Comments on: Adventures in Missing the Point: Andrew Jones

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:30:13 +0000

I don't think I've spelled it out in a post yet. Maybe in the next few weeks…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:18:41 +0000

I only wish I could find the time to post more often. So much to write, so little time to write it out and have it make sense. 😀
Anyway, do you have any articles that makes the distinction between “emerging church” and “Emergent church”?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:11:54 +0000

When we begin to speak about the “degree” of coverage of positive and negative aspects concerning a topic, I believe we are largely in subjective areas. For the sake of illustration, lets just say that critique of emergent is 60/40% positive to negative. One may see that is high, the other low. I'm comfortable with viewing things differently on this point.
As for Carson, on page 186 he concludes by saying, “both McLaren and Chalke have largely abandoned the gospel”. Now, someone could say, “But Brian, Carson didn't say McLaren has abandoned the gospel, but largely abandoned the gospel.” My comment to that would be, “Come one, let's be honest about what Carson's saying.” Those are very strong words. But I'm not even saying that they are not justified; I'm saying, if you are going to say that then don't call him a brother.
My support for that contention (if one preaches another gospel, or abandons the gospel, isn't a brother) comes from Gal. Firstly, in chapter 1, those who preach a gospel that doesn't not save should be “eternally condemned” (that doesn't sound like I'm going to be experiencing eternal bliss with him). Then also, in chapter 2 verse 4, Paul labels these same folks as “false brothers”. So it seems clear to me that if one is indeed a false teacher, someone proclaiming a gospel that does not save, then we could hardly call them “in Christ.”
Thanks for the dialogue.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:38:44 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:23:00 +0000

This is how I believe it applies: a critics approach, motivation and honesty are as important as the content of his criticism, especially within the family of God. So when I come to any type of critique (regardless of one's “side”), I'm looking for more than content. I don't consider myself in either parties “camp”, but (generally speaking, of course) I do not think the critics of emergent have been terribly generous in their criticism. An honest critique looks at the body of work, not merely one sentence or idea. That's why Andrew has an excellent point about the lack of commentary on the positive aspects of emergent. When's the last time you've read an fair book review that didn't comment on the entire book?
What should have you done? It depends on what you hoped to accomplish. If your desire is to enter into true dialogue, then quick criticism on minor points isn't very helpful. What is helpful is an honest owning of transgressions (who isn't guilty of making false assumptions and conclusions from time to time?) and a desire to listen so that you are as informed as possible when you provide critique.
Where have you gone wrong? I don't think you have any specific points that are necessaily “wrong”. My contention is that there is a posture towards the emergent folks (which it seems you have in this post) that is wrongheaded, unless your desire is simply to wipe the emergent movement off the table. But that isn't very helpful in the pursuit of growth.
I don't think I stated that I thought some critics are “so wrong”. Again, I believe many are wrongheaded. I do not believe that criticism has been generous, either, which I expect between “brothers and sisters”. Carson, for example, will in one breath question the emergent doctrine as even Christian and then in another breath call McLaren a “brother in Christ.” That seems disingenous to me. If McLaren is proposing “another gospel” than he can not be rightly called a “brother”. But if he's a “brother”, don't say he pushing a false gospel.
My desire would be an elevation of the debate, not the cessation of it. So don't stop.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:18:33 +0000

Thank you for taking the time to respond Gregory,

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:17:31 +0000

I appreciate the value to sticking to the point. I have witnessed the emerging church up close, and there are always many things to comment about, but all too soon it just seems like criticism for criticism sake.
The main issues are an false gospel, the devaluing of Scripture, and I might add – pragmatism as the prove all for what is right in ministry.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:16:20 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:14:13 +0000

Thanks for the opportunity to respond. Andrew's post is pointing out what the emerging folks do believe and are trying to accomplish (paragraphs 7 and 9-11). That's a very helpful summary of the emerging viewpoint. And I'm compelled to believe—because I see it all over—that the vast majority of churches/church plants that fall into the emerging category are well on the right track. What I find most of the arguments against the emerging church doing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and trying to add at the very tail end of any discussion an anemic, “But we're not talking about every emerging church.” Let me be fair and say that this blog is not the only one to be saying that; there are others as well.
Andrew wisely indicates that some of the criticism is needed and can help the emerging church. Some of the criticism, however, is based on a complete misunderstanding of what the emerging church believes and is doing. Most emerging leaders aren't writing books and aren't doing speaking tours. They're in the trenches trying to expand the Kingdom. Those who are writing books and those who are on speaking tours don't speak for the whole movement, but they do attract criticism for the whole movement. That's unfair (that's where the original post bogged down intellectually).
You are absolutely right to criticize any church—emerging or not—that waters down the truth of Scripture. Continue to do that; I will, too. But there are plenty of non-emerging churches doing precisely the same thing, while at the same time maintaining museums of inactive congregations. What the emerging church is attempting to do—and rightly so—is to put feet to their words. An excellent example for us all.
I'm compelled to iterate my belief that using the phrase, “If this doesn't fit you, then I'm not talking about you” is neither helpful nor intellectually honest. Because the “I'm not talking about you” part probably covers 95% of the emerging churches (admittedly not a scientific number, just what I seem to be observing). But the tone of posts like the original post here and others makes it sound as if there are only a handful of good ones while the vast majority are teaching apostasy. And that's simply not the case.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:36:06 +0000

Hey Victor, long time no see!
“Could he be implying that some of what the critics call “unbiblical” are actually ok” That's a possibility, since I don't think his point with all the questions is at all clear. I'm willing to give him the benefit fo the doubt that he doesn't mean that.
PS- Ask Vos about all of the “Philistine women” he pursues 😉