HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Listening On The Porch Of The Emergent Village

Orginally published on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 8:00 AM
by Todd Rhoades

In a guest article today, Tony Myles gives his impressions of the Emergent Church movement from a recent conference he attended. Read Tony's thoughts and see if you agree...

A little over a month ago a buddy of mine and I did a road trip over to Minneapolis for The Summer Institute. The event took place at Solomon’s Porch, an innovative congregation headed up by lead pastor Doug Pagitt. Doug has been one of the many voices on the forefront of Emergent Village (formerly called Emergent). Long story short, he’s highly relational, notably intelligent, and extremely counter-intuitive in his thinking. All that logistical mumbo-jumbo aside, I want to share a few insights from my trip. First of all, my buddy and I had a BLAST driving over. And by that, I mean quite literally… his air conditioner didn’t work and so we drove 10 hours or so with the windows down and the air blasting (the only thing louder was the cheesy 80’s music we kept listening to). Normally I like this kind of a drive, but because my voice at the time was suffering some mild laryngitis it ended up creating a major case of laryngitis. I’m not kidding… the only way I could talk in discernible tones was to lower my pitch to sound like a pro-wrestler.

Oh yeah… did I mention I was a speaker at this event? God has a sense of humor.

As both a receiver and giver of the seminars or “offerings,” I found the loose structure quite interesting. In fact, the titles alone of each option indicated a lot about the diversity of the gathering, from those who presented concrete ideas to others who hosted open forums about philosophical issues. There wasn’t any particular target group, although many in attendance ranged from young adults to those who have a history with the established church in some way and have been itching for “something else.”

The night we arrived we had a great dinner with a dozen or so people, gathering at one of Doug’s favorite local Mexican restaurants. Consequently, we missed out on a forum regarding homosexuality in the emerging church. The next day I popped into the classroom and copied down these notes off the board from that offering - whatever they mean - listed under the heading “COMPLICATIONS”:

There may be unrevealed parts of life
Element of choic/commitment
Role of circumstances
Fluidity of idenity
Feels/desires drives category
Developmental/Emergent
Nature and nurture
Capacity to be gay or straight
Stories behind a present moment
“Celibate gay”
Influences on feelings/identity
“Posing”
Self denial
Confusion of no fit with category
Hormonal factors
Health issues

One of my favorite offerings was the one that may have irritated people the most - “God and the new sciences.” Here are a few paraphrases from the deal…

We have a common idea that God has a job description and humans have a job description. And we don’t mix them because if we do people will criticize us of “playing God.” From birth control to seeing a doctor, we’ve moved from them being ethical dilemmas to being normal now.

The new sciences stir up all kinds of new ethical questions. In the last century we do things that humans never had to consider doing. The way that we travel… hold understanding… record moments in history… is all mind boggling. We play with time like it’s nobody’s business. What did he know and when did he know it? When you listen to a voice mail, when was it said to you? When you say something on an airplane and hear it, your relationship of time to people in the airplane is different than those outside of it. If something can be known, should it be known?

One of the guys I spoke with had a hard time sitting through it and eventually got up and left. His thought was that “the motivation isn’t to know God better… the motivation is for knowledge.” I understand his point, and even sensed it in a couple of people. Honestly, though, what was fun for me was watching the way people talk with each other versus what they actually said. In many cases, being too fundamental was looked upon by the progressives as being small minded; on the flipside, the progressives were seen by the fundamentals as lacking any stable structure.

I’d been praying all along on this trip that God would allow me to listen and enlarge my heart for the church. Given the fact that I couldn’t talk much, I think he did exactly that. Overall, Emergent Village has well exceeded my expectations even though it is a bit flawed (as are all things run by humans). There were some moments in the science discussion, for example, that I was a bit bothered by a few people who seemed to have a “Tower Of Babel” mentality that we can create a scientific pie in the sky. As it’s been said, we create because we are like Him, but we cannot create like Him.

In some ways I get a sense like we often face the temptations in this great postmodern conversation to fix everything that bugged us in the past wave of ministry. Maybe so, and maybe not. Maybe there is something more.

Relevant Magazine recently shared this in one of their articles:

“For a generation raised on televangelists, pedophile priests and megachurches, Emergent [Village] seems like a pretty good deal. It represents ‘a new kind of Christian,’ a phrase coined by Emergent’s unofficial patriarch, Brian McLaren. To those who have been burned by the Church, this kind of Christian is more open-minded, intelligent, loving and sophisticated than the Christians who came before.

But this is sacred territory, and it’s easy to see why this makes many Christians uncomfortable. To Emergent’s critics—and it has many—the group is off base at best and heretical at worst. Emergent has no formal doctrine, and, thus, the group is quite mixed. ‘We have Texas Baptists who don’t let women preach, and we have lesbian mainline pastors in New England,’ says Tony Jones, Emergent’s national coordinator. ‘Emergent is an amorphous collection of friends who’ve decided to live life together, regardless of our ecclesial affiliations, regardless of our theological commitments. We want to follow Christ in community with one another. In a very messy way, we’re trying to figure out what that means.’”

Personally, I’m into this because I’m a tension lover.

Often we end up waxing over concepts that to many have a “biblical basis” - regardless of what side you fall off the fence. For instance, some see it as absolutely “essential” to keep men in leadership over women in order to honor the verbatim of the Scriptures, whereas others hold it more important to understand the “spirit” behind the Scriptures and show how women in leadership is a biblical issue after all.

You can pick any issue, for that matter - slavery, women in leadership, homosexuality - and you will find people claiming one biblical truth at the expense of the other. Proof-texting is a lost cause (as we all know), but then again… so is issue-texting. By this I mean often we come into the Bible with a favorite passion and hope it says something we’d like it to say… and if it doesn’t we fold it under a principle of “grace” or “holiness.”

What I find absolutely amazing is how two people who proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior can come to two amazingly different conclusions.

So… how is this possible?

Perhaps on one side of the camp you have people looking at the Scriptures through their own unconscious personal lens of personal experience, present day barriers, and future hopes. Then again… might the other side be doing the same? The real issue is to wrestle over the Scriptures together… together… together.

To me… this is the real “emergent” issue - honoring all of the Scriptures… including the tensions that fly against our personal hot button platforms… and being able to dialogue all over the place in order to find a *balance of tensions* that honors the Bible in its disorderly coherence. This will probably look differently from local church to local church, for some issues will quickly cause division in one context that won’t in the next. And if God is as concerned about unity in the body as the Word proclaims, then maybe we should, too.

Unity… that means parts of our passions need to not be in the spotlight so that someone else’s may share that space, too.

Many people are drooling for Emergent Village to define itself theologically, from “this belief” to “that issue.” Their intent, of course, is to be able to critique it like a politician who has run out of their own things to say and has to resort to shredding the platforms of others. Perhaps in knowing this there has been some intentional ambiguity in order to promote a spirit of conversation.

Or maybe… they aren’t being silent at all. Maybe they’re just deciding it’s better to listen than to speak. Coming from a guy who was forced to not do a lot of speaking and a whole lot of listening, I think that’s a good move.

“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” (Proverbs 17:28)


This post has been viewed 4704 times so far.


 TRACKBACKS: (0) There are 59 Comments:

  • Posted by

    Tony A - sorry about the mistaken title, that was recorded as it was written by Pastor Silva whom I am sure would be the first to apologize for the mistake and correct it. I’ll let him know of the error. I commend you on your response to the latest book by Mr McLaren - I for one haven’t the stomach to digest that type of material and am quite confident in the ability of a number of discernment ministries to examine and report their findings on such matters. I also would differ with the camp that believes you cannot criticize that which you have not completely read - just as a Treasury Agent is not required to know all the counterfeits, but rather studies in-depth the original that they might quickly spot a counterfeit bill, such is truly the case with matters like these. As such, when you recognize aberrant teachings or outright heresy, to continue feeding from a poisoned trough is foolishness. The more you know about the One True and Living God, the more capable you are to spot error and avert it. That knowledge and faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God, not the latest writings of a “popular” author of the Christian persuasion. Popularity for the Christian is a pursuit which must be measured by the weightiness of the closing of The Beatitudes in Matt. 5:10-13:
    “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

    “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

    “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.

  • Posted by

    Daniel,

    Just picked up the Wright book, am planning on reading it real soon.

    John 3:36, I think I kind of agree with you that sometimes you can “criticize that which you have not completely read,” (although I disagree with your Treasure Agent metaphor on that one...) however, it is obvious to me that your source for the criticism of a book that I now learn you haven’t read (which means it’s tough for us to discuss back and forth in an informed manner) might be flawed, not only from the discrepancy between what I found in the book and what he did, but also from the fact that he was not even able to get the title correct in his article. What other details were handled in a less-than-careful manner in his critique I wonder.

    Too many of Brian M’s works are quoted out of context (in this case even the TITLE of his book was mis-quoted), and your posts have, I think, shown some examples of that. I now see that that information, and that apparent misquoting, has come second-hand.

    I think we need to be VERY careful of repeating second-hand information about things we may not be totally informed about. My discussion with you might have taken a different track had I understood that.

    Blessings!
    Peter

  • Posted by

    Thanks for your words John -
    I have some difficulty getting through many of the commentaries written by popular authors these days, but right now I’m in the midst of a debate of sorts, so I’m compelled to do my best to understand all of the facets of this “conversation”.

    I’m stirred and compelled to reflect on 2 Timothy 4 over and over again:

    In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

    By simply raising concerns (in an honest, gently, loving way) about the emergent church here in my community, I’ve been labelled a closed minded fundamentalist.  I hope that this phenom isn’t common, but it’s real for me.  The Beatitudes certainly do give me comfort!

  • Posted by

    I just finished reading The Secret Message of Jesus.  This is the first Brian McLaren book I have read, but I was aware of some of the controversies surrounding his previous works.  So I kept that in the back of my mind as I read his book.  For a little while, I thought he was going down the path of universalism, but it just isn’t so.  At one point he blatantly says that some people will miss the kingdom, and goes on the explain why it has to be that way.  I did not find the criticism to be founded based upon the this book, at least.  I may not agree with every point, but I don’t think that’s cause to dismiss it as heresy.

  • Posted by

    I am all for struggeling with the issues to get it right.  I am also all for reaching people for Christ, and using unconventional means to accomplish that task. But this whole emergent thing seems to be an excuse to believe what you want.  To me what makes Christianity so appealing is that truth can be known and that structure gives me boundries and security, it helps me make sense of the world around me.  The church is imperfect, it is constantly in need of reform, but to “throw the baby out with the bath water” seems pointless.  Maybe labels and names don’t always cover what we are, do, and believe, but understanding what you believe and why is essential to the spiritual life of the believer. Seems to me this is a lot like the book of Judges where every man did what was right in his own eyes.  Not saying that the leaders of the emmergent church are not good men and that their intentions are not good, but as some have already said, this seems like another movement that sounds good, but will eventually lead to dissillusionment and emptiness, because it fails to define itself by the truth of the scriptures.

  • Posted by

    Todd writes

    “To me what makes Christianity so appealing is that truth can be known and that structure gives me boundries and security, it helps me make sense of the world around me. “

    I don’t think you’ll find one of these leaders who doesn’t believe that there is absolute truth. I doubt you’ll find anyone who, when pressed, will say that anyone on earth has absolute knowledge however. Sure, we can know truth, and we should always seek after it, but none of us has it ALL right. We’ve proven that with 2000 years of church history.

    And, to me what makes Christianity appealing is that Jesus died for me, regardless of how much truth I can know or how much sense I can make of the world…

    Blessings,
    Peter

  • Posted by

    Peter and todderskine (not gonna ask where you picked up that nickname :->)
    Good words. Peter, you’re right about leaders believing that there is absolute truth.  You are also right when you say that they (we,us,me,you included) can never know.  Even scripture teaches that there are things that will never be revealed to us while we’re in this world.  But there are things that have been revealed, and there are things that have been declared as truth.  Many of these truths are difficult to stomach - many during Jesus’ time simply walked away because they refused to yield to the truth.  Today, it’s common to find those who seek their own palatable version of the truth.  The emeregent church gently and lovingly listens… but will they ever use scripture to correct or possibly rebuke (as we are commanded to do in scripture as part of our mission and witness)?  Unfortunately, I doubt it - because the conversation tends to take priority over the message.  I certainly hope that the conversation results in a conclusion before the “conversationee” gets hit by a bus.  Jesus didn’t “model” the conclusion, He played it out on the torurous cross until his final words “It is finished”.  “Finished” is not a word you’ll hear very often during the emergent conversation.

    The emergent conversation is intended to build a foundation where we can come to discuss these things.  However, this foundation, I believe, has attached to it a cornerstone that is made what looks like stone, but will easily be crushed under weight.

    Maybe the emergent conversation is a gift from God - and the errogant relativism that so often reveals itself in this conversation will be revealed for what it really is.

  • Posted by Tony Myles

    Good thoughts… and again I come back to the questions I asked earlier.

    1) What have we learned from this conversaton?

    2) And how much have we spent time LISTENING (per the point of this article to begin with) versus reacting?

    3) Not to mention what have we learned about ourselves?

    Here are two more:

    4) Why does truth need an adjective before it?  If it is truth, why the term “absolute” truth?  Probe that a bit with me.

    5) When we make conclusions about the Emergent Village and/or the Emerging Church (because, again - they are different) and how “they” do or don’t do this or that, are we really able to make such a generalization about a group of people that includes everyone from both sides of the spectrum?  There are people in EV who believe wholeheartedly that women should not be in ministry, while there are others in EV who are women and quite fond of staying in ministry.  Can we honestly make a generalization (i.e. “Those emergents don’t use scripture,” etc) that is so generic?

    I’d really love to listen to someone’s thoughts on this.

  • Posted by

    Tony Myles writes “ There are people in EV who believe wholeheartedly that women should not be in ministry, while there are others in EV who are women and quite fond of staying in ministry.” This is a great example of why truth is so hard to define! And it is why I use the adjective absolute.

    Also, there are too many “relative"-truth discussions that confuse the point.  “I like ice cream.” No that’s not a relative truth… I really do like Ice cream… But it’s what some call a relative truth. Then that gets extended to religion.... very dangerous… Then there are the arguments of dogma that get into absolute truth. For instance, the arguments for cessation of sign gifts… imho, very shaky ground, theologically, indeed.

    Some great arguments from scripture supported the slave trade in the US for a long time. Were they right then and wrong now?

    As far as the generalization goes, No I do not think we can make the generalizations that are often made because of the very issues you discuss.

  • Posted by kent

    Camey,

    Kent has a short attention span and he was off looking at other things, but I am back for a visit, and really don’t have anything else to offer, but I am wondering is Todd off on vacation? Heavens man it is Tuesday, we need new posts. smile

  • Posted by

    Tony M,
    1) What have we learned from this conversaton?
    I’ve learned that the emergent conversation may not have a baseline or grounding point.  It seems to meander about where it will.  I think it’s absolutley interesting!  I’ve learned that there’s a place at the table for lots of questions and ideas to be discussed (our current conversation) .  I have also learned that it is, at times, a very exclusive table rather than an inclusive one.  Because of my skepticism, and “raising of certain flags”, I am no longer invited to the table (I am speaking of the emergent conversation that I am involved with in my church community).  For example, our church community is doing a book study this fall - Secret Message of Jesus.  I put in to be a participant, and was asked to refrain from participation - I was told that I have an agenda.  I am not bitter, I’m absolutely facsinated!  I don’t believe that this exclusivity is necessarily commonplace, but it certainly is in my community.  Tolerance of everything except that which is considered intolerant.

    2) And how much have we spent time LISTENING (per the point of this article to begin with) versus reacting?
    I consider myself good listener, and have been listening to the emergent conversation for a couple of years.  I will continue to listen!

    3) Not to mention what have we learned about ourselves?
    I have learned that I hold the Gospel up as God’s absolute Word.  The Word calls me to defend it, and I feel that the Holy Spirit urges me to defend it.  I sometimes go a little overboard, I’m afraid.  I’m passionate about it, and it has gotten me in a little trouble, but good trouble, if there’s such a thing.

    Thanks for letting me in on this conversation - it has really been a wonderful gift!

  • Posted by

    Tony A writes,

    “I sometimes go a little overboard, I’m afraid.  I’m passionate about it, and it has gotten me in a little trouble, but good trouble, if there’s such a thing.”

    There is such a thing as good trouble, and you are in it my friend! wink Blessings on you.

    I think, Tony, that the lack of baseline or grounding point is due to the fact that with regard to identifying the “emergent movement” or whatever you want to call it, we are looking at several distinct and isolated individuals and mini-movements. then we are lumping them together, perhaps very unfairly.

    Anyway, bless you all, it’s been a great discussion.

  • Posted by

    Kent,

    Yes, Todd is off on vacation with his wife. A much deserved vacation too! I’m thinkin’ there are technical difficulties, as I thought, he thought, he was good to go with new articles/posts during his time away.

    Still listening? smile

    Camey

  • Posted by Tony Myles

    Since I asked, here are mine:

    1) What have we learned from this conversaton?

    We often have premeditated thougts that hinder our ability to listen, even when we intentionally try to listen.

    2) And how much have we spent time LISTENING (per the point of this article to begin with) versus reacting?

    Since I can only answer this on my end, I’d say I did my best.

    3) Not to mention what have we learned about ourselves?

    I don’t mind being labeled an Emergent, so long as the person doing the labeling has an open definition and not a closed one.  On the other hand, I don’t want to be labeled a Modern, even though I believe there are some great things the Modern church is trying to offer.

    4) Why does truth need an adjective before it?  If it is truth, why the term “absolute” truth?  Probe that a bit with me.

    I still believe truth is truth.  Sure, I can talk about preferences and try to label it “personal truth,” but at the end of the day it’s still a preference.  Like the old Abe Lincoln story when he asked a kid how many legs a donkey had.  The kid said 4, to which Abe asked, “What if we called the tail a leg?” The kid replied, “Then he’d have 5 legs” Abe smiled and said, “No, he’d still have four.  You can call a tail a leg… but it’s still a tail.”

    5) When we make conclusions about the Emergent Village and/or the Emerging Church (because, again - they are different) and how “they” do or don’t do this or that, are we really able to make such a generalization about a group of people that includes everyone from both sides of the spectrum? 

    It’s quite difficult, isn’t it?  smile

  • Posted by

    Tony M -
    You asked “Why does truth need an adjective before it?” Let me take a shot at this… Truth is defined as “The real state of things”.  Absolute truth is then defined as “The state of things as ordained by God”.  On our own, we can know truth, but we cannot know absolute truth unless it is revealed to us by God. 

    To access the truth, we need to apply certain assumptions.  For example, the truth is I was born on January 27th, 1963 and I exist. My assumption is that I physically exist, and this isn’t some sort of cosmic dream.  The absolute truth is that I was born on January 27th, 1963 and I exist for a reason.  The absolute truth is that I was either written in the book of life or I was not.  If God is the Creator of all things, and has ultimate authority over all things, our truth and His absolute truth may not be the same. 

    For example, the truth might be that I should do my best to live a good, healthy long life.  God’s absolute truth might be that I die tomorrow.  I don’t know why, but if I believe that absolute truth is truly absolute, then I know that my death is some little (or large...who’s to know) part of God’s absolute and perfect plan.

    Absolute truth is only revealed by God.  We cannot know this absolute truth on our own.  The Bible is God’s revelation to man regarding His plan based on His absolute truth.  We can only know facets of absolute truth if we are guided to it through the Holy Spirit.  There is no Secret Message that we can find by engaging in the emergent conversation.  We can only get a glimpse of absolute truth if God allows it, and ultimately reveals it through His Word.  And there are things that we will not be allowed to know - God said so.

    Ecclesiastes 8:17
    No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

    Man, that’s too heavy!

  • Posted by

    Man, the Tonys are taking over this blog!

    tongue wink

    Tony A writes “There is no Secret Message that we can find by engaging in the emergent conversation” And yet, Jesus said that the Kingdom would not be revealed to everyone. It is a treasure hidden in a field… I got the idea that that is the kind of thing that McL is talking about in that book.

    This is a fun conversation! I’m really enjoying it, Tonys…

    tongue wink

  • Posted by Daniel

    Perhaps this specific conversation hasn’t covered much (new) ground… but that is not the same thing as saying the ‘emergent conversation’ hasn’t covered much ground (I realize, this isn’t necessarily what you were saying Randy).  I REALLY REALLY recommend that those interested in the more constructive side to this whole emerging church thing check out http://www.opensourcetheology.net.  I trust you will find there intensely passionate discussion about theology, as it relates to the emerging conversation, and that the dialogue will be uplifting and constructive.
    Cheers,
    -Daniel-

  • Posted by Tony Myles

    Hmm… funny that a few say this conversation is going nowhere and yet we keep talking.  smile Personally, I’m into it.  It’s nice to listen and share.

    Per Tony A -

    << You asked “Why does truth need an adjective before it?” Let me take a shot at this… Truth is defined as “The real state of things”.  Absolute truth is then defined as “The state of things as ordained by God”.  On our own, we can know truth, but we cannot know absolute truth unless it is revealed to us by God.  >>

    Semantics, of course.  Because what you’re getting at is our perception of truth and then the “Truth” itself.  Something is either true or it isn’t, even if we subjectively believe it is or isn’t (per the Abe Lincoln illustration I mentioned).

    But again… semantics.

    Then again… maybe that’s what the whole Modern/Emergent conversation is.

    Here’s a test I just though of:

    1) If you had to be labeled as falling off one side of the fence, would you rather be labeled as an minister with an :"emerging" approach/theology/phiilosophy/etc or one who is more “modern?”

    And you can’t say “both.”

    Oh yeah, and you can’t say “both.”

    By the way… you can’t say “both.”

    So which one?

    2) Once you accepted your label, how would you feel when people critiqued your way of thinking?

    3) Once you felt that way, how would you respond/react to their way of thinking?

    4) Is this productive or counterproductive to the Body of Christ.

    Hmm…

  • Posted by

    So, here I am, getting ready to fall off the fence…

    However, Tony, you have only given me two options… In true “emergent” fashion… I want more options before I fall… The either/or stuff is SO modern…

  • Posted by

    Tony M said: “1) If you had to be labeled as falling off one side of the fence, would you rather be labeled as an minister with an :"emerging" approach/theology/phiilosophy/etc or one who is more “modern?”

    And you can’t say “both.”

    Oh yeah, and you can’t say “both.”

    By the way… you can’t say “both.”

    So which one?

    How about Neither Tony? Biblical, for sure. Reformation roots, absolutely. (So long as you’re not thinking it is some new Reformation led by the likes of B. McL or RW or BH or either of the Shuller’s.) But your options restrict so many from taking part in your question, myself included.As for the “semantics” response to Tony A’s response to your question, isn’t it sad that there needs to be such an exhaustive discussion over the definition of words and what people mean by what they say? I concur with what Tony A said and despite your implication that it is merely “semantics” he reveals a very necessary point. There are things which are “spiritually discerned” and without the grace and giftings from God a person cannot and will not understand them.

  • Posted by Tony Myles

    Thanks, guys.... that’s my point.

    No one likes to be boxed in.

    So why do we do that to Emergents or Moderns or whomever?

    smile

  • Posted by

    Tony I don’t mind being boxed in, as you say, just present something for me to identify myself by rather than being so exclusive that I have no legitimate answer to give.

  • Posted by Tony Myles

    That’s the point, John.  Often we do this to people - ask them a question where there are only one or two “acceptable” answers.

    Perhaps the Emerging church will be more willing to propose a third.  Or maybe even a balance between the “acceptable” two.

    I’m just willing to listen and contribute… because no one likes to feel boxed in unless they get to define the box (exemplified in your own response - which I would respond the same, by the way).

  • Posted by

    Actually, John3:36, you sounded pretty “emergent” in your answer to that question!

    tongue wink

    Try this on for size. There are two kinds of people in this world, the kind who divide everybody in the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don’t.

    Happy Friday, boys and girls!

  • Posted by

    Two kind of people in this world.  Interesting that Jesus spoke of separating the wheat and the chaff, organizing the sheep into those who stand on His right-hand, and those on His left.  The seeds that are thrown either fall on good soil or bad. There are two paths, on that leads to salvation (and few will find it) and a wide path of the world that leads to death (and many will follow this one). Ouch!  God is God, and I am not (Thanks be to God).

    Maybe the emergent church is proposing a third, or a forth, or maybe more - is this because this very divide of those who He know and those that He never knew is just to difficult to swallow let alone to preach?  Sound incredibly exclusive, however, this is how it is written.  God’s plan for salvation seems to be easy to understand, but again hard to swallow for many.  A spoon full of emergent sugar helps the medicine go down...Have a great weekend!

  • Page 2 of 3 pages

     <  1 2 3 >
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: