Comments on: Introducing the ECM (Part 4) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:54:00 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Pastor Astor http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-4667 Pastor Astor Sat, 23 Dec 2006 08:36:42 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-4667 Some thoughts on this article. 1. The focus on narration instead of systematic theology is an important part of the ec, just as the author point out. He then goes on to say that the Bible also contains didactic material. I know of no EC person who would challenge that statement. The focus on narration is an alternative path that I would say is followed in order to understand more of truth rather than less. Generations of evangelicals have been fostered in a way of reading that seek to extract the propositions of scripture - we have used the Bible as the raw material of systematic theology. I would also say that shifting focus from proposition to narration makes us shift focus from Romans to the Gospels, from propositions about Christ to Christ himself. 2. Under point four the author discusses the ecs relationship to truth. I find his toughts unclear. I like the quote by Mohler;"while truth is always more than propositional, it is never less". I would say this is the whole point of the ec problem with the evangelical reduction of scripture to propositions. But then the author goes on and says that anyone thinking like this has totally given up on logic. Does that include Mohler? Lets get this straight: As an ec type person I don´t stop writing this text suddenly because I get serious doubt about the existance of my computer. The authors type of argument is not about "faith seeking understanding" but an unwillingness to try to understand the counterpart, and instead resorting to namecalling and misrepresentaion of the ec. I find this deeply offending, and it doesn´t get any more true by being oft repeated. The focus on narration and our calling into question the modern version of theology (be it liberal or conservative) does not leave us with anything less than truth, but more. It is a hunger for Truth himself that drives us. The outcome is not anything less than truth, but a more balanced, biblically balanced one. Therefore we want to be informed by the whole testimony of scripture and we allow truth to stay in tension, where it is found in that way. We don´t feel the need of treating scripture as an eqation that needs to be solved, if the eqation in itself gives a clearer picture of who Truth is. The question, for instance, of how one gets saved will be answered much in the same way as any evangelical would answer it (by grace, through faith, into a relationship with God), but it would also include discipleship as an integral part (saved into a community testifying to a future hope) it would at the same time be reminding of the thief at the cross that did none of the stuff we would expect in a salvation moment as a checks and balances. 3. In answer to the authors point five I want to point to my point one in my comment to the previous article. Alan Roxburgh, in a lecture I attended, told a story about a sociologist who asked a number of students what culture they beloned to. The asian-american students would name their culture as an asian-american one, including nation of birth, collective identity in the states, etc. African americans woyld say that they belonged to a african american culture, they could specify different cultures within that wider culture and point to their place in the whole. The white student would call themselves "human", or "american" or a "citizen of the world". By this story Roxburgh concluded that it is only those who belong to the majority culture who can think themselves to be culturally neutral. I find the authors self labeling largely unsatisfying. He clearly operates with the notion that the ec is postmodernist, that they try to pin him down as a modernist, that he himself is critical of modernism and therefore can´t be one. Then, what is he? Noone and nothing exists apart from culture, not even Jesus. Being incarnated he stepped into a specific culture among a specific people speaking a specific language at a specific time in history. being unaware if ones own culture is a sure way of misrepresenting truth in akk ways possible: Some thoughts on this article.
1. The focus on narration instead of systematic theology is an important part of the ec, just as the author point out. He then goes on to say that the Bible also contains didactic material. I know of no EC person who would challenge that statement. The focus on narration is an alternative path that I would say is followed in order to understand more of truth rather than less. Generations of evangelicals have been fostered in a way of reading that seek to extract the propositions of scripture – we have used the Bible as the raw material of systematic theology. I would also say that shifting focus from proposition to narration makes us shift focus from Romans to the Gospels, from propositions about Christ to Christ himself.
2. Under point four the author discusses the ecs relationship to truth. I find his toughts unclear. I like the quote by Mohler;”while truth is always more than propositional, it is never less”. I would say this is the whole point of the ec problem with the evangelical reduction of scripture to propositions. But then the author goes on and says that anyone thinking like this has totally given up on logic. Does that include Mohler? Lets get this straight: As an ec type person I don´t stop writing this text suddenly because I get serious doubt about the existance of my computer. The authors type of argument is not about “faith seeking understanding” but an unwillingness to try to understand the counterpart, and instead resorting to namecalling and misrepresentaion of the ec. I find this deeply offending, and it doesn´t get any more true by being oft repeated. The focus on narration and our calling into question the modern version of theology (be it liberal or conservative) does not leave us with anything less than truth, but more. It is a hunger for Truth himself that drives us. The outcome is not anything less than truth, but a more balanced, biblically balanced one. Therefore we want to be informed by the whole testimony of scripture and we allow truth to stay in tension, where it is found in that way. We don´t feel the need of treating scripture as an eqation that needs to be solved, if the eqation in itself gives a clearer picture of who Truth is. The question, for instance, of how one gets saved will be answered much in the same way as any evangelical would answer it (by grace, through faith, into a relationship with God), but it would also include discipleship as an integral part (saved into a community testifying to a future hope) it would at the same time be reminding of the thief at the cross that did none of the stuff we would expect in a salvation moment as a checks and balances.
3. In answer to the authors point five I want to point to my point one in my comment to the previous article. Alan Roxburgh, in a lecture I attended, told a story about a sociologist who asked a number of students what culture they beloned to. The asian-american students would name their culture as an asian-american one, including nation of birth, collective identity in the states, etc. African americans woyld say that they belonged to a african american culture, they could specify different cultures within that wider culture and point to their place in the whole. The white student would call themselves “human”, or “american” or a “citizen of the world”. By this story Roxburgh concluded that it is only those who belong to the majority culture who can think themselves to be culturally neutral. I find the authors self labeling largely unsatisfying. He clearly operates with the notion that the ec is postmodernist, that they try to pin him down as a modernist, that he himself is critical of modernism and therefore can´t be one. Then, what is he? Noone and nothing exists apart from culture, not even Jesus. Being incarnated he stepped into a specific culture among a specific people speaking a specific language at a specific time in history. being unaware if ones own culture is a sure way of misrepresenting truth in akk ways possible:

]]> By: I’m Going to Pick a Fight » Strangers and Exiles http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-4597 I’m Going to Pick a Fight » Strangers and Exiles Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:36:30 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-4597 [...] Introducing the ECM (Part 4) [...] [...] Introducing the ECM (Part 4) [...]

]]> By: CBX http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-4360 CBX Sun, 17 Dec 2006 06:32:37 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-4360 Albert wrote; "Scripture is by majority narrative and storytelling." Ok, that is true, but those narratives and stories are powerless without the underlying theologies that are systematized through careful study. The jewels hidden beneath the ground make the plot of land so much more valuable. If you take a story at face value it may make you cry or even come back for more, but if you fail to understand the essential and propositional truth it surrounds, you walk away empty handed. I feel that Phil has appropriately and respectfully communicated valuable info about the ECM. To say; "The fact is, Johnson has not really said anything worthwhile in his statement" is proposterous. If he has lied about any of the obvious facts about the ECM, then say so, and back up your claim, but don't come with a belittling statement that what he is saying is empty. Here are the true and simple facts about the ECM: 1. They are post modernists. 2. They question established and proven doctrine. 3. They would rather "live" the gospel than "speak" (not that living it is wrong, it's just absurd to think that someone is going to get saved just because you live right without actually having to "preach" the gospel like Jesus commanded -Mark 16:15). 4. No one can really explain what it is they absolutely believe, because ultimately they tend to cringe at absolutes. If that was the only problems with the ECM, that would be enough to question them. Albert wrote; “Scripture is by majority narrative and storytelling.”

Ok, that is true, but those narratives and stories are powerless without the underlying theologies that are systematized through careful study. The jewels hidden beneath the ground make the plot of land so much more valuable. If you take a story at face value it may make you cry or even come back for more, but if you fail to understand the essential and propositional truth it surrounds, you walk away empty handed. I feel that Phil has appropriately and respectfully communicated valuable info about the ECM. To say; “The fact is, Johnson has not really said anything worthwhile in his statement” is proposterous. If he has lied about any of the obvious facts about the ECM, then say so, and back up your claim, but don’t come with a belittling statement that what he is saying is empty.

Here are the true and simple facts about the ECM:
1. They are post modernists.
2. They question established and proven doctrine.
3. They would rather “live” the gospel than “speak” (not that living it is wrong, it’s just absurd to think that someone is going to get saved just because you live right without actually having to “preach” the gospel like Jesus commanded -Mark 16:15).
4. No one can really explain what it is they absolutely believe, because ultimately they tend to cringe at absolutes.

If that was the only problems with the ECM, that would be enough to question them.

]]> By: Marcus http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3911 Marcus Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:00:08 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3911 To me the whole emergent thing sounds goofy. Sorry for being such a simpleton, but really, Christianity is approached, Jesus said, as little children. We are to be simple in faith and belief. This whole emergent thing sounds like nothing more than Satan questioning God's word in the Garden of Eden. When Brian McLaren calls the cross of Jesus Christ "propaganda", that's someone I'm not going to trust in any way, shape, or form. Jesus Christ and His church has done fine for 2,000 years without Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. We didn't need them before and we don't need them now, not if they're just going to be heresy fountains. To me the whole emergent thing sounds goofy. Sorry for being such a simpleton, but really, Christianity is approached, Jesus said, as little children. We are to be simple in faith and belief. This whole emergent thing sounds like nothing more than Satan questioning God’s word in the Garden of Eden. When Brian McLaren calls the cross of Jesus Christ “propaganda”, that’s someone I’m not going to trust in any way, shape, or form. Jesus Christ and His church has done fine for 2,000 years without Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. We didn’t need them before and we don’t need them now, not if they’re just going to be heresy fountains.

]]> By: albert http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3765 albert Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:44:26 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3765 donsands, You will never find anything I wrote that says that exposition is not necessary. But rather take what I have said so far on its own terms. What Johnson was arguing in that statement is very poorly asserted. Counter-arguments can easily be given to cast them aside. donsands,

You will never find anything I wrote that says that exposition is not necessary. But rather take what I have said so far on its own terms.

What Johnson was arguing in that statement is very poorly asserted. Counter-arguments can easily be given to cast them aside.

]]> By: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3764 donsands Mon, 04 Dec 2006 13:11:59 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3764 albert, Don't you think the Lord expounded on Matthew's & Mark's Gospels by chosing Paul to write all His Epistles. And John later wrote his four epistles to be read and studied. As well as Jude's and Peter's and James. All these sacred epistles to me are the Lord's way of explaining and expounding on His parables. Just a thought. albert,

Don’t you think the Lord expounded on Matthew’s & Mark’s Gospels by chosing Paul to write all His Epistles. And John later wrote his four epistles to be read and studied. As well as Jude’s and Peter’s and James.
All these sacred epistles to me are the Lord’s way of explaining and expounding on His parables.
Just a thought.

]]> By: albert http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3762 albert Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:43:27 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3762 donsands wrote; "Like Phil said , “you cannot even tell stories without propositions”, and I agree." The EC does not deny the crucial importance of proposition. They just have a different perspective on how the proposition is stated. For example, when Jesus told His parables, He rarely expounded on them except by saying such things in the preface, "The Kingdom of God is like..." Conservative Evangelicalism has a certain mode of communication with their language, and the ECM finds it obselote. (And there is a big ring of truth to that) Isn't it Piper that always says that we always need to find new language worthy of God? Well, he isn't really speaking to the EC when he says that. donsands wrote; “Like Phil said , “you cannot even tell stories without propositions”, and I agree.”

The EC does not deny the crucial importance of proposition. They just have a different perspective on how the proposition is stated. For example, when Jesus told His parables, He rarely expounded on them except by saying such things in the preface, “The Kingdom of God is like…” Conservative Evangelicalism has a certain mode of communication with their language, and the ECM finds it obselote. (And there is a big ring of truth to that)

Isn’t it Piper that always says that we always need to find new language worthy of God? Well, he isn’t really speaking to the EC when he says that.

]]> By: albert http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3761 albert Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:36:05 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3761 Tim, Tim wrote; "There is nothing wrong with being dogmatic." Did I ever say there's something wrong with being dogmatic? Tim wrote; "They have the desire, they have the passion, let’s try and work with them so that we can tell them the truth." There is much you can learn from the ECM. Do not be so presumptuous to think that conservative evangelicalism has everything figured out. The ECM has lots of strengths in it. This is something even Carson cannot deny. Tim wrote; "It has been a long war on the truth. It will continue to be a war on the truth. The first question ever asked in the narrative of scripture was a question of what God said. Those in the EC question what God says. Let us remember that there was a time when all of us questioned what God said." No one in the ECM will deny that Truth is important. In fact some in it and very Orthodox in their understanding. However again, you are simply stating rhetoric and not addressing the issue at all. What is admirable about the EC is that those questions are even being asked and addressed and that there is authenticity in those questions. All it takes for you is to simply listen. Tim,

Tim wrote; “There is nothing wrong with being dogmatic.”

Did I ever say there’s something wrong with being dogmatic?

Tim wrote; “They have the desire, they have the passion, let’s try and work with them so that we can tell them the truth.”

There is much you can learn from the ECM. Do not be so presumptuous to think that conservative evangelicalism has everything figured out. The ECM has lots of strengths in it. This is something even Carson cannot deny.

Tim wrote; “It has been a long war on the truth. It will continue to be a war on the truth. The first question ever asked in the narrative of scripture was a question of what God said. Those in the EC question what God says. Let us remember that there was a time when all of us questioned what God said.”

No one in the ECM will deny that Truth is important. In fact some in it and very Orthodox in their understanding. However again, you are simply stating rhetoric and not addressing the issue at all. What is admirable about the EC is that those questions are even being asked and addressed and that there is authenticity in those questions. All it takes for you is to simply listen.

]]> By: albert http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3759 albert Mon, 04 Dec 2006 12:28:06 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3759 John, John wrote; "That is true, but we need know and should do (more of) that b/c its a Biblical Standard. The Bible def. makes room for those things without sacrificing anything. However, the EMers don’t use those words as the Bible is, but more so as self evident (Postmodernistic) truths." I'd like to see you prove that. Because I doubt you can. John wrote; "I will agree that conservative evangelicalism needs to open its arm to all sinners and give to Gospel unconditionally ~ a very Biblical precedence * See the difference?" I was not talking about opening arms to all sinners. I was talking about the specifics of how one does that socially and practically, which includes characteristics of being pragmatic, inclusivistic, etc. To simply say, "oh well, we welcome all sinners," does not suffice as an answer. In fact that answer does not answer anything. John wrote; "First I think that is an unfair characterization, just like Jonathan Edwards was just a grumpy, stern, people hater, with a mean God. Conservative Evangelicalism seems that way only b/c that is where it is most attacked, so the reply you receive is on those subjects." It's exponentially more unfair if Johnson and MacArthur think they can cover the even broader scope of the ECM with just 5 or 6 brief blog posts. But let's save this as a peripheral comment. The fact is, Johnson has not really said anything worthwhile in his statement. As I've said, Scripture is by majority narrative and storytelling. This is what the ECM does well and what the postmodern world is wired to. This is where conservative evangelicalism has failed to contextualize in such a scenario. By majority, it just does not connect to the minds of our generation. John wrote; "The other half of it is never mentioned which is too bad." There are enormous things Johnson and MacArthur are not addressing here. That's too bad. John wrote; "And trust me, I’ve never seen a “systematically theologized” man not know the narratives inside out, but I’ve sure seen a lot people who know the narratives have no clue what those very stories mean…" I'm not talking about whether or not one knows the narratives. I'm talking about whether or not they can synthesize it in our contemporary age in its release. Most conservative evangelicals simply do not utilize their God-given creativity to accomplish it. You need to understand that the mode of communication in the ECM is not the problem. You just think it is because Johnson or MacArthur says so. John,

John wrote; “That is true, but we need know and should do (more of) that b/c its a Biblical Standard. The Bible def. makes room for those things without sacrificing anything. However, the EMers don’t use those words as the Bible is, but more so as self evident (Postmodernistic) truths.”

I’d like to see you prove that. Because I doubt you can.

John wrote; “I will agree that conservative evangelicalism needs to open its arm to all sinners and give to Gospel unconditionally ~ a very Biblical precedence * See the difference?”

I was not talking about opening arms to all sinners. I was talking about the specifics of how one does that socially and practically, which includes characteristics of being pragmatic, inclusivistic, etc. To simply say, “oh well, we welcome all sinners,” does not suffice as an answer. In fact that answer does not answer anything.

John wrote; “First I think that is an unfair characterization, just like Jonathan Edwards was just a grumpy, stern, people hater, with a mean God. Conservative Evangelicalism seems that way only b/c that is where it is most attacked, so the reply you receive is on those subjects.”

It’s exponentially more unfair if Johnson and MacArthur think they can cover the even broader scope of the ECM with just 5 or 6 brief blog posts. But let’s save this as a peripheral comment. The fact is, Johnson has not really said anything worthwhile in his statement. As I’ve said, Scripture is by majority narrative and storytelling. This is what the ECM does well and what the postmodern world is wired to. This is where conservative evangelicalism has failed to contextualize in such a scenario. By majority, it just does not connect to the minds of our generation.

John wrote; “The other half of it is never mentioned which is too bad.”

There are enormous things Johnson and MacArthur are not addressing here. That’s too bad.

John wrote; “And trust me, I’ve never seen a “systematically theologized” man not know the narratives inside out, but I’ve sure seen a lot people who know the narratives have no clue what those very stories mean…”

I’m not talking about whether or not one knows the narratives. I’m talking about whether or not they can synthesize it in our contemporary age in its release. Most conservative evangelicals simply do not utilize their God-given creativity to accomplish it. You need to understand that the mode of communication in the ECM is not the problem. You just think it is because Johnson or MacArthur says so.

]]> By: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/01/introducing-the-ecm-part-4/comment-page-1/#comment-3733 donsands Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:03:46 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/11/30/evaluating-the-ecm-part-2/#comment-3733 I shared the birth of Christ portions of Sccripture with the church this morning. The narrative is amazing, and wonderful to hear and meditate upon. An angel comes to Mary and says, "Rejoice, highly favored, the LORD is with you; ... Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. ... you will conceive ... and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. ... God will give Him the throne of His father David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." Luke 1:28,30-33 An angel also appeared to Joseph and said, " ... do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, .... she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins." Matt 1:20-21 There's theology here to expound upon; to explain; to prove; and to propose. There's doctrine here to "unpack". And that is so exciting. Because we are learning what the truth is. An angel did come to Mary from God. Jesus really truly was born of a virgin. He truly will save His people from their sins. What does this mean? Like Phil said , "you cannot even tell stories without propositions", and I agree. I shared the birth of Christ portions of Sccripture with the church this morning. The narrative is amazing, and wonderful to hear and meditate upon.

An angel comes to Mary and says, “Rejoice, highly favored, the LORD is with you; … Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. … you will conceive … and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. … God will give Him the throne of His father David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” Luke 1:28,30-33

An angel also appeared to Joseph and said, ” … do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, …. she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins.” Matt 1:20-21

There’s theology here to expound upon; to explain; to prove; and to propose. There’s doctrine here to “unpack”. And that is so exciting. Because we are learning what the truth is.

An angel did come to Mary from God. Jesus really truly was born of a virgin. He truly will save His people from their sins. What does this mean?

Like Phil said , “you cannot even tell stories without propositions”, and I agree.

]]>