Random Stuff for the Week of 12/9-12/15
* Over @ Reformissionary (Steve McCoy) there was quite a bit of discussion concerning Dr. Russ Moore's article called "McKnight, McLaren, and McAuthenticity" which was in response to Scot McKnight's review of Walk the Line - the recent movie about Johnny Cash. McNight later responded to Moore's article. Front and center is Moore's dubbing Brian McClaren as a "false teacher" and the idea that the EC movement is a fad. * Ian Clary (Ruminations by the Lake) has recently organized a meeting in the Greater Toronto Area called "Toronto Evangelical Bloggers Brunch." I think that this is a great idea, and something like this should be done in the Louisville area. It looks like Toronto has some great bloggers in their area! * Clifton Baptist Church (Tom Schreiner/Bruce Ware) has some MP3's of some sermons preached in the last couple of years. Although I am not a member of Clifton, I have great affinity to the teaching/preaching ministry there. * BoxOfficeMojo is an online box office database where you can keep up on the popularity/success of such movies as The Chronicles of Narnia. Also, it can provide for some interesting trivia in the "All Time" page. * For a truly great laugh, watch this! * And finally, for that stocking stuffer for the politically informed, there is the new parody album by Paul Shanklin called Mama Told Me Not To Run. You can listen to a sampling on his site. Shanklin has some of the best political parodies I have ever heard. **** Blog of the Week **** Historica Ecclesiastica (Michael A.G. Haykin) Dr. Michael Anthony George Haykin is currently the Principal of The Toronto Baptist Seminary, Toronto, Ontario, where he also teaches Church History, Historical Theology and Spirituality. He is also Visiting Professor of Church History at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and a Senior Fellow of The Jonathan Edwards Centre for Reformed Spirituality, which operates under the auspices of The Toronto Baptist Seminary in Toronto.Dr. Haykin has a wealth of knowledge to share with us all, and his blog has been a great blessing from the short time I have been reading it. Almost daily updated, Dr. Haykin always brings something fresh and insightful to the blogosphere. For the link to his writing page (Fontes), click here. Still trying to make up for missing finals/papers for this past semester. I should be done by early next week. Hope you have a great week! - t.n.b.
posted by Timmy Brister at 12/10/2005 06:45:00 AM
11 Comments:
I think Moore was a bit too harsh and hasty with his statements regarding emerging churches as a whole. One cannot take Mr.McClaren and apply all of his teachings to all who hold to the same title as he does. Pagitt, McClaren, Jones, etc... All of them have different viewpoints on different things.
As does anyone.
They ough to be treated as such, different viewpoints. Until the attacks stop focusing on the movement and on to the real issues; things are going to never be resolved.
12/11/2005 01:10:00 AM
Just curious, and I don't mean to be implying anything, but is there ever a time where the Christian should be harsh? When I look at the ministries of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, I find some very harsh words and painful situations. While I am not disavowing the idea of conversation, but the buzz of conversational talk seems to do away with any confrontation.
As I am relatively new to the "conversation," one thing I have noticed is that the big leaders of the Emergent movement enjoy flattery from their followers, but reply with sharp, frustration-driven comments to anyone who would challenge or critique them.
There were certain indivuals that Jesus called "white-washed tombs" and "brood of hypocrites." Paul spoke of men whom he "handed over to Satan" who had shipwrecked their faith. Others "wandered from the truth." Even with Peter in Galatians 2 he had hard words. In each of these situations, there was little "conversation" and a whole lot of confrontation.
I don't think the fault lies squarely on the "theological right" or "evangelicals." One can see just by the comments made in blogposts that this is not true.
What is difficult about Emergent is the lack of doctrinal clarity and precision in their writing. The emphasis is orthopraxy before orthodoxy. It is almost that ambiguity is so prescribed that anyone who would dare challenge what they said is charged with a false caricature or missing the point. The point, however, seems to be that there is really no point to begin with. The issue with the Emergent/Jewish meeting is an example of this.
I appreciate your input and comments and hope that those who disagree with me won't write me off as not being "conversation"-friendly. I really am. I really, really am.
12/11/2005 01:40:00 AM
I belive you. And I am not questioning your kindness or your voice you'll bring to the table. And yes, there were many times when it was neccesary to be harsh and it still is.
But the context defines the neccesity.
Moore's statements,althtough I respect his scholarship, was innappropriate. He took the teachings of Brian McClaren (although at times ambigious, his other writings seem to clear things up) and applied them to all of those claiming the title "emerging". Poor hermeneutics.
Those of us at Boyce/SBTS who take the title, we will defend it. In the words of Pablo Butterworth, "Why do some people have to ruin it for us?" in reference to the S3k/E. We wish that some things that influence the movement (such as Emergent) would be more, well, biblical.
I believe conversation will give way to more progress then direct confrontation. But sometimes it is neccesary.
Thank you for your balanced view and open mind.
Mike Noakes
12/11/2005 02:22:00 AM
So help me out then.
How many sub-camps are in the Emergent Movement? And how do you determine who are in what sub-group?
Do you think Moore's comments apply specifically to the sub-group of McClaren only? What separates his brand of emerging from others?
12/11/2005 02:29:00 AM
It's not a matter of sub-groups, it is a matter of individual and communal understandings of God's word in a postmodern culture. Moore's sattements (I have followed the whole discussion) were rash. I don't think he meant to come off that way. But, nevertheless, his statements applied only to a facet of a teaching which he may have misunderstood anyways.
The Faculty here has yet to fully research, engage, and discuss the movement with the leaders of emergent and the rising leaders with the emerging church.
Like Scott McKnight said,there is a difference between emerging, emergent, postmodern, and postmodernity. And until those words and their whole body of literature and conversation has been thought over OPENLY, we will continue this.
McClaren, who is a great man, may have made some rash statements of his own. I believe that he is a genuine Christ-follower and that he has dedicated himself to better understanding the Way in a postmodern, pluralistic sulture and he wants to tell others of his discoveries.
And like he said, as did many others in Emergent, we are human. And we are flawed.
12/11/2005 03:30:00 PM
Mike,
I see that you have somewhat of a high degree of disappointment and differences with SBTS and its theological positions. If that is the case, what led you to Boyce?
I mean to sound mean, but it just sounds that you are discontented with being affiliated with an SBTS school, especially given the fact that the institution does not embrace the Emergent movement.
12/11/2005 04:01:00 PM
I am not dissapointed in the SBTS or in Boyce College. Or else I would not have come here. But, like all academic institutions, there will be things you don't agree with. Theologically, I am in full agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message (although i prefer the 1925 one) and I think I agree with the abstarct of principles. But I don't like it when a political agenda gets so mixed in with a practical theology that can't seperate the two.
With my statement on the Reformation, it was a joke. I figured that you could be able to appreciate the humor. I meant nothing by it...
I have no problem with SBTS, like I said, but I would like it to be somewhat more open to different ideas and ways of relating.
12/11/2005 04:41:00 PM
So back to the distinctions of emergent and emerging - what's the difference? Could you give some examples, juxtapositions, or doctrinal statements which delineate between them? And who are the leaders of which group?
12/11/2005 10:13:00 PM
It's not an issue of "us" vs. "them" it's a state of organization vs. movement. As the protestant reformation was a movement so were Calvin, Luther, Arminius, Know, etc... organizers of that movement.
Emergent (the org) has made statements regarding their positions. Read:
http://cleave.blogs.com
And you should find some answers regarding the org. (which is still only a facet of the movement, McKnight blogged about this...)
12/12/2005 01:35:00 AM
I noticed that you have made several references to the Protestant Reformation. So do you believe that the Emergent movement to be the next Reformation?
12/12/2005 08:49:00 AM
No. I believe there have been many reformations. The protestant reformation was indeed significant to christians in the west. It has also brought demons of it's own. I consider the emerging conversation to be it's own movement. Whether it will go down in history as the next reformation, only the history books will tell. But I pray that they will have many great things to say!
12/12/2005 12:01:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home