Mark Lowry Recovering Fundamentalist - Interesting

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Man on His own cannot be objective.

The Word of God is objective truth. Its truth doesn't depend on our subjective experience or our feelings or our opinion.

For instance, God commands us, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

It is wrong to bear false witness against our neighbor no matter what our subjective experience is. We may think it is OK to bear false witness, but the objective word of God says it is wrong. We don't wait to verify the objective word of God before we believe it and act upon it.

The same can be said for all of God's moral law. If we wait to verify it by our subjective experiences, we are telling God that His Word is not sufficient but that we need our own experiences before we believe Him. That's what Abraham and Sarah did when they tried to help God fulfill His promises. It leads to works righteousness and to putting man in God's place.

When you consider that the Word of God is not "just a book" but in fact is "living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword" being the work of the Holy Spirit "that convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" it is easy to see why it is for example that non-SDAs will sometimes "show up in church" on a fine Sabbath morning (like today at my church) convinced that God is pointing in the bible to role of the Sabbath in the life of a Christian.

All liberal naysaying not withstanding...

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Mark Driscoll pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington explains various types in the emerging/emergent church movement. Take 7 minutes, watch and learn.

Or if you prefer to read a more comprehensive description - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

[BobRyan]

Good video - - seems to peg our EC SDAs in the "Emergent Liberal" category 4 in that video.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

Perhaps I could sum it up this way. In the EC movement, it is cool to seek God, but it is not cool to find Him = Olger.

The last sentence is among the most ignorant statements about the emerging church movement. The difficulty you are up against is the presumption of having it all figured out squared off against the reality of cluelessness.

The liberal/conservative divide is useless in attempting to categorize the emerging church movement. Those are modern constructs and the emerging church is postmodern. It's a hole new ballgame not so easily pigeon-holed by such neat little cliches and traditional platitudes of criticism.

Here is an apt blog answer to your blithe snippets of ill-aimed criticism - http://julieclawson.com/2008/09/30/emerging-vs-liberalconservative-theology/

What did you find most objectionable in Olger's post, Tom? His ignorance,presumptousness,cluelessness,use of blithe,cliche,and platitudes? Or his lack of William Tell accuracy?

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes.

[BobRyan]

I guess it was just too hard to pick just one insult for John -- so go with them all???

oh well.. it must be part of the EC way that John still finds so blatant.

in Christ,

Bob

[phkrause]

Good video - - seems to peg our EC SDAs in the "Emergent Liberal" category 4 in that video.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob sorry but I didn't get that from this video! Not sure how you came up with that?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Olger

Perhaps I could sum it up this way. In the EC movement, it is cool to seek God, but it is not cool to find Him.

Wow!

I have not paid much attention to the EC because all of its marketing and advertising makes it appear to be nothing more than liberalism "warmed over".

But having read your summary statement above - I think I will check out Tom's link to see if in fact there is a hair's breadth difference between EC and liberalism "warmed over".

1First sign of transparent flaw in EC - at Tom's link

Originally Posted By: Julie

the liberals getting miffed at us for "rediscovering" what they've been saying all along

As I read through the article I thought another quote would come up from the article as being even more informative and insightful -- but alas none was there...

Then perhaps you should read it again, more carefully.

If it (insider's pov) doesn't say what you want it to about emerging/emergent postmodern church, maybe that is not the shortfall to be concerned about, but rather that of the critics.

[BobRyan]

Actually - I thought it was rather thorough.

I was simply hoping there was more to it.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Bob sorry but I didn't get that from this video! Not sure how you came up with that?

In the first 3 groups the video describes people simply using different "styles" of worship... in the fourth the video describes an emergent liberal kicking at the tires of the Bible itself. Fits perfectly with the blog that Tom suggested.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Good video - - seems to peg our EC SDAs in the "Emergent Liberal" category 4 in that video.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob sorry but I didn't get that from this video! Not sure how you came up with that?

It's that pigeon-holing problem... (See earlier blog link)

[BobRyan]

Agree comparing the video to the blog link - making the 4th group in the video the perfect fit for the blog link's explanation of their view/flavor for the EC -- it is in fact what the Video calls "Emergent Liberal".

No wonder at all that the blog link admits that the ECers get complaints from liberals that all they are doing is repackaging old liberal ideas.

Thanks for posting them.

Very informative.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually - I thought it was rather thorough.

I was simply hoping there was more to it.

in Christ,

Bob

That's why I posted the other stuff...

The blog article was specifically in response to olger's lame pigeon-holing effort.

[LifeHiscost]

I guess it was just too hard to pick just one insult for John -- so go with them all???

oh well.. it must be part of the EC way that John still finds so blatant.

in Christ,

Bob

If the emergent Church does not abide in the following Word, it is following a rabbit trail that leads down a hole to eventual despair, no matter how much motion or noise is produced.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?"Micah 6:8 NKJV

God blesses!

[phkrause]

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Bob sorry but I didn't get that from this video! Not sure how you came up with that?

In the first 3 groups the video describes people simply using different "styles" of worship... in the fourth the video describes an emergent liberal kicking at the tires of the Bible itself. Fits perfectly with the blog that Tom suggested.

in Christ,

Bob

Not if you read it with understanding.

It is simply hard to neatly pigeon-hole the various emerging/emergent streams. It is a never-ending openness to possibilities. To try to do so is like finishing this sentence about the world - "It is_____."

[doug yowell]

Good video

I agree, good video. I liked his humor. Thanks Tom.

[Guest]

Agree comparing the video to the blog link - making the 4th group in the video the perfect fit for the blog link's explanation of their view/flavor for the EC -- it is in fact what the Video calls "Emergent Liberal".

No wonder at all that the blog link admits that the ECers get complaints from liberals that all they are doing is repackaging old liberal ideas.

Thanks for posting them.

Very informative.

in Christ,

Bob

Yep. Couldn't agree more.

[Tom Wetmore]

Good video - - seems to peg our EC SDAs in the "Emergent Liberal" category 4 in that video.

in Christ,

Bob

More to the point...

One of the primary voices (mentioned several times in the video) of the so-called "Emergent Liberal" is Brian McLaren. (Coincidentally his church is within walking distance of my house.) I have read a half dozen or so of his books. There is not much there to describe any SDA's, even those that could be described as or that actually consider themselves as in the emerging church movement.

It's that pigeon-holing thing, as I said...

It doesn't work. It isn't meaningful or helpful. It's just a waste of words.

Words are important. Use them carefully.

[BobRyan]

The video is a case of a non-SDA describing other non-SDA EC "flavors".

But if you can transpose it into the SDA context then his opening remarks about the 4th EC group - which even he calls "Emergent Liberals" is very very "instructive" for the unbiased objective viewer that is even remotely familiar with the SDA EC movement.

In the case of the blog post - we have a self-proclaimed EC also admitting that the primary complaint that the EC folks get from liberals is that they are simply borrowing old had liberal notions.

Who am I to object to her own description.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I hear what your saying, but It seems to me that others do this much more than we do. I'm not aware of any sda pastors that fit that category, but there are some members though.

In the video all the other groups are merely tinkering with "worship style" and leaving all the doctrines pretty much alone.

Only 4th group described takes any issue at all with doctrine.

How can anyone possible argue that the SDA version of EC is the classic SDA view of doctrine?

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Because, quite simply, there is no single SDA version of EC, if there is any EC movement within Adventism at all.

You are, as you suggested, transposing what was said over some superficial observations about Adventist of varying strips and practices and slapping the labels on them.

The vast majority of SDA Churches that have changed anything, without regard for EC at all, would fit one or more of the descriptions in the first three. Very few, if any, Adventist churches or Adventist pastors could be described as traveling in lane 4.

[doug yowell]

More to the point...

One of the primary voices (mentioned several times in the video) of the so-called "Emergent Liberal" is Brian McLaren. (Coincidentally his church is within walking distance of my house.) I have read a half dozen or so of his books. There is not much there to describe any SDA's, even those that could be described as or that actually consider themselves as in the emerging church movement.

It's that pigeon-holing thing, as I said...

Yet, your wiki info specifically listed "adventists" as one of the groups in which the movement could be evidenced. So who has the objective (with all due respect to Hamilton-Beach)truth here,Tom,Bob,Olger,McLaren, or wiki?

[BobRyan]

Because, quite simply, there is no single SDA version of EC, if there is any EC movement within Adventism at all.

I am greatly encouraged by your "if there is any EC movement within Adventism at all" statement.

I wonder how a "Progressive Adventism" vs "Emergent liberal within Adventism" article would look.

Things that make you go "hmmmm".

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

...In the case of the blog post - we have a self-proclaimed EC also admitting that the primary complaint that the EC folks get from liberals is that they are simply borrowing old had liberal notions.

Who am I to object to her own description.

And precisely the reason I have suggested you read it again. Just to illustrate the point that that you not only missed, but misrepresented the full blog is below. I have highlighted where she repeatedly makes the point you seem not to get and keep wanting to misrepresent.

Emerging vs. Liberal/Conservative Theology

2008 SEPTEMBER 30

by Julie Clawson

As I mentioned yesterday, I often feel like I am either the most conservative or the most liberal person in a crowd (theologically in particular). No matter what others may try to dismiss me as, I really don't fit those traditional categories. And it's not just that I inhabit some murky middle ground either. As many in the emergent movement have expressed over and over again – this is a whole different ballgame.

People like to categorize, define, and understand. If they see something in emergents that they vaguely recognize, they then jump to the conclusion that we fit lock-step in with that thing they already know. But, as the cliche goes, a little knowledge can be very dangerous. As we emerge (a still fluid undefined process) it is frustrating to be defined as "just a young hipper evangelical" or "just a classic social justice liberal." That word "just" can be the most frustrating thing imaginable. Everytime I hear (read) such phrases I want to tell that person – "you think you understand, but you really really don't get it." The categories they are operating under don't even apply anymore. Such attempts to pigeon-hole a movement into broken and defunct categories is futile.

So recently I've had a number of people assert that emerging theology is exactly the same as classic liberal theology. It seems all we emergents have to do is question the need for fundamentalist constructs like inerrancy or mention the term "social justice" and we get lumped in with classic liberalism. This results in the evangelicals calling us heretics and the liberals getting miffed at us for "rediscovering" what they've been saying all along. Basically we piss off everyone.

But we are not at home in either camp. And to use extremely broad generalizations to explain why – it's because the conservative/liberal divide is a modern construct and emergents are postmodern. Conservatives and liberals are flip sides of the same coin. They employ modern methods and faith in scientific processes in their approach to faith/religion. Their world is black and white – they are seeking certainty and ultimately need to be right. So the bible has to be completely 100% literally and historically true or it is completely debunked and demythologized. It's one or the other – you must choose and choose wisely. But postmoderns are more comfortable with grays – with multiple possibilities held in tension. The Bible can be true in a variety of ways – including (gasp) historically. For us it's not about being right, but about being open to possibilities.

So of course there will be elements of emerging theology that resemble social justice liberalism or evangelicalism just like there are elements that resemble Anabaptist and monastic thought. This whole generous orthodoxy thing is only possible once one is open to multiple possibilities. And as for the Bible this isn't about throwing it out or trusting it too much. Acknowledging that multiple interpretations are possible increases my faith and trust in God working dynamically in the world.

I know I'm not a theologian and that my very very basic understanding of trends in historical theology is paltry, and that many others have answered this far better than I, but I need to address the recent questions about why emerging theology isn't "just" options A or B. It is and isn't both A and B, and C, D, and E and so on. It's complex. And it's fine by me if people want to disagree with emerging theology (as if what I think matters…), but it would be helpful if they took the time to understand what exactly it is they are disagreeing with. It is easy to disagree with strawmen or known factors, but an oozy developing open system is tad more complex to attempt to dismantle.