Comments on: The Supremacy of Christ in the Postmodern World

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:45:00 +0000

Thanks for the summaries and links. I don't know if people are looking for still more reviews, but I'm also blogging through my favorite talks: reviews of David Wells and Tim Keller are up, with Driscoll and Piper on the way.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:20:00 +0000

You too! Thanks for stopping by the blog, Paul.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:09:00 +0000

Brian,
Those are good questions you are asking and I feel like I am asking the same ones. My only point is that I find enough biblical imperatives to seek unity, behold the goodness of brotherhood, be at peace with all men, take the plank out of our own eye, be “one as We are one,” that our default vernacular and language (as you say) should be out of a “we” thinking and not an “us/them” thinking. I'm not saying we should resist making the “us/them” distinction when it is called for (like Roger mentioned re:Mclaren). There are also biblical imperatives to defend sound doctrine and contend for the faith which should never be pushed to the side in favor of group hugs. Yet I think we should be slow to condemn and quick to encourage (which in this case encouragement looks a lot like strong pleas to rethink some points of philosophy and doctrine). In the name of love hoping all things, I guess what I'm trying to say is something along the lines of “innocent until proven guilty.”
SEZ

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:00:00 +0000

For the most part, I think you folks are quite fair. While not always agreeing, you're intentions are never seen as hostile. I hear what you (and Scott) are saying. As always, it's difficult to paint with a broad brush. Part of my point is this: if we consider someone a brother, then we are to afford them the grace of it. How tragic it is for someone to be a part of the same family I'm a part of, God's family, and then use language to say they are not. So if we're simply nervous about Tony Jones' theology, but can't say he believes "another gospel", let's not use language that implies that he does. Scott, this is what I was getting at. You said, "However, the trouble is that frustration can lead us to make judgements we are not free to make." Isn't this precisely what Piper and Driscoll are doing by there comments (if Roger's summary accurately describes what was said)? Clearly the more traditional evangelicals are frustrated with emergent. For the most part (and let's be honest here) they haven't read many of them except Brian McLaren. Yet, they are quite comfortable giving strong warnings and rebukes about them while not to them. Again, this is why I've appreciated some of Justin Taylor's work in this area. You can tell that the man has gone out of his way to listen, understand, listen some more before he's brought critique. I think it is great that Piper met with Jones and Pagitt. But if they're brothers, will you not sit down with them again? Does perceived epistemological differences stop brothers from dialoguing? I do believe we have work to do in this area.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:12:00 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts Brian,
There may have been some things that I disagreed with at the conference, but nothing's coming to mind at the moment. I think Scott's reply to you did a great job of capturing the intention of comments made at the conference.
I don't believe I've made any hesitation on this blog to call a spade a spade. Simply put: Spencer Burke and Brian McLaren do not teach the Gospel that Jesus taught. I may consider them brothers in that they are fellow bearers of God's image (which means for me that I must treat them with a certain level of respect), but I do not consider them brothers in Christ. I don't say this joyfully, but with tears (literally) because I long for them to be faithful to God's Word and because they are leading others into unfaithfulness.
When it comes to others in Emergent, such as Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, I still consider them brothers in Christ. Though I have serious disagreements with both of these men, and I believe some of their teachings to be dangerous, I've yet to hear something from them that denies any of the essentials of the faith.
We (meaning evangelicals) can be either too critical or not critical enough. There are some who on one extreme broadbrush everyone who is emerging/emergent as heretics and are bold in saying so. There are others who, as you point out Brian, point to quesitonable teachings but are timid in denouncing the teachers. I hope we've succeeded in at least some balance at this blog. I hope we've weighed carefully the tension between questionable teaching and heretical teaching that constitutes another Gospel. I hope we've been fair to those we disagree with, loving to all, but unafraid to stand up for truth even it it's not popular. And I hope we can in some way encourage others to do likewise.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:09:00 +0000

Brian,
I feel the frustration behind your comment myself much of the time. However, the trouble is that frustration can lead us to make judgements we are not free to make. I'm not sure what basis we would have at this point to say that anyone associated with anything associated with Emergent/emerging is unsaved. Whereas we may be safe to make that assumption with someone claiming allegience to Mormonism or Ba'hai, I think it would be a bit of a stretch to apply that same formula for operation with the group in question.
I like the approach taken by Piper et al at this conference. Warn where some of this thinking is headed, remind everyone of the truths of scripture, call everyone to the biblical Christ. I so appreciated Piper's opening comment where he described many in the EC stream to be “children that where not where he wanted them to be.” While I don't personally have a fatherly concern for anyone (save my two-year old nephew, who is Reformed), I agree with Piper's sentiment there; that the paradigm we should be operating with here is not unbeliever therefore evangelize but errant thinking therefore debunk that thinking.
Feel free to disagree with that, just my reaction to what you said.
SEZ

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:09:00 +0000

I know you are making summaries, but I get the sense you agree with the presentations by your reflections. I don't know if this is correct or not, or even if it is important.
It seems clear from your interpretation of the comments and messages given that the “emergent” folks are indeed heretics. You can't call, as you put it, the emergent gospel “a different gospel” and you can't say they are making “non-Christians” and come to a different conclusion. There's a part of me that doesn't have problem with that; if you (and others) believe they are preaching another gospel than that which Christ gave us “let them be anathema”.
My problem, then, is be consistent. Don't call emergent folks “brothers”; let's go about the work of evangelizing them for the sake of their souls. The inconsistency drives me nuts. They are either brothers and sisters or they're not. I'm waiting for someone to be consistent; they are either brothers or they are “outside the fold”. They're not both.
I'm not saying this to you in particular, but I'm just so tired of the double-talk concerning the emergent church. Hopefully, we can at least be consistent. But if we really don't know, if we really are suspending judgment about their status as heretics, let's not say they are; or let's not say they're preaching another gospel unless we know are convinced.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:20:00 +0000

Roger and Amy,
It was a real delight to meet you both!
Hopefully the Lord will cross our paths again in the near future.
Paul Martin

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:47:00 +0000

If you start that singles network up, I'll join.
As long as you throw the personality profile/calvinism assessment test in for free (a $50 value!).
SEZ