Comments on: ETS 4- John Hammett on the Emerging Church

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:16:43 +0000

A few thoughts.
I don

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:23:47 +0000

Wait – found it, and many more scrabble words here:
http://www.islandnet.com/~egbird/dict/h.htm

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:19:16 +0000

Had to look up praxis – didn't find heteropraxis. Double word score for you both.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:22:30 +0000

Tim, I agree that believism is expressed more in praxis than theology. Those of us, though, who focus on getting people to believe the right thing sometimes (and maybe more often than not) create an atmosphere in which believism is culturaly acceptable in the pews.
I appreciate the EC's value of shining a light on this heteropraxy. In valuing the authentic, they are exposing our tendency to focus on what our parishoners believe over and against how we as a community live our lives as disciples of Jesus Christ.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:20:29 +0000

Rich, it's one thing to learn the language of postmodernity in order to reach those in it, but it's quite another to uncritically accept postmodernism. The former is honorable; the latter is dangerous, and is one of the main criticisms of the emerging church.
Bill, while I too appreciate the EC criticism of believism, I question its object. Where exactly is believism occurring? Where are church leaders saying, “How you live your life doesn't matter, but you better believe (assent to) these two/three/five things”?
It seems to me that believism is more of a praxis than a theology, and thus anyone is susceptible to it, including people who are part of the emerging church movement.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:16:16 +0000

“It is a matter of living out scripture rather than simply critiquing culture with scripture.”
I appreciate the warning from the emerging church against believism – that to be a Christian is to believe the correct thing or offer intellectual ascent to a systematic theology, rather than trust in and follow Jesus Christ, and do what he commands.
Such believism is not faitfhful to scripture's promise that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, for only in a mindframe foreign to that in which it was written could we interpret 'faith' to mean merely an intellectual ascent.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:41:10 +0000

I have enjoyed the articles here and believe that the problem we are having is accepting a "both and" rather than drawing lines with the issue of Emergent Churches. I believe that there is a middle ground in this debate over Emergent Church strategy. We can hide behind our degrees and forget the simple fact that we do not understand our kids and how they think. We can be afraid of change in our culture and look at it as all bad. Why not a middle ground? Modernism and postmodernism both carry positive and negative traits. Modernism is great for valuing utility and linear process yet that is why we have Darwinism. Postmodernism does well to question the reality of life beyond simple observational means and introduces emotional truth and story once again to our culture yet it is why we have narcissism and aimlessness in parts of our culture. So, really there is no choice but to address these both. And, if you want to reach those who are younger, then you better know how to speak their language. This is not a compromise but a Pauline principle. It is not a right or wrong issue. We have to function in the environment God places us in just like missionaries. This has been the problem with fundamentalism for the past 50 years. We must be for something, otherwise we will continue to gray our pews and dissolve our churches by attrition. It is not a matter of scripture verses culture, at all, since most that I know in the EC are committed to the Word. It is a matter of living out scripture rather than simply critiquing culture with scripture. It is not informational it is transformationally biblical lives that are needed. It is time to discard the fundamentalist stand against social action and enfold back into evangelicalism our American and biblical heritage of feeding the poor as well as being firm on truth.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:19:46 +0000

The paper was pretty good, but I don't think EC folk will agree with Hammett's contention that ECers think all churches must respond to postmodernism. Their statements range from people like Dan Kimball saying descriptive things ("We responded this way and this worked in this context but it might not be effective in yours") to McLaren's more prescriptive statements ("Churches that don't change will be left behind"). I think the point Carson makes, which Hammett quotes, cannot be underestimated: There are churches which have "all the strengths of the emerging church movement while avoiding most of its weaknesses." (Carson, Becoming Conversant, 56). I also think that the point about how ECers have failed to critique postmodernism cannot be understated. Scott Smith takes McLaren to task for his misdescription of postmodernity in Truth and the New Kind of Christian: the emerging effects of postmodernism in the church: "McLaren does not explain for his readers that postmodernity involves not just a description of cultural factors but also a normative, philosophical thesis that we are inside language and cannot get "out," to know the real world" (134). I think the main reason ECers never critique postmodernismity is because they are neck deep in it both in their critique of modernity as well as their language games about the conversation-that-is-not-a-movement-but-is-asking-for-money. Why critique your date to the dance?