« Not all Muslims are Mad (as in Crazy) | Main | Research Points to Single Origin for Humans »

July 31, 2007

Comments

I must admit, my first reaction (and I use the term advisedly) to the initial posters was not positive (and I wisely refrained from posting). I had read too many poorly supported critiques and was feeling a bit raw. But with the passage of time the humor has bemused me--and the critique. When I saw the response over at emerging grace, it was a bit of fresh air. I too appreciate the positive statements (though, I would change some of the wording).

All this to say, I agree and well put.

I really enjoy the demotivators at www.demotivators.com, so I find myself busting up laughing at those posters that caricatured the EC. Those were really good!

The issue at its core really has to do with the emerging false view of what Dr. Walter Martin often called "the historic orthodox Christian Church."

I know for me it's not a personal issue with any Emergents, what is at stake is the Gospel itself. It grieves me that the evangelical community by embracing this (at best) neo-orthodox movement will now find itself arguing for, and having to defend, what should have been its most basic beliefs.

Ken,

I am in absolute agreement that the single-most important issue here is the Gospel; we must be as wise as serpents, and stand firmly for the truth of God's gospel as revealed His word. We should not embrace any movement that attacks those most basic beliefs. (Though we should certainly also be prepared to answer honest questions with a charitable spirit.) And there have certainly been some orthodoxy problems coming from the Emergent movement.

And part of being wise as serpents is showing discernment. We should not assume that everyone who uses the label "emerging" is questioning the Gospel. Some are simply concerned with matters of practice. Some are seeking renewal for the Church in how we approach our lives as Christians. Some are entirely orthodox in their theology. "The emerging church" is not a single, well-defined movement; it has a broad diversity. We must seek to separate the wheat from the chaff, and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Well said, Brett. Thanks for weighing in.

Shalom.

The main problem with the movement is not the questions they ask, why we do this or do that or how can we be more relevant to this group; even the methods emergents use to be relevant is not always problematic.

It's the solutions they propose based on a misunderstanding of postmodernity and the church, that bothers me. For example, story telling is a great technique to use to share the gospel but not because truth is irrelevant but because it is a way to convey truth.

I just conversed with a Christian woman at my church parking lot recently, who was offended by my "Some choices are wrong" bumpersticker but had no problem with "We can do better than abortion." Why? Because I was judging women by saying their choices were wrong.

When people think they can be Christians and also believe that we can't call baby-killing wrong, then it is not the time to give up teaching truth.

The comments to this entry are closed.