Yes, our church is a part of a denomination. It depends upon whom you ask as to if our ties are stronger, weaker, or about the same. A good number of individuals in leadership roles have had no connection previously to the denomination until moving to G-town. It will be curious to see how that affects things. Personally? I think that’s a good thing.

Our church is a denominational congregation. As to the strength of the denomination as compared to 10 years ago, it is a mixed bag. I wou.ld say the connections of the churches to the denomination has eroded some but their effort to exert influnce has increased.

We are part of a denom, but many of our people don’t know that.

Jesse writes {...doesn’t “emergent” tend to be closer to heresy?} “Emergent” generally refers to methodology than theology. There are “emergents” who are pretty liberal and “emergents” who are pretty conservative, theologically. Many who are being attacked as liberal or heretical are actually quite theologically conservative.  Please take what “slice” and Ken Silva write with a grain of salt.

Methodology does not necessarily follow theology or vice versa.

CS,

With all due respect, you have so over-simplified and de-context-ified what those people have said.

But besides that, you’ve mentioned four authors. I get accused of being pretty “emergent” as do most of those I associate with these days, and we’re pretty darn theologically conservative. (Where is that McLaren quote from, btw?)

Back to the point…

Our church doesn’t “hide” our denomination, we just don’t cling to it as our identity like many do. We are about being God’s Kingdom in this world. Period. Our denominational affiliation is something I’m comfortable with, but there is much about our denomination (in our particular region) that is so different from the culture of our church people, that our church people just don’t fit in with it that well. But, again, we don’t hide it…

Peter, I have to agree with you on that.  As I’ve aged I have also lost a lot of the false certainty-if that’s a word-than I once posessed.  It’s not that I believe the Bible less than I once did, it’s more that I’ve learned to be honest with my doubts.  I decided the only way to confront these doubts is to face them, not to act like they don’t exist.  By being honest in my teaching experiences I have learned that most of us have doubts, but don’t know how to address them.

I may have either been misunderstood or perhaps I’ve mis-spoken…

I’m not less certain of the Bible’s authority or inspiration. I’m less certain of my understanding of it than I used to be, and the difficult passages that I struggled with when I was very young… and then totally “understood” based on pat answers… I’m less certain of my answers on them now.

I find it to be easier to believe that the Bible is God’s word if it has some mystery and richness to it than if it is totally clear and easy to understand, which it isn’t (all of it at least), despite what some have said. I have a LOT of questions about things like the Old Testament. I am open that I do NOT have it all figured out.

This makes me better as a pastor. Rather than give somebody some pat simple answer to a tough question, I continue to struggle with them, still running to God and His Word, just not to the routine explanations of it that have been even deified in some circles.

I’ve met McLaren. He does not despise the cross, nor does he necessarily believe that there is no hell. I will venture to guess that you may have mis-heard, or he was misquoted. I’ve heard people quote characters from some of the fiction he’s written as if it was a statement of theology. I’d also, i guess, like to see an actual reference for the idea that Pagitt denies the existence of Hell. (And “slice”, Ken Silva, and their ilk don’t count as far as I am concerned, since they have a regular practice of misquoting these and other individuals.

Peter:

“(And “slice”, Ken Silva, and their ilk don’t count as far as I am concerned, since they have a regular practice of misquoting these and other individuals.”

How about we take it directly from their mouths?

Here is Doug Pagitt denying the existence of Hell as understood in the Scriptures.  This is a perfect case example of why many equate emergent theology with heresy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0isqLRhClo

And here is Brian McLaren’s interview I mentioned, where he steps all over things, too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

--
CS

CS,

Thanks.

First off, I think that Pagitt was correct to try and counter a “grammatical historical” theology that strings little bits of four unrelated passages together to create a doctrine. I didn’t feel like we heard the whole conversation, but it was more than a little condescending on Todd’s part. That said, I think some of Pagitt’s statements are really disturbing.

As far as the McLaren clip, that was farsical. It was a selected excerpt (perhaps selected to make a point) but even so, McLaren seems to be criticizing a certain understanding and explanation of what Hell is, not the idea of the existence of a Hell itself. But I’m not surprised that “A Little Leaven” might have taken such things out of context. That is their M.O. after all.

All that to say… you (with Jesse’s help) have once again steered the conversation off point. (I’m afraid I helped you.) We were talking about denominations?

“But denominations still hold value.”

Denomination: “A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”

Yeah, that really represents the character of the Body of Christ before the world.

Denominationalism leads to arrogance and the dissecting of the Body of Christ for no other purpose than to control others.

Peter, you write:

“‘Emergent’ generally refers to methodology than theology.”

Are you sure that “emergent” refers to a methodology? I thought that was “emerging”.  If so, where do you find that definition of emergent, or rather - what evidence brings you to that conclusion?

I tie the term “emergent” with Emergent Village, which I’ve found to be - well, you know. And “emerging” seems more of the broader term, of which “emergent” seems a subset.

I would very much like to hear your classifications and definitions if you don’t mind sharing. You could also email me at:

I’m sorry for derailing the conversation. Please note my other points though - the results of the study are misleading.

Do they really think I changed religions by moving from a covenant denom to a non-denom? Probably not, but it sounds sexy to say that 50% of everyone is losing their religion (and they include atheists as losing theirs).

Ricky,

No they don’t. What on earth do you mean?

Peter:  “No they don’t. What on earth do you mean?”

What I mean is that to declare so self-righteously that “your” denomination is not arrogant is the epitome of arrogance.

How can you objectively be a judge of the hand that feeds you?  And yet, you always seem to set your “church,” and now denomination, apart from others, which is, again, arrogant, because by setting yourself apart from others you’re saying that your denomination is better.

Arrogance...plain and simple.

Yes, I agree, Ricky… you’re out of line.

Todd