Comments on: Introducing the ECM (Part 3) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:47:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Pastor Astor http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-4646 Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:29:59 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-4646 I want to start by apologizing for my english. I am swedish, and will do my best to try to communicate. There are some things I would like to critique in this article: 1. I believe the author gives the impression that we have a choice between a pure gospel and a postmodern infected one. This is not true. No rendering of the gospel exists apart from culture. The medival, the reformators, the liberal and fundamentalist versions are all dependant of the cutures in which they emerged. The emergent movement version is not, in my understanding, a capitualtion to a postmodern mindset as much as a deconstruction of a modernist one. 2. The author returns several times to the problem of classification - what/who is the emergent church? I find the tone of the article mocking when it refers to no visible eders, no clear hierarchy, etc. I get the feeling that the author implies that there is no future for a "thing" this loose (which is a strange idea in a religion whos founder talked bout those filled with spirit as like the wind). I would like to suggest the image of a web or network - self ruling bodies of believers in different locations that find a common ground and benefit from each others thinking. Think of it as a gigantic field testing of different approaches, strategies, thoughts, ideas etc. in the fields of ecclesiology, missions, evangelism, eschatology etc. In this respect variety is more important than doing the same things. One important factor here is that failure is not that big a deal. If we are to dare to try out new things, we must be ready to fail, admit our fault and try again. 3. I don´t know if it was this article or the previous one (if I got it wrong I appologize) that talked of emergents as weak in theology. This is simply not true. With the raise in general educational level in the populations of the western world, has followed a general raising in theological training among church people. A couple of decades back (in Sweden anyway) an evangelical pastor was trained by someone with an education in the biblical language. Today they are trained by doctors of theology, and are themselves trained in the biblical languages. When they start serving in churches it is not rare to have 10-25 people in their churches (of 100-250) with at least the same level of formal training that earlier pastors had received. I think the explosion of the number of published theologica books and the salefigures are evidence of the same thing. If this is true of the churches in general, I would say that this is even more so in the emergent churches. I want to start by apologizing for my english. I am swedish, and will do my best to try to communicate. There are some things I would like to critique in this article:
1. I believe the author gives the impression that we have a choice between a pure gospel and a postmodern infected one. This is not true. No rendering of the gospel exists apart from culture. The medival, the reformators, the liberal and fundamentalist versions are all dependant of the cutures in which they emerged. The emergent movement version is not, in my understanding, a capitualtion to a postmodern mindset as much as a deconstruction of a modernist one.
2. The author returns several times to the problem of classification - what/who is the emergent church? I find the tone of the article mocking when it refers to no visible eders, no clear hierarchy, etc. I get the feeling that the author implies that there is no future for a “thing” this loose (which is a strange idea in a religion whos founder talked bout those filled with spirit as like the wind). I would like to suggest the image of a web or network - self ruling bodies of believers in different locations that find a common ground and benefit from each others thinking. Think of it as a gigantic field testing of different approaches, strategies, thoughts, ideas etc. in the fields of ecclesiology, missions, evangelism, eschatology etc. In this respect variety is more important than doing the same things. One important factor here is that failure is not that big a deal. If we are to dare to try out new things, we must be ready to fail, admit our fault and try again.
3. I don´t know if it was this article or the previous one (if I got it wrong I appologize) that talked of emergents as weak in theology. This is simply not true. With the raise in general educational level in the populations of the western world, has followed a general raising in theological training among church people. A couple of decades back (in Sweden anyway) an evangelical pastor was trained by someone with an education in the biblical language. Today they are trained by doctors of theology, and are themselves trained in the biblical languages. When they start serving in churches it is not rare to have 10-25 people in their churches (of 100-250) with at least the same level of formal training that earlier pastors had received. I think the explosion of the number of published theologica books and the salefigures are evidence of the same thing. If this is true of the churches in general, I would say that this is even more so in the emergent churches.

]]> by: I’m Going to Pick a Fight » Strangers and Exiles http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-4590 Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:44:37 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-4590 [...] Introducing the ECM (Part 3) [...] […] Introducing the ECM (Part 3) […]

]]> by: Evangelutionist » Blog Archive » Phil Johnson Defend’s MacArthur’s ‘The Truth War’ http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-4022 Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:41:20 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-4022 [...] Over at Shepherds’ Fellowship Pulpit Magazine, John MacArthur is providing previews and excerpts of his soon-to-be-released book on the Emerging Church Movement (ECM), The Truth War. Phillip Johnson, who works for John MacArthur, has been providing color commentary via transcripts of his presentation on the topic of the ECM at a recent conference. It’s an eight-part introduction to the Emerging Church Movement, and you can read it over there. [...] […] Over at Shepherds’ Fellowship Pulpit Magazine, John MacArthur is providing previews and excerpts of his soon-to-be-released book on the Emerging Church Movement (ECM), The Truth War. Phillip Johnson, who works for John MacArthur, has been providing color commentary via transcripts of his presentation on the topic of the ECM at a recent conference. It’s an eight-part introduction to the Emerging Church Movement, and you can read it over there. […]

]]> by: Debbie Wimmers http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3806 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:29:14 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3806 There is a ETS paper by Brett Kunkle and response by Tony Jones. http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/11/public-response-to-brett-kunkle.html There is a ETS paper by Brett Kunkle and response by Tony Jones.
http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2006/11/public-response-to-brett-kunkle.html

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3663 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:08:14 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3663 Thanks Phil. Grace and Shalom. Thanks Phil. Grace and Shalom.

]]> by: Josh http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3639 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:03:41 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3639 Phil and Dr. MacArthur I've seen a lot of pieces just trashing this topic but Pulpit seems to be at least giving it a fair and biblical analysis. Thanks for the objectivity and the good information. Josh "...the word of God is not bound." --2 Timothy 2:9 Phil and Dr. MacArthur

I’ve seen a lot of pieces just trashing this topic but Pulpit seems to be at least giving it a fair and biblical analysis. Thanks for the objectivity and the good information.

Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9

]]> by: C. Stirling Bartholomew http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3636 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:59:45 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3636 Phil, I think you are confusing the date evangelicals started talking about this with the date it started happening. I had my first discussion with a post-modern post-evangelical c.a. 1980 in a coffee shop in the basement of the Elliott Bay Bookstore south of Pioneer Square, Seattle's equivalent of the left bank. This fellow, we will call him Mike, was a recent graduate of Denver Seminary where he studied under Vernon Grounds. Mike's problem with historic orthodoxy was all about language. Not linguistics in general but semantic theory. The ambiguity that you mentioned several times is based in a semantic theory, a negative reaction to the structuralist framework. The post-modern dialectic took some of the central ideas from F. de Saussure and turned them on their head, made them into a rather complex game which has came to be known as deconstruction. My major beef with Mike's framework was epistemological nihilism. In mid 1990s I had several hours long discussions with a christian man we will call Arik who had written his dissertation on deconstruction. Arik was working on a synthesis of Karl Barth and J.Derrida. He tried to discuss his project with Derrida in person without much success. Arik vehemently and repeatedly denied that epistemological nihilism was a necessary result of his framework. I didn't find his defense convincing. The ambiguity you correctly highlighted is a distortion, a crude caricature of some valid aspects of contemporary semantic theory. On the other hand a number of major bible translation consultants have incorporated recent developments in "relevance theory" into their working frameworks without sinking into the nether gloom of epistemological nihilism. A case in point is Reinier de Blois who is developing a Hebrew lexicon which incorporates cognitive frames into the structure of the lexicon. Phil,

I think you are confusing the date evangelicals started talking about this with the date it started happening. I had my first discussion with a post-modern post-evangelical c.a. 1980 in a coffee shop in the basement of the Elliott Bay Bookstore south of Pioneer Square, Seattle’s equivalent of the left bank. This fellow, we will call him Mike, was a recent graduate of Denver Seminary where he studied under Vernon Grounds.

Mike’s problem with historic orthodoxy was all about language. Not linguistics in general but semantic theory. The ambiguity that you mentioned several times is based in a semantic theory, a negative reaction to the structuralist framework. The post-modern dialectic took some of the central ideas from F. de Saussure and turned them on their head, made them into a rather complex game which has came to be known as deconstruction.

My major beef with Mike’s framework was epistemological nihilism. In mid 1990s I had several hours long discussions with a christian man we will call Arik who had written his dissertation on deconstruction. Arik was working on a synthesis of Karl Barth and J.Derrida. He tried to discuss his project with Derrida in person without much success. Arik vehemently and repeatedly denied that epistemological nihilism was a necessary result of his framework. I didn’t find his defense convincing.

The ambiguity you correctly highlighted is a distortion, a crude caricature of some valid aspects of contemporary semantic theory. On the other hand a number of major bible translation consultants have incorporated recent developments in “relevance theory” into their working frameworks without sinking into the nether gloom of epistemological nihilism. A case in point is Reinier de Blois who is developing a Hebrew lexicon which incorporates cognitive frames into the structure of the lexicon.

]]> by: Lance Roberts http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3635 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:32:39 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3635 Phil, It seems like the Emergent quote has overlapped some of McArthur's sermon. Phil,

It seems like the Emergent quote has overlapped some of McArthur’s sermon.

]]> by: The Emerging Church (Movement?) « Unbound http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3633 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:01:03 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3633 [...] Here is the third installment of Pulpit magazines series Introducing the Emerging Church Movement. John MacArthur did the first two but this one is done by Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs. [...] […] Here is the third installment of Pulpit magazines series Introducing the Emerging Church Movement. John MacArthur did the first two but this one is done by Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs. […]

]]> by: Seth McBee http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3632 Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:58:47 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/introducing-the-ecm-part-3/#comment-3632 Indeed, this movement is very hard to put a finger on. We actually have churches here (Seattle area) that have moved from what we thought were "seeker" to a more "emerging" tone. It really just seems as though church and "bible" studies are just a time to hang out and talk about stuff. And if you have time to show how society and entertainment intertwines with the Bible. Thanks for the series. Indeed, this movement is very hard to put a finger on. We actually have churches here (Seattle area) that have moved from what we thought were “seeker” to a more “emerging” tone.

It really just seems as though church and “bible” studies are just a time to hang out and talk about stuff. And if you have time to show how society and entertainment intertwines with the Bible.

Thanks for the series.

]]>