May 21, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Me too. However, I don’t think it’s because I just haven’t
met her yet. It’s because I don’t believe she exists. No- I’m not depressed and
lonely at the moment and think that I’m never going to get married. Rather, I
don’t believe that there is a “the one” for anyone. Furthermore, I don’t
believe God has chosen whom we’re going to marry. I’m not looking around when
I’m out wondering if the woman I just saw is the one God’s chosen and if I
don’t pursue her I’ll screw up God’s “plan for my life.”
One problem with this idea is practical. If I somehow
misinterpret whom God’s chosen for me and marry the wrong woman, then I set off
a huge disaster. She’s also married the wrong man, and so there’s another man
and woman out there who won’t be able to marry the people “God’s chosen for
them.” This dilemma goes on ad infinitum, so that my one mistake messes up the
entire human race (Adam already took care of that role).
The other problem with this idea is more substantial, and
that’s a Biblical problem. Nowhere in the Bible does God tell us that He’s
chosen our spouse in advance so we don’t have to worry about it (neither does
the Bible say anything about individual plans for our lives). Rather, the
burden of responsibility is on us for making a wise decision about whom we
marry. The Bible gives guidelines for making the decision, not because God’s
already made it for us, but because He’s given us the freedom to make it.
Here are some of the Biblical guidelines Greg Koukl has
assembled for us guys in choosing a wife: Is she…
- Someone you can endeavor
to love as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25)?
- Already beginning to show
respect for you as the head of your relationship (Ephesians 5:33, 24)?
- Someone you can joyfully
fulfill your sexual responsibilities to (1 Corinthians 7:3-5, Proverbs
5:15-20)?
- Someone you can provide
for adequately (1 Timothy 5:8)?
- Someone who allows you to
exercise your spiritual gifts (1 Peter 4:10)?
- Prudent (Proverbs 19:14)?
- Not contentious or vexing
(Proverbs 21:9, 25:24, 27:15, 21:19, 1 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Corinthians 7:15)?
- Someone who will be an
industrious, contributing member of the household, fulfilling domestic
duties, hospitable and kind, with a positive outlook on life, and
possesses strength and dignity (Proverbs 31:13-27)?
- Someone who fears the Lord
(Proverbs 31:30)?
- Chaste and respectful (1
Peter 3:2)?
- Committed to the priority
of fulfilling her God-given role and responsibilities as a wife?
We have a number of catchy slogans expressing this idea in
Christian culture. Philmore put them to song in “Fishy.” “And I know my Father
has scoped out the water and picked out a fishy for me… Jesus has that girl for
me, I know He does because He told me in His Word, the Bible…”
Footnote: The guidelines from Greg Koukl can be found
in his CD set Decision Making and the Will of God. If you order one CD set this
year, order that one- it will likely change your life. I’ve blogged on this
topic here. The prompt for this post came from an interesting discussion here
about online dating. Also, you can listen to a great radio broadcast by Al Mohler on making wise decisions for marriage.
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 
8 Comments »
May 20, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
I'm one step closer to achieving global domination…
Today I received notifcation that I've been accepted in to Talbot seminary's Masters of Arts in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics program. It's going to be weird having to be in school again, but to be in the best Christian philosophy program in the country, I think it'll be worth it.
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts 6 Comments »
What's amazing about the topic of suffering for God's glory is that this is more than just suffering because of the message. Sometimes Jesus actually uses suffering itself to convey His message. Do we love Him enough to let Him do this? We may not all be persecuted for our faith, but we'll all have suffering. (For example, John 11, the subject of my last post, isn't about persecution; it involves only the ordinary suffering that comes with life.) This all comes down to practical questions like, are you willing to accept cancer if, by your suffering, God's power, grace, and love will be so visible in your life that God is glorified and others are drawn to Him? Do you love God and others enough to submit to this if this is His plan? This is where the rubber meets the road.
I think about this sometimes when I hear about Joni Eareckson Tada and others who have gone through extreme suffering and have impacted millions because of it. They always seem to have incredible joy and intimacy with God, and yet I shrink back from gaining that kind of intimacy and service to others at that level of cost. But I'm not sure there's any other way except at that level of cost.
It's not like we really have a choice about experiencing suffering. We can't stop all the suffering that will come our way. It will come whether we shrink back from it or not. Our choice is only about deciding to completely surrender to God because we love Him more than our own lives, and embracing the possibility of suffering for His sake. When we look at this in practical terms, we truly put our hearts to the test.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Theology No Comments »
May 20, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
We all have them. Some of us are more bothered by them than others. For most of them we can come up with a semi-logical explanation for why we have them. And yet, there’s something to them that strikes me as being more than a product of our “environment.” For instance- I crack my knuckles even though every one in my family hates it. My desk is a mess, but my CDs are alphabetized. My co-worker will clean the desk at work, but he’ll put the CDs in the wrong place. Our explanations will only go so far; I think when we get down to it these personality quarks (like putting CDs in the wrong place) are examples of God’s creativity in shaping us into unique individuals. Our diversity is a testimony to who He is.
I have a good number of pet peeves. In fact, it’s usually easier for these things to annoy me than for someone to personally offend me. Here are just a few, …
- People putting things in the wrong order/place when there’s an obvious correct order/place.
- People who still have “Kerry/Edwards” stickers on their cars.
- Girls who refuse to let me pay for their meal (that’s only happened once).
- People who respond to my arguments by telling me how they feel instead of what they think.
- Girls who wear so much make-up you can’t see their face.
- People who wear shorts that are too short, especially old men.
- People who offer, “I’m just taking the Bible literally” as an argument.
- Blog posts that I have to click on to read the entire post. 😉
- People who happily sing, “It’s a Small World” and other such insidious tunes.
- Hotmail’s insistence on displaying ads of women wearing next to nothing.
- Men who don’t open the door for women.
- Women who are offended when I open the door.
- The repeated release of A-Team seasons on DVD with absolutely no extra bonus material.
- How easy it is to lose touch with good friends, and often how hard it can be to get back in touch.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 5 Comments »
While reading the Gospel of John last weekend, I was forced to examine myself with the question, “How committed am I to the joy of helping others come to know and trust in Jesus?” Sometimes serving Christ and His purposes comes at great personal cost, as we see in John 11:
[Mary and Martha] sent word to Him, saying, 'Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.' But when Jesus heard this, He said, 'This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.' Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was.
Why did Jesus do this? Why didn't He immediately prevent the suffering of His friends when He could easily have done so? He explains, “For the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified.” Jesus allowed the death of Lazarus and the suffering of his sisters as a way to reveal Himself and His purpose to everyone connected with the siblings' lives. He explains his actions in verses 14-15 and 25: “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe…I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.”
What an honor for Mary, Martha, and Lazarus to be able to participate through their suffering in Jesus' proclamation that he who believes in Him will live! The pain was real and momentary, but the joy extends even to this day for everyone who reads this passage and believes.
When Jesus heard about the suffering of His friends, He stayed away two days longer because He loved them. It is the most loving thing Jesus can do to use our lives as a parable to others of the glory and truths of God–even if this means leading us through pain and suffering. Are we ready and willing to accept this from Him?
I hope you'll take some time today to reflect on this question yourself–what are you willing to suffer so that others may believe?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Theology 2 Comments »
May 19, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Don’t worry, I wont be exposing any of the interesting plot points that aren’t painfully obvious to anyone who’s seen the original trilogy. Yes, there are some things that some of you don’t know, so I’ll be careful.
This is one of the most anticipated films of all time, if not the most anticipated. What makes this film a bizarre case is that most people who see the film know most of what they’re going to see. They know who has to die, who has to live, and who has to fall. The theater I went to had 11 sold out screenings for midnight (two at 3:15 am), and the one I saw was in digital (which is quite a beauty to behold). There was little to surprise us. And that’s really the beauty of it.
It is no little known fact that Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. We’ve really known this since Empire Strikes Back. This film chronicles Skywalker’s fall to the dark side. But even more than just tell about it, it invites us into it. Our emotions are caught up in his decisions, his passions, and his confusion. We begin to see how easy it is to fall when it may seem we’re trying to do good.
The irony is much deeper though; George Lucas nailed it. I knew every major plot point, I spotted the Millennium Falcon, Grand Moff Tarkin, etc. And yet, all I could feel when I left was a depressing numbness. I knew, and yet I could not believe that Anakin had committed such evils. I could not believe that he fell to the dark side so easily, even though I could almost sympathize with his early decisions. Lucas didn’t have to introduce some big twist; he really couldn’t have. But he did better; he made me believe it could happen to me.
There will be plenty of discussions about how the movie relates to politics and truth, and I will have much to say about them (don’t believe your newspapers). Lucas delivered on everything the fan boys wanted- amazing lightsaber fights, the cutting of many appendages (including heads), great effects, etc. But when I left I wasn’t thinking about all that. I was left meandering in the emptiness and despair of a hopeless man. That Lucas could do that means he did it right.
No, the acting isn’t much better. Nor is the cheesy romance. In fact, it’s amazing to me how the film could be so good in spite of some choppy acting at times. Yet none of that really mattered in the end. It truly gives meaning to “A New Hope,” because we are left with next to none in the end. Overall Grade: a solid A.
A note to those who care- as usual no swearing or sexual content, however, there are some grueling scenes that I would consider inappropriate for children. The PG-13 rating is deserved.
Posted in Main Page, Movie Reviews, Roger's Posts 6 Comments »
May 18, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Scott Smith provided an excellent survey (from which the bulk of this
post is drawn) of the epistemology underlying much of the emergent
church movement (focusing on Brian McLaren’s views). McLaren’s bête
noire, according to Smith, is Cartesian (or classical) foundationalism.
Foundationalism, in its requirement of “bomb-proof” certainty (i.e., no
room for doubt) gives rise to combative and contentious attitudes
(e.g., apologetics as “defense” of the faith, political involvement as
part of the “culture war”); beliefs about God as rigid and controlling;
reduction of the Christian life to a belief system; and an inordinate
focus on the individual. Foundationalism, McLaren continues, is largely
responsible for the arrogance and legalism so often found among
conservative Christians.
Postmodern epistemology, on the other hand, recognizes that we can’t
know absolute truths—allowing for intellectual humility. Acknowledging
a limited, contingent, historically situated perspective leads us to
embrace wonder and mystery. Nothing is purely objective, but instead
all truth is contextual; all meanings find their place within a story
and community because we are trapped within our language and unable to
access an independent, objective reality. Through the influences of
Jacques Derrida, Stanley Grenz and John Franke, Nancey Murphy, and
Alasdair MacIntyre (among others), McLaren has apparently come to
believe that postmodern philosophy has successfully deconstructed
modern (i.e., foundationalist) epistemology. We can’t, as the moderns
thought, know universal objective truths, because language serves as a
barrier between objective reality and us.
Smith is careful to give McLaren credit where it’s due, and
acknowledges that McLaren has correctly diagnosed one of the problems
with evangelicalism today: an emphasis on certainty that has elevated
truth at the expense of grace, resulting in alienation of those who are
hurting (or those who don’t buy into a foundationalist epistemology).
Smith, however, also points out some serious flaws in McLaren’s own
“belief system”:
We don't need certainty to know reality. Cartesian foundationalism, which requires absolute certainty, should be
rejected; but no one today (or rather, no one consciously espousing a
particular version of foundationalism) is a Cartesian foundationalist.
The modest foundationalist, on the other hand, rightly recognizes that
we don’t need certainty to know reality (for example, says Smith, we
could be mistaken about certain historical facts—that George Bush is
president in 2005, that the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11, that
Jesus rose from the dead—but that doesn’t mean that we don’t describe
reality when we assert them).
Not all “modern” Christians are combative and contentious. Certainly some evangelicals are as McLaren
describes: rigid, controlling, etc. But a commitment to modest
foundationalism certainly doesn’t entail such attitudes, and in fact
most of us can probably think of counterexamples to the kind of (rigid,
controlling) Christian McLaren describes.
Postmodern epistemology is self-defeating. At the
heart of postmodern epistemology is the claim that we are trapped
inside language and therefore cannot know objective reality as it is.
But this claim is either 1) just a construction of my story and/or
community, and therefore not applicable to other communities; or 2)
objectively and independently true—in which case, it presupposes what
it denies (i.e., epistemic access to objective reality). It is simply impossible to maintain this view consistently.
Postmodern epistemology makes (true) theological
knowledge impossible. If the postmodern claim above is taken seriously, then
there are disturbing implications for theology. First, God is just a
construction unique to our community. Further, facts about the
incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus, while true for the
Christian community, have no bearing on those communities for whom he’s
not a part of the story. And finally, we can’t know the authentic Jesus
as he truly (objectively) was. (This is particularly troubling, it
would seem, for those in the emergent church who want to shun a propositional theology in favor
of an incarnational theology.)
Thoughtful evangelicals should no doubt (sorry, couldn't resist)
be wary of falling prey to the attitudes McLaren criticizes; they
should also be wary, however, of the treacherous waters of postmodern
epistemology. Postmodernism, as a response to the ills that plague the
church today, is (to borrow a line from J.P. Moreland) the cure that
kills the patient.
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General), Theology 11 Comments »
May 16, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Concerning the Emergent Church
conference held last Friday, I wish there had been more time devoted to
the many things that the EC movement has to offer in the area of
worship.
Both sides agree that
efforts to make our worship time into a more interactive and creative
expression, rather than solely cognitive or performance driven are not
only needed, but welcomed.
Both Dan Kimball and Dr Robert Webber agreed that there is a trend in worship which lends itself to be very narcissistic. Often
times presenting God as an object, and addressing him as such which
often times leads to a worship service that makes “me” the center,
rather than our response to the awesomeness of God.
There is an
assumption in the present worship model, Webber suggests, that a person
can, at any appointed time during the worship time, “reach into ‘me’
and pull out ‘my worship’ at an appropriate time”. This
presents a need to travel on a personal spiritual journey into self,
where the person can become tuned into “releasing a spirituality from
inside”.
Kimball suggests that
rather, a creative sacred space might be set, where through art, music,
and a number of interactive worship stations, one might be inspired to
respond in an expression of worship. He calls on us to bring back color and senses back into worship, as in ancient church history.
Dan Kimball introduced The Palette of Worship idea. The palette is a collection of worship
tools such as: Scripture, Prayer, Sacred Space, Musical Worship,
Teaching and Spoken Word, Painting/Sculptures, Video/Film, and
Photography. Ideally, these things would be used to teach and inspire us to respond in worship.
Pictures and examples of these you can see on his Vintage Church website. (http://www.vintagechurch.org/photo/)
For the most part, I agree and welcome many of these suggestions. However,
I do see that when left unchecked, many of these ‘good’ additions may
tend to be substitutes for scripture, and good theology. So it needs to be much more than just “Crowder and some candles”.
I don’t see the
Palette idea as harmful either, except for the danger to make scripture
and good theology just another thing in the list, weighing equal in
power to Film or Music.
The consensus on the
A-Team is that many of these things can be good. Some ideas are
welcomed additions, needed to point our worship in the right direction. However,
these things are helpful only as long as they add to and improve our
traditions in the church that reflect solid, theologically sound
aspects in worship. To throw out old traditions, such as hymn singing,
scripture readings, and a message, simply to add something “new” and
updated, would be a step backward. This would be more of a
testament to our consumer desire for something new and improved,
more so than a direction toward authentic worship. But we’re all
for making sound improvements which might be lacking in our
contemporary worship services. This
should be obvious, especially if it brings us back to making God the
center and focus of our worship, an authentic response to our knowledge
and understanding of Him and his grace and forgiveness, rather than an
emotion evoked by entertaining contemporary music and dimmed lights.
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc. 11 Comments »
I love Dan Kimball. Regardless of any disagreements, I've loved him since I read one of his books a couple of years ago; and hearing him speak on Friday confirmed my opinion about him. His passion for knowing, loving, and serving Jesus with every ounce of his being is unmistakable and infectious. The Word of God is central in his ministry and he desires to be shaped by its truth. He values theology and intellectual pursuit. He's straightforward about what he believes and single-minded in his purpose. His purpose is to bring Christ to lost and hurting people, inspiring them to know, love, and serve Him with every part of their lives.
Kimball's gifts are very practical, relational, and artistic–he has no interest in discussing philosophy. He sees no need to understand the philosophies behind postmodernism because he's working hard and well in the trenches. Theoretical abstractions are the farthest thing from his mind, and well they should be. He ought to be focusing on using the gifts God has given him. But I think Kimball is making a mistake that nearly all Christians often make (and I'm including myself in this). Because he appreciates and enjoys his gifts, he sees other gifts–those foreign to his experience–as less important and possibly even irrelevant.
But philosophy is not irrelevant. Philosophical ideas, even if unknowingly accepted, ultimately have an impact on the practical and the relational. Philosophical ideas, even if they're in the background, will eventually undo well-intentioned service if they are opposed to the truth of God. Kimball may not have the interest or the training to examine these ideas, but there are many out there who joyfully serve God doing just this. And yet, he seemed frustrated that people wanted to discuss this aspect of the Emerging Church.
What if, instead of dismissing philosophy, he were to value the parts of the Body gifted in this area and passionate about using their gifts to serve Christ and the Body? What if he were to submit to these Christians in the areas where they have a greater knowledge and understanding of the Kingdom? And what if the parts of the Body gifted in philosophy were to value worship that embraces art, beauty, and participation? What if they were to submit to the parts of the Body (like Dan Kimball) in the areas where they have greater knowledge and gifts?
We have two halves here, and we both need each other. The heart must be contained by the head, and the head must be expanded by the heart. (See my previous post for my view on how these two ought to relate to each other.) Instead, we both (yes, both) perceive the other side as attacking what we are gifted to do. We both see the other side dismissing the passion God has given us as unimportant. We know it's not unimportant because we have experienced the joy and fruit of serving God with our gifts, so we dig in our heels and defend our gifts and passions because we are convinced that if people join “the other side,” they will lose the essential, God-glorifying gifts we have to offer. And the way things stand now (for the most part), they will.
I call on those of you in the Emerging Church to recognize those in the Body who are pointing out philosophical concerns with the movement. They are faithfully serving God with their whole hearts and doing this out of love for Him. What they have to say is not irrelevant. I call on those of you gifted in philosophy to recognize those in the Body who are asking for greater community and passionate worship and service. What they have to say is not unimportant. I call on you both to let neither be at the expense of the other.
I am left with a thought that sends chills up my spine…What would happen if we came together?
Posted in Amy's Posts, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy 12 Comments »
An interesting statement was made at the EC Conference that “science and reason have reigned long enough.” (I believe it was Spencer Burke who said this, but I'm not certain, and I currently have no way of verifying this.) The idea is that an analytical mindset that tries to determine truth, declaring doctrines “right” or “wrong,” is all about power and control. We need to break free from this control and explore, always being open, and celebrating differences.
Is it the case that the boundaries obtained through analytical thoughts about the truths of Scripture are not only not of God, but are actually hindering His work on Earth? Are these boundaries only about “power and control,” or do they serve a useful and beautiful purpose in the Body of Christ?
I think there are two sets of instincts at play here, and depending on which one we choose to “reign” over the other, we will end up with very different outcomes. Here is my proposal: If, in a society, the “masculine” (discipline, justice, reason, and a desire for truth) provides the guidelines for the “feminine” (emotion, mercy, nurturing empathy, and a desire for experience), but at the same time is open to and encourages “feminine” contributions, this society will have the best of both worlds. (I put “masculine” and “feminine” in quotes because a specific man or woman could exhibit some of both sets of traits.) As soon as the roles are reversed, however, boundaries are lost and truth inevitably suffers.
According to Romans 12:2, we are to be transformed by “the renewing of our minds” so that we may “[test] what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” In other words, the head must govern the heart. The proper use of our minds (reason) shaped by the transforming power of the Word should guide our belief and practice for the glory of God. When practice rejects the “control” of the mind and instead forces beliefs and truth to submit to its desires, both the truth about God and the true experience of God are lost.
Burke says he doesn't need the “boxes” of “either/or” we've had in the past for doctrine because he can believe “both/and” contradicting statements. We don't need “the rules” (he seemed to mean the rules of reason here) because the rules don't actually exist. He also says that the things he believes change from day to day, so it's useless to ask him to defend something he said last week–he probably doesn't believe it anymore.
Friends, this is not the life with God we should be pursuing. If we are not growing in solid wisdom and knowledge of the truths of God as He has set them forth in His word, then we are the very picture of what God warns us against through Paul in Ephesians 4:14: “We are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine.”
I do believe in some very important “both/and's” that Burke actually rejects. I believe it's possible to know what you believe and be open to questions and further growth and learning. I believe it's possible to speak the truth and do this in love. I believe that one can make determinations about what is right and wrong and be humble and compassionate towards those who disagree. I believe these things are possible because I've seen them in action in the lives of many of my fellow Christians.
I do not in any way mean to say that all those involved in the Emerging Church share Burke's perspective, as you'll see from my next post. But there are certain philosophical underpinnings of the Emergent movement that push followers in this direction, and depending on how far any particular Christian conforms to these ideas, he will at some point no longer be able to reflect the glory of God to a world that desperately needs Him.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Gender Issues, Main Page, Philosophy 1 Comment »
content rss
Recent Comments