational Churches such as Calvary Chapel began forming with informal come as you are, dress casual worship services, worship bands, contemporary music, Christian rock groups. This style of worship spread into the denominational Evangelical Churches and eventially into some of the traditional mainline Churches. Even the Catholic Church up here has a Sunday evening mass with a worship band singing the same worship songs as all of the other Churches on the mountain.

I think the same thing will happen with the Emergent Church movement. Some Evangelical Churches will eventially start adapting some of the good things that are coming out of the Emergent movement. ie: social consciousness, community involvement, non-judgemental attitudes, sense of community, without changing their overall theology.

[Jeff Scott]

Wow- those are a lot of thoughts...let me add a few of mine...you know, because I'm a self proclaimed expert on all things! :laughing

-I would consider myself to be appreciative of many "emergent" ideas. I have read quite a bit of literature that comes out of this movement. I will continue to do so. For the most part, the emergent conversation has simply articulated thoughts and ideas that I've already had myself. The EC isn't poisoning my brain or faith. Rest assured, if any of it is poison I've been concocting it myself for a while. But I don't think it is poison.

- I gave up on "just because" absolutes a while back. I don't believe in "just because". If I can believe in something "just because" then so can any person of any other faith. This doesn't mean I don't believe in abolutes; I do. I just believe there are good reasons for the absolutes.

- I believe in Hell. I'm not really concerned with how hot it is. Nor am I concerned with avoiding it. I'm concerned with living the way God intended for life to be lived. I believe that's the definition of holiness, more or less. I don't think "emergent-ness" and holiness are mutually exclusive.

-I've heard many people, some in this thread and some in person, repeatedly refer to "reaching the post-moderns" like a person can't be post-modern and Christian. I'm certainly a Christian, even by the modern "ABC's of Christianity" formula, but I would probably consider myself just as much of "a post-modern" as I would a modern.

The one major difficulty that I have with some associated with the EC is that I think they sometimes throw away the baby with the bathwater. I considered leaving the Nazarene church until I discovered that I agree with the Kingdom-driven foundations of our denomination. While I believe we have fallen asleep at the wheel in some ways, I really believe the rumble strip that is the EC provided the wake-up call we may have needed to return to our roots.

...just my .01...because I always have a bit less to offer than Ryan.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Glenda, Don't you think that many churches have been operating a long time, using the methods you listed, before they ever heard of the post modern movement?
Sometimes, I wonder if the post moderns grew up with their head in the sand, to a certain extent, and did not see all of the good things, for the kingdom and others, that had been going on before they were born. Then, all of a sudden, they thought it as brand new. Where did all of these pm's live?
As I read some of the things that are being listed, I think, what else is new? (to you pm's)

And, my mother taught me those strict ways, but it was not what I lived hearing from the pulpits.

[James Diggs]

Randy Dillon wrote,
The ec is big on minimizing propositional truth and elevating felt truth - form more than substance -allowing doubts on God's propositional truth is likely the first step toward deception.

Randy the reality is “propositional truth” reduces the truth of the gospel to systematic forms and spiritually to just an economic exchange. This is as much a first step toward deception as anything; and many modern evangelicals live in this crippling deception today unable to live into the fullness of the truth of the gospel.

Randy Dillon wrote
None of these express an authoritative proposition such as one must fully repent of sins to experience God’s forgiveness. There must be absolutes, and we cannot be inexact with them. What you call less judgmental I would call less discerning or less willing to defend the faith.

The goal is not to fully experience God’s forgiveness but to fully experience God; forgiveness is just a means to that end. Of course, when you see the gospel as a “proposition” than you will often get the means confused with the end. Repentance also becomes shallow and misses the point when focused on propositional truth; this puts the focus of repentance on meeting the requirements for the “deal” which tends to me individualistic in nature (focusing more on turning away from just those things considered personal sins) instead of focusing on turning toward God and living in the fullness of the Kingdom where we become participants with God in not just our own redemption but the redemption of the whole world.

It is hard to be discerning with a propositional theology that can distract us from the point.

[Hans Deventer]

Randy Dillon wrote,


James, completely beside the point but I wonder, doesn't the quote option work for you?

[James Diggs]

James, completely beside the point but I wonder, doesn't the quote option work for you?


lol, never noticed that there was a quote option before. Thanks. Although I am not sure how the quote option would work if you were quoting two different posts in the same reply like I did in the last one.

Peace,

James

[Houston Thomas]

OK, Richard. But as I said before, we won't exist in twenty years if we don't find a way to reach the postmoderns. If you are satisfied with "us four and no more", have at it.

Randy, I appreciate your concern and spirit but the thinking that the Emerging Church is an avenue to "reach post-moderns" seems to me a thoroughly modern way of thinking.

That approach seems to reduce the Emerging Church to a model/method - little different than what the church experienced in the 90's with the 'seeker sensitive/purpose driven models.'

That being said, I have little doubt that is what will happen to the Emerging Church - it will become a model/method because model's and method's can be sold, conferences can be held that outline these models, denominations can jump on board, etc.

I hope it doesn't happen, but I think it will

[Randy McRoberts]

Houston, you are probably right. I'm fifty-five years old and a scientist. How much more modern can you be than that. My old brain is trying to grasp new things and new ways of thinking.

Having said that, I don't think of the emerging church as a method. I think of it as group of Christians for whom the conventional church doesn't work. If it doesn't work for them, it also will not work for others like them who are not yet Christian.

As for me, the conventional church doesn't really work for me either. So my approach is to try to effect change from the inside rather than leave it. It isn't totally satisfying to me, but it is less disruptive for my family. I guess I would consider myself something of a post-evangelical. Don't tell my church, though.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Booo....

Since I've joined Naznet (decade or so...) I've been disagreed with a lot, and even insulted, but I don't remember anyone very "booooing" me! :eek:

I wonder what I'd have to post to get a, Gong Show, style, "gong."

Wilson

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I'm not worried.

I think I'm too deeply entrenched in doing things the way I've done them to remake my thought process and become someone I am not. But I'm not threatened by post-moderns or emergent Christians or whatever other buzz word is in use today.

If the post-mods I see on NazNet are any indication of what is happening in the COtN I think everything will turn out okay.

For one thing, I don't think they are trying to do anything I can't live with. For another, I don't think they are trying to do as much as they think they are. For them its all very revolutionary but, hey, I grew up in the 1960's. I don't think they are going to do anything more revolutionary than my generation did.

For instance, my generation wrestled a 150 year old worship format away from "those in control" and got everyone to singing worship choruses and clapping their hands. We thought we were going to save Christianity by doing it.

In the end, we didn't save or improve Christianity at all and what we thought was new and different will only be a blip on the history of the Church.

Now we are told that the 20-year olds are going to take the Church into new territory. My instincts say, "been there done that."

But know what? I hope they do. I'd rather see something happen within Christianity that makes the Church truly relevant to our society than see things stay the same as they are. I'd rather see Christians get a grasp on holy living than just give lip service to something that they have doubts about.

For instance, I believe in a second definite work of grace in which the Lord purifies the heart by faith. If they have to mess with that clear statement to arrive at the same experience okay, mess with it. God isn't bound by our language or our expectations anyway. At the end of the day, the Lord will respond to their full surrender by doing what he has done for people making that same surrender through the history of Christianity. He doesn't tailer his work in people's hearts based on their expectations or lack thereof anyway.

So, fire away PM's and EC's or whatever you are going by. Don't blame me if I don't jump on your bandwagon. I don't think this fish will learn to fly at this stage. Tell you what, though, I'm not going to fight you and say you can't be saved or can't be a member of the same church as me. And, even if I won't be one of you, I really do hope you are used of God to reach a lost world.

If the sea change is a big as you say it is, one of these days you're going to be considered much more of a fuddy-duddy than I am now.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

... What you call less judgmental I would call less discerning or less willing to defend the faith.

This looks like a fun game. Can I play?

OK, you get a point for calling judging, discerning. :fav18

Here's my first try:
What others call pride, I'll call a healthy self-esteem.

Your turn.

(My concern is that I don't think God will play this game. :basic04 I'm thinking what you call discerning and defending the faith, he'll still call judging. Not that I'm judging, mind you, I'm just discerning...)

Please don't "booo" me for this, I think that would hurt my pride, uh er, I mean my healthy self-esteem. :fav12

Wilson

[Billy Cox]

Since I've joined Naznet (decade or so...) I've been disagreed with a lot, and even insulted, but I don't remember anyone very "booooing" me! :eek:

I wonder what I'd have to post to get a, Gong Show, style, "gong."

Wilson

I envisioned the scene where the people covered their ears and then attacked Stephen in Acts 7. Pharisees don't like to be outed by non-Pharisees after all.

[Randy Dillon]

Since I've joined Naznet (decade or so...) I've been disagreed with a lot, and even insulted, but I don't remember anyone very "booooing" me! :eek:

I wonder what I'd have to post to get a, Gong Show, style, "gong."

Wilson

The gong is reserved for telling a joke on the Late Show with Jay Leno, or for dancing in some holiness university. So watch yourself, buddy. - Randy the Pharisee ear muffler.

[Randy Dillon]

Wilson: Here's my first try: What others call pride, I'll call a healthy self-esteem. Your turn. Healthy self-esteem is an oxymoron. Be “esteeming each other superior to yourselves.” Philippians 2:3 Such admonitions reflect truths outside of our deconstruction techniques. The revealed truth of God's word.

No "boo" here, you're making some progress. Love ya brother!

[Randy Dillon]

James, can you illustrate this to me? Then I'll comment. Thank you.

[James Diggs]

James, can you illustrate this to me?

illustrate what???? I am not sure what you are asking?

[Glenda Harvey]

Glenda, Don't you think that many churches have been operating a long time, using the methods you listed, before they ever heard of the post modern movement?
Sometimes, I wonder if the post moderns grew up with their head in the sand, to a certain extent, and did not see all of the good things, for the kingdom and others, that had been going on before they were born. Then, all of a sudden, they thought it as brand new. Where did all of these pm's live?
As I read some of the things that are being listed, I think, what else is new? (to you pm's)

And, my mother taught me those strict ways, but it was not what I lived hearing from the pulpits.

Yes Anne, I think you may be right.

[Randy Dillon]

illustrate what???? I am not sure what you are asking?

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer James. It's your 'proposition about propositions'.

...the reality is “propositional truth” reduces the truth of the gospel to systematic forms and spiritually to just an economic exchange. Will respond tonight, the good Lord willing. - Randy

[Hans Deventer]

Will respond tonight, the good Lord willing. - Randy

How can you tell what the good Lord wants in this regard?

[James Diggs]

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer James. It's your 'proposition about propositions'.

Will respond tonight, the good Lord willing. - Randy

Randy,

I think I illustrated by point when I responded to your statement:
...proposition such as one must fully repent of sins to experience God’s forgiveness.

I won't repeat what I wrote in response to that but I would like you to look at again HERE (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=166620&postcount=71). In the meantime I will elaborate.

My point is that I don't think we can reduce the gospel to "if than" statements that turn the message of the kingdom of God into just a, well... a "proposition". Evangelicals preach the gospel like like it is selling a car. We draw out the contract, then explain why this is an offer they can't refuse. "All you have to do is consent that you have faith in God and he will absolve all that you owe him." Of course the gospel is totally reduced to economics here of just debt and payment when the gospel is much much more than this.

How about this parable, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

According to the context of the group of parables this is a part of the man planting the seed is God. The seed is the gospel, but it also could be Christ himself, the incarnational presence of God becoming a human being planted into the world. It is not that there aren't certain "conditions" in which this seed grows, provides shade, a home for the birds to nest in, and bears fruit; the parable just before this one about the soils tells us that there are such "conditions". But there is far more to the gospel than just managing and manipulating these conditions. Also notice that these conditions are not about gaining an individualistic advantage in a propositional trade but about allowing God to grow his kingdom in us for the benefit of whole world.

Randy, it is not that there aren't conditional aspects to the gospel but when we through our systematic and formulaic modern mindsets reduce such conditions and see them as the essence of the gospel in the form of "propositional truth" then we very often miss the big picture truth of the gospel. The gospel is about God being alive in our lives (not just individually but collectively) and in the world we live in today. It is not about simply accepting the deal of a lifetime that allows me to escape God's wrath by receiving his pardon; this, at best, is only a small part of the greater whole of the message of the gospel.

You said that doubting "God's propositional truth is likely the first step toward deception." I am saying that couching the truth of all that Christ is and his Kingdom in propositional terms in itself is a "first step toward deception" because it misses the point.

I actually think my original response in this regard was clear, and if you chose to comment on what I am saying please keep it (http://www.naznet.com/community/showpost.php?p=166620&postcount=71) in mind as well.


Peace,

James

[David Showalter]

To all who are concerned: I love the COTN and it has offered me the priviledge of giving my life to the cause of holiness. My children attended ONU and they are serving the Lord in their own professions. It was the message of holiness of heart that made a difference in my life and that of may family. I have a son in heaven today and it was my church and the message of holiness that prepared him for that grand transition.

I love my church. I love and pray for all those giving their allegience to EC. May God get us off this EC notion and back to the preaching, teaching, singing of the doctrine of ES.

Richard, so very thankful that your son is safe and secure for all eternity, to GOD BE THE GLORY! I certainly do not want to dishonor you in regard to this very real, personal, and sensitive area. However, I think your very statement implies a part of our problem today for it is not because of a particular church or a specific message of holiness that sealed your son’s eternal destiny, it was the love, grace, and work of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Nor is it the message of holiness that ultimately makes the difference in our life and living, it is the Power, Spirit, and Life of Christ of and in the message. I fear some of us old timers have far to deep a loyalty to our heritage, tradition, and yea, even church, which causes us to diminish the CHRIST and SPIRIT behind said things. I do not think this is something we necessarily do intentionally, nor are we always aware of how our message and language is being received by the lost, unchurched, and irreligious folks we are trying to reach. But I think it often causes us to stay in a box that no longer fits or meets the needs, language, or understanding of the culture and society in which we now live and need to minister to. God bless.

P.S. How old was your son when he died? I lost a brother when I was 16 and he was 17, it nearly did our family in. Not only was my heart, as well as my siblings hearts broken, but it crushed us to watch our parents grieve with such intensity that we wondered if they would survive. We would not have made it through this difficult time if it hadn’t been for Christ and His Body. Thank God for His Church.

[Randy Dillon]

How can you tell what the good Lord wants in this regard?

"Come now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or that." James 4:13-15

That's all I meant my dear brother and friend. I'm currently involved with a work schedule that can require up to 12 - 14 hours, and as my brother knows, we should trust our future moments into God's hands.

[Randy Dillon]

James, This is why I asked you to illustrate. Your defining “proposition” in terms of making a bargain, not as it is defined in logic as a statement that is either true or false. When Paul opens his Epistle to the Romans, he speaks a propositional truth in 1:16. He’s not concerned whether the gospel is so much bigger than a sentence, he realizes that the truth needs to be defined and written down for all to scrutinize - be it right or wrong. So we have these words:

“.. I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

God's power to save is to everyone who is believing (present tense) -- Simple propositional truth, available for any and all to dissect. No hiding behind experiences that are to be ‘felt more than telt’ kinds of theology.

He doesn’t concern himself with other theologians who might want to quibble about it being so much bigger than a reduced declaration of fact, he throws it out there as if to dare the world’s sharpest minds to disprove its legitimacy. How is the emergent church doing this?

Deception begins in uninformative vague statements. Statements implying we are to “just let God grow His seeds”. It is clear that seeds come in the poisonous variety as well, such as harmless little ‘seed thoughts’ that grow into temptation and then overt acts of sin. Why test the spirits? "Let God do His work" we might conclude. But the scripture warns us repeatedly to be watchful unto prayer, be alert, be vigilant, guarded, for we are quick to backslide and risk becoming victims of deception.

When a man can’t spell it out for all to consider, then we have good reason to be suspicious. You said that doubting "God's propositional truth is likely the first step toward deception." I am saying that couching the truth of all that Christ is and his Kingdom in propositional terms in itself is a "first step toward deception" because it misses the point. No one is trying to reduce a transcendent God into a box here. We're referencing revealed truth. Gospel can be defined, scripturally. Repent can be defined scripturally. Forgiveness, and having life in His Name, all of this can be placed into declarative statements. Beware of the ambiguities in any movement.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

My point is that I don't think we can reduce the gospel to "if than" statements that turn the message of the kingdom of God into just a, well... a "proposition". Evangelicals preach the gospel like like it is selling a car. We draw out the contract, then explain why this is an offer they can't refuse.

The following thread deals with this topic from the perspective of how we do evangelism.... You might find it interesting.

http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=8799&highlight=sinner%27s+prayer

Wilson

[Richard Call]

David Showalter, my son was 28 and served as youth minister, as a laymen, on salary at Chicago First Church. His name was David Call.

You seem to say that I given undue loyalty to the church and ONU for David's salvation. However, may I say that I meant that the COTN has given my family a means to serve the Lord and to be nourished and inspired to live the life of holiness. Undue loyalty is not my "cup of tea." However, commitment to the cause of the COTN is mine and I shall remain loyal to it so long as my church remains faithful to her originally stated purpose: the salvation of the sinner and the entire sanctification of the believer; to grow in grace. No more....no less than this.

Thanks for your comments.

[James Diggs]

Deception begins in uninformative vague statements...Statements implying we are to “just let God grow His seeds …When a man can’t spell it out for all to consider, then we have good reason to be suspicious ...“proposition” (is) defined in logic as a statement that is either true or false

Well the "vague statement" I used was one of Jesus’ parables; and you are right that the Pharisees were extremely suspicious because Jesus seemed to never want to spell it out plainly for them in terms of "yes or no" and/or "true or false".

You say that “proposition” is “defined in logic as a statement that is either true or false”. I certainly think this makes a lot of sense and that this lens reveals a lot of what is true in the world; but as a lens it also leaves a lot out. There are other lenses that are more tuned in to see where truth intersects with “both/and” and this is something that we often miss when we define things by categories of logic that wants to pinhole exactly what something is and something isn’t. I think the power to reveal truth through the parables of Jesus is a great example of this.

When Paul opens his Epistle to the Romans, he speaks a propositional truth in 1:16. “.. I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” ...God's power to save is to everyone who is believing (present tense) -- Simple propositional truth (a statement that is either true or false) available for any and all to dissect.

As for Paul, when he says that the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” what is he talking about? What is the gospel? How does believing play a part? Of course Paul does go into great lengths to explain what he is talking about, but I think it is important to remember that Paul is basing his arguments on the life and teachings of Jesus. I try to remember this as I read Paul so that I filter his writing through the gospels and the narrative and story he built his thinking on.

I think a lot of people do the opposite and the read the gospels through the lens of Paul. The biggest problem with this besides the fact that Paul was building on Jesus and not the other way around, is that it is very easy to read in our own western/modern mindset into Paul’s style where it simply does not exist. Again when Paul writes about the “gospel” he is talking about the incarnational presence of God in the world, he is talking about the very life of Jesus that as God’s seed plants the Kingdom of God and reproduce the life of Christ in the body of his church as his continual presence in the world, and he is speaking about all those “vague” -“the Kingdom of heaven is like” statements that Jesus made.

When we forget this as the context and depth of what Paul is referring to when he says “the gospel” we tend to turn Paul’s writings into a closed self containing system; and I don’t think this was ever Paul’s intent. In a closed system of Paul we can very easily see “believing” as propositional (yes I mean in way that emphasizes a bargin) and have very little appreciation for the fullness of what Paul means and that we think we are bargaining for. I think understanding Paul built on the foundation of the teachings of Jesus according to the gospels will help us see that the “believing” that Paul talks about goes much further than the propositional idea of “believing” just meaning accepting something as either “true or false”. Paul himself goes to great lengths through the entire book of Romans and other epistles to show that believing is not merely assenting that something is “true or false” but belief is about living into the reality of the Kingdom of God.

No one is trying to reduce a transcendent God into a box here. We're referencing revealed truth. Gospel can be defined, scripturally. Repent can be defined scripturally. Forgiveness, and having life in His Name, all of this can be placed into declarative statements.

I am not saying that terms can not be defined, but I am saying that though words give us some handles and framework to explore reality and the truth the framework just represents the reality and is not the reality itself. The nature of language itself has some built in ambiguity and limitations no matter how much we try to be specific; especially when we are talking about God. People may not be trying to put God in a box in all of this but if they can not see God past all of this framework then the box may be all they truly have. God and his kingdom are bigger than the framework we use to describe him; bigger than modern systems of either “this or that”, and 1’s and 0’s. I am not saying that having framework is wrong but when we trade not recognizing the limits of our “definitions” and “declarative statements” for limiting the fullness of the truth of God then I think we are in big trouble.

Randy, you point us to Paul’s message of “belief” and “faith” which I in the context of Paul and the message of the gospels, and the person of Jesus Christ he gave his life too, were firmly placed in embracing the mystery of God. Despite all of Paul’s categories and early systematic thinking he always knew that things he were speaking of, and that God in Christ brought us the substance of, is a mystery. Paul knew he was only seeing God as reflection through the likes of a cloudy mirror.

Having a respect for the mystery gives Paul's statements such foundational context and perspective. I think much of the emergent conversation is seeking to do the same thing, as it is realizing that sometimes there is more fullness of truth in a narrative than there are in “declarative statements”. It is not that those type of statement have no value, they do, and I am glad that they have been said. I just don’t think we can truly appreciate the truth they reveal until we also understand their limitations in the context of the mystery of God.

Peace,

James

[Randy Dillon]

You might find it interesting. Yes, very interesting. It's odd how we, the current church, think that our predecessors never considered those passages of an altar-less encounter with sinners. It's as if we're to believe that in over 200 years of American Christianity, all were biblical illiterates! Could it be, that the longevity of the altar call is a resultant of careful, prayerful deliberation? To be succinct, we see the trilateral of reason, experience and tradition as checks to the final authority of scriptural interpretation. Did that come into their uneducated estimations? Perhaps they had a framework constructed from the need for an initiation of faith, the clarity of the call to repentance, the public witness, and the biblical role of the authority of the the church as the pillar and ground of the truth.

In Phillip's day, an Ethiopian needed more than just God to show him, he answered Phillip's question concerning his ability to understand the bible with... "How can I except some one show me?"

BEFORE WE GET RID OF THE ALTARS, MAYBE WE NEED TO GET SOME PREACHERS EMPOWERED FROM ON HIGH -- SO THAT THEY QUIT FINDING EXCUSES -- FOR NOT HAVING **POWER SUFFICIENT** TO PREACH PEOPLE UNDER CONVICTION.

[David Showalter]

David Showalter, my son was 28 and served as youth minister, as a laymen, on salary at Chicago First Church. His name was David Call.


Richard, sorry for your family's loss. I pray the Lord will continue to bless the life lived and shared, and memories left, by your son David.

I have a friend, Dan Westveer, who pastored in Chicago for a number of years, I held a revival for him (his church) many years ago.

[Hans Deventer]

"Come now, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a vapor, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or that." James 4:13-15

That's all I meant my dear brother and friend. I'm currently involved with a work schedule that can require up to 12 - 14 hours, and as my brother knows, we should trust our future moments into God's hands.

I guess I have a problem with that verse as interpreted. That means that if I'm killed in a car accident today, God never wanted me to come to Idaho next week? I have a real hard time believing that.
Also, as I understand what James is saying, he is arguing against people who are arrogant. For the paragraph continues in verse 16: "As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil." The problem is the boasting and bragging. Which, dear brother, I am sure you are not guilty of and certainly don't want to be.

And that brings me back to the question, why this quotation if you're not bragging and boasting?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

In the US, many Christians have been raised to say "If the Lord wills," or "God willing," when we make a statement of something we plan to do. We may be making the plans, but due to the verse
that Randy posted, we took that statement serious, and added "Lord willing," etc., meaning that this is my plans, unless I have a feeling that God is leaading me to do otherwise.

[Randy Dillon]

I guess I have a problem with that verse as interpreted. That means that if I'm killed in a car accident today, God never wanted me to come to Idaho next week? I have a real hard time believing that. Also, as I understand what James is saying, he is arguing against people who are arrogant. For the paragraph continues in verse 16: "As it is, you boast and brag. All such boasting is evil." The problem is the boasting and bragging. Which, dear brother, I am sure you are not guilty of and certainly don't want to be. And that brings me back to the question, why this quotation if you're not bragging and boasting? Hi brother Hans. I'm certainly not trying to be the final word on the Book of James, but I have studied it at length. The chapter is situated in an epistle that wants to reveal to Jewish believers everywhere that there are ‘dual yearnings’ in unsanctified Christians. A double mindedness between that of the Spirit of God favoring release through humility, and the egocentricity of man positioned in pride. Hence, it is evidenced in ordinary behavior patterns such as our future plans. There is an interesting contrast between phrases in chapter one. One concerning God “of His own will” in 1:18 - and one concerning man “his own lust” of verse 14. Humility and pride are contrasted earlier in chapter 1 as well. We see it in the chapter my brother is now questioning. In 4:6 God resists the proud as He gives more grace to the humble.

James hones in on what I like to refer to as the very ‘starting point’. The very first step into our mornings, our new day, is it from “our own lust” or “of His own will”? This is a major idea James has laid out at the very beginning and one he truly never departs.

[Hans Deventer]

James hones in on what I like to refer to as the very ‘starting point’. The very first step into our mornings, our new day, is it from “our own lust” or “of His own will”? This is a major idea James has laid out at the very beginning and one he truly never departs.

Agreed! But lets turn it practical here. Back in November, I registered for the NNU 2008 Conference, found a place to stay through the wonderful offer of brother Manley and booked my flights. The real issue then is, did I do so out of "my own lust" or "of His own will"? I didn't get any notes from heaven, but I did sense that doors were opened. Bob's offer for a place to stay, my wife Hannie agreeing I should go (which is remarkable in her situation), and airfare that was most reasonable, enthusiasm from my pastor. So there were several things that gave me an indication it would be good for me to go, mixed of course with my initial desire to do so, in order to learn how to serve my church better. I had ordered the DVD's of the 2007 conference and was very much blown away by the depth of the discussions and the desire to really wrestle with the question of how to live and proclaim holiness in the 21st century. Of course my personal contacts with Dr. Tom Oord and the discussion on his proposals regarding Article X helped as well.
And of course through all of this, we pray.

So if I had any idea that God would not want me to go, I wouldn't go. And if I think He does want me to go, I will. In neither case will I write, "God willing". That is a phrase that adds nothing for me. I try to live my whole life in such a way that I ask myself at forehand if what I do is "God willing".

I'm sure you do that too, Randy.

[Eric Frey]

Could it be, that the longevity of the altar call is a resultant of careful, prayerful deliberation?


I didn't read the article yet, but I found this response astounding. Considering the history of the church, I would be very stretched to describe the "age of the altar call" (which is largely over in most, but not all circles) in terms of longevity. It was not thought of in its contemprary, American Campmeeting context until very recently in the church's history. Most trace its origens somewhere in the ballpark of Charles Finey in the 19th century (see also wikipedia and others). That means its longevity was roughly 10% of the Christian era.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

In Phillip's day, an Ethiopian needed more than just God to show him, he answered Phillip's question concerning his ability to understand the bible with... "How can I except some one show me?"

BEFORE WE GET RID OF THE ALTARS, ....

Interestingly, Phillip and the Ethiopian didn't have an altar! Furthermore, there is no record of Phillip saying, "First, you have to repeat after me, 'Father, I admit that I'm a sinner...."

The Ethiopian's conversion really just doesn't fit with the formal evangelism plans I've had pushed on me. In fact, Philip didn't even stick around to do follow-up! I guess God's plan is bigger than the one's we package.

Wilson

[Randy Dillon]

Interestingly, Phillip and the Ethiopian didn't have an altar! Furthermore, there is no record of Phillip saying, "First, you have to repeat after me, 'Father, I admit that I'm a sinner...."

The Ethiopian's conversion really just doesn't fit with the formal evangelism plans I've had pushed on me. In fact, Philip didn't even stick around to do follow-up! I guess God's plan is bigger than the one's we package.

Wilson

Oh boy.... so little time, with so much to write! I'm privileged that you would take the time to correspond with me. Thank you.

The altar represents the sacrifice of our Lord and communicates His atonement for our sins, an acknowledged and key ‘focal point’ in worship. There is a spiritual worth in bringing one’s gift to the altar after meeting certain conditions as in Matthew 5:23, 24, ushering forth reverence in that interface with God’s Spirit. A coveted divine Presence sanctifying the gift offered in a transparency before Him. Yes, offering ourselves as a living sacrifice, and in a visible setting, elicits faith (a response of the will toward God) and is recognized in scripture for those experiencing a true intimacy with God. A locality, where it is measured in contrast to those unprotected in the “outer court”.. Revelation 11:1 This unworthy soul, for one, will not be so quick to dismiss the preacher’s appeal toward this unashamed overlap of a spilled out soul and a merciful God!

If my brothers will reread my post, then they would find that I was writing of 200 years of American history (which some trace the earliest altar calls to around 1800) and that the eunuch illustrated the importance of an “altar worker” rather than just leaving people to the mystical ways of God. I was clear in pinpointing that logical deduction arrived at the need for altar calls in and through a disciplined studying of the scripture, evaluating experiences, invoking reason, and the tradition of revivals in America even up and through our day in the Billy Graham crusades. May HE astonish you at what HE is still able to accomplish at the altar of prayer – in our churches.

[Randy Dillon]

Well the "vague statement" I used was one of Jesus’ parables; and you are right that the Pharisees were extremely suspicious because Jesus seemed to never want to spell it out plainly for them in terms of "yes or no" and/or "true or false". That's not true at all. He wanted them to "ask-seek-knock" my friend, so that they would know. Matthew 13:11 John 7:17

Your response is worthy of much more attention, and I thank you for it James. Time is very limited for me and will try to get back to it very soon.

[Randy Dillon]

Thanks Hans, I believe that we're in agreement at some point, maybe not the "starting point". I'll need to elaborate further. Faith is a response to a prior initiation of God, and this reaction is not self-prominent. Will return later today - the good Lord willing. ;-)

[Hans Deventer]

Will return later today - the good Lord willing. ;-)

The man who has doubts is condemned [....] and everything that does not come from faith is sin. Rom 14:23 :basic03

[Eric Frey]

The altar represents the sacrifice of our Lord and communicates His atonement for our sins, an acknowledged and key ‘focal point’ in worship. There is a spiritual worth in bringing one’s gift to the altar after meeting certain conditions as in Matthew 5:23, 24, ushering forth reverence in that interface with God’s Spirit. A coveted divine Presence sanctifying the gift offered in a transparency before Him. Yes, offering ourselves as a living sacrifice, and in a visible setting, elicits faith (a response of the will toward God) and is recognized in scripture for those experiencing a true intimacy with God. A locality, where it is measured in contrast to those unprotected in the “outer court”.. Revelation 11:1 This unworthy soul, for one, will not be so quick to dismiss the preacher’s appeal toward this unashamed overlap of a spilled out soul and a merciful God!



I'm a little confused. Are you speaking of the altar or the mourners bench? The altar is, as you describe it, the place of sacrifice and the focal point of worship. However, most Nazarenes wouldn't call it the altar. They would call it the Communion Table (but is properly known as the altar). Most traditions came forward and knelt to receive the Holy Supper. The place where they knelt is known as the altar rail, for it is the rail from which the gifts of the altar are offered to the people.

As you indicated, in American history the Communion was frequently removed and the people kept coming anyway. The rail was lowered to make it more consistant with a posture of prayer rather than receive the Supper and became known as the mourners bench. It is really quite a fascinating story of history and architecture.

[James Diggs]

I said, "the 'vague statement' I used was one of Jesus’ parables; and you are right that the Pharisees were extremely suspicious because Jesus seemed to never want to spell it out plainly for them in terms of 'yes or no' and/or 'true or false'."

That's not true at all. He wanted them to "ask-seek-knock" my friend, so that they would know. Matthew 13:11 John 7:17

Your response is worthy of much more attention, and I thank you for it James. Time is very limited for me and will try to get back to it very soon.

Not true at all? I think you either may be missing my point I am trying to make or are disagreeing with some other aspect of what I am saying besides the statement you quote.

It is true that what you referred to as a "vague statement" about seed was in reference to a parable Jesus told. Matthew 13:31-32

It is also true that the Pharisees were extremely suspicious because Jesus seemed to never want to spell it out plainly for them in terms of 'yes or no' and/or 'true or false'." such as in John 10:24.

Perhaps you are saying that you don't think parables are "vague", I would agree that they aren't, which is why I put the word "vague" in quotes; I was responding to your comment that stated the truth conveyed by the story I told about a seed being planted and growing a tree in the field was "vague" (again Matthew 13:31-32). And I added that there were Jews that accused Jesus of being vague and not speaking "plainly" when he spoke with parables.

I don't think Jesus' parables are vague, but they may seem that way to those who have such strict categories of what they think is true they simply can not follow the greater truth that can be found in a narrative. I agree with you that Jesus wanted them to "ask, seek and knock" so that they can know;and I think one reason Jesus used the narratives of parables is because the truth he was conveying is both greater and can be known deeper than what can just be spoken through declarative statements.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my comments when you find the time.

Peace,

James

[Dale Cozby]

The man who has doubts is condemned [....] and everything that does not come from faith is sin. Rom 14:23 :basic03 Wrong scripture Hans

"Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that " James 4:13-15

:basic03

[Hans Deventer]

Wrong scripture Hans

Wrong reaction, Dale. Read before you post, we've covered that one several posts ago already.

[Dale Cozby]

Wrong reaction, Dale. Read before you post, we've covered that one several posts ago already.


I am sorry I forgot that scripture has no "literal" meaning to you.:basic03 apart from the contextual. Therefore no scripture can be applied to you personally as it is written.

But if we are gonna take the scripture you quoted in context as well.. it is contextually talking about eating and so therefore this scrupture doesn't apply either. As the doubting only contextually talks about eating. otherwise we have to make a leap of situational application of scripture....which seems to be selectively done.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

.... May HE astonish you at what HE is still able to accomplish at the altar of prayer – in our churches.

And may he astonish you at what he is able to accomplish even without one.

Wilson

[Hans Deventer]

which seems to be selectively done.

Seems? Of course it is selectively done! That's what the :basic03 was for.

[William Hunter]

Thomas, could you give us a description of what you call "the emergent movements" that you see in the COTN. This is not an attempt to begin an argument. I'd really like to hear what you have to say as I am trying to find God's clear direction in a new direction for ministry.



Interesting taxonomy, Randy!

As I look at the titles -- and without knowing the details of what each means but guessing based upon what I know of those who prefer to use these titles to identify their own methods -- I wonder where Wesleyan/Holiness emergent churches fit.

The titles alone don't suggest any obvious correspondence. I know I wouldn't personally use any of these titles to describe the emergent movements I see going on the CotN.

Perhaps we need another category in the taxonomy. How about the "Revisionary Model?"

It would draw from wisdom found in the past and present, while anticipating how God might act in the possible futures. It would emphasize a loving, relational God and that God's call for loving cooperation. It would land in the middle between extreme relativism and dogmatic absolutism. It would emphasize persons in community, rather than isolated individualism or authoritarian communitarianism. It would blur the boundaries of the secular and the sacred, seeing God present in all things but more fully revealed in some rather than others. It would emphasize diversity and difference without affirming that "anything goes." It would...

Okay, this post is starting to sound like the opening lecture I'm putting together for NNU's upcoming conference with Brian McLaren, Scott Daniels, and others. Sorry. Must have this stuff on the brain!

Thanks for posting the taxonomy!

Tom

[James Diggs]

...The altar represents the sacrifice of our Lord and communicates His atonement for our sins, an acknowledged and key ‘focal point’ in worship. ...If my brothers will reread my post, then they would find that I was writing of 200 years of American history ...and the tradition of revivals in America even up and through our day in the Billy Graham crusades.

Yea, I am not sure that American Evangelism represents the best influence on worship (not to take away from the great ministry of Billy Graham). I would argue that the incarnation of Jesus Christ is far more the appropriate focal point of worship than an alter representing sacrifice. I think this is why the table is much more appropriate center in worship; this includes a sacrificial element of a broken body and shed blood but the context of flesh and blood is incarnational; God meets us where we are, participates in humanity, so that we can participate in God.

6 months ago I began using the lectionary and using the table as the centerpiece of our weekly gathering and really trying to create an opportunity for us all to enter into the story. I want us to be captured by the invitation God calls us too, be caught up in the teachings of Jesus and be shaped by and respond to his word as a community. I want us to regularly participate in the table, and to truly be sent out into the world every week.

Though I am still learning, I have found this to be far fuller of a Christian experience, and far more shaping in my community as far as discipleship, than the American Evangelical model that is "decision" centered focusing wholly on the sermon and the alter.

The movement of American Evangelical worship is built on making a case and then asking for decisions. The music, prayers, and activity of American Evangelical worship all points to the sermon as the grand finally that hopes will seal the deal for its listeners so that they will accept what God offers them. Ultimately I think this represents a fundamentally poor theology of worship that takes the sacrifice of Christ out of context from his incarnation and because of this encourages a very one dimensional and shallow worship experience. This is most obviously true in American Evangelicalism as it struggles to make worship relevant for those who have already made a "decision for Christ" and struggles as a worship format to usher them into the fullness of the life of Christ.

The table has a much deeper connection to the life of Christ than the alter does which is why Jesus asked us to participate in it together whenever we gather together. Ultimately I think this becomes a much better center piece for the movement of corporate worship because it calls us to participate in the life of Christ and his body rather than just being convinced to make a decision to believe something as true or to "accept his sacrifice". The fullness of Christian life is not in accepting the sacrifice it is in the sharing of the life of Christ in which sacrifice is just one part. Our worship should be this balanced also.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

The routes these exchanges take are often interesting: from the "emerging church" to "altar calls!" I think everyone will agree that not having altars and altar calls does not make a church "emerging." If that were so 90% of the traditional churches in America would be emergent churches!

I'm no expert on EC's and PM's - but I wouldn't be surprised to find some form of altar calls in their number.

[Kevin Rector]

The movement of American Evangelical worship is built on making a case and then asking for decisions.

The American Evangelical church made the mistake of thinking that the worship service existed to be an evangelistic event. We have to get people to come to church so the preacher can preach to them so that they can get convicted so that they would get saved. This finally culminated in the seeker sensitive model of church.

I prefer to think of the worship service as the time when believers come together to worship God. It is evangelistic in that when non-believers participate in worship they are moved and God's grace is imparted to them. But evangelism happens out in the world, and should be done by all the members of God's Kingdom rather than relying on the pastor to "seal the deal".

[James Diggs]

The routes these exchanges take are often interesting: from the "emerging church" to "altar calls!" I think everyone will agree that not having altars and altar calls does not make a church "emerging." If that were so 90% of the traditional churches in America would be emergent churches!

I'm no expert on EC's and PM's - but I wouldn't be surprised to find some form of altar calls in their number.

Yea, it is interesting how the conversation can change like this, and I do agree with your statement.

I would add though that just because many modern American evangelical churches today have abandoned the alter call this does not mean that the form they use as being "sermon centered" is still not very much influenced by the fact the alter call is part of that style of movement of worship's history. What you end up with with out the alter call makes little sense and i kind of bland.

I would also point out that their are streams of the emergent church that are very much influence by the theology of worship centered around the table, the incarnation, and the lectionary. Their is an Ancient/Future aspect of this that is digging far deeper into Christian orthodoxy than the last 200 years of American Evangelicalism.

[William Hunter]

James, I suspect that you are a fan of the writings of the late Robert Webber. I have most of his books here and I find them extremely insightful and helpful in u