tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115476241883638851..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Why "the Emerging Conversation" is going nowherePhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1160300521695174542006-10-08T02:42:00.000-07:002006-10-08T02:42:00.000-07:00As a first time reader of the author's blog, I am ...As a first time reader of the author's blog, I am impressed by his clarity of thought and expression. I am a pastor who is in the midst of planting a new church in the community of Spring, TX, an ex-urb of Houston. Having read many of the theological and doctrinal concerns of various writers and thinkers including the recent work by D.A. Carson, I found the content here consistent with the prevailing patterns of criticism being leveled against Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Spencer Burke, and others. In the interest of brevity, I can only say that despite my appreciation for the author's diatribe (which I do not use here as a term of derision), I do not walk away convinced that the emergent movement and its accompanying conversation is the wellspring of heresy, error, and harmful doctrine the author asserts it to be. While I am surely convinced that that the author holds strong, clear convictions regarding the supposed false foundations of the EC movement, I do not agree or reach anything nearing his conclusion regarding this movement/conversation's impact. I have found the works of McLaren, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, and others to be a breathe of life and fresh air that have rekindled and encouraged my passionate and committed service to Jesus Christ and the world he came to save. Nothing in this post is likely to sway the convictions of those who have determined the EC movement and its primary thinkers to be out of bounds and destructive to orthodoxy. I am simply another voice to add to the multitudes who are experiencing a deeper, more richly experienced journey with Jesus as result of the EC leaders thoughts and writings. Blessings to those who make their stand for the Bible and the heritage of doctrine and theology upon which so many of our churches stand today. May we continue living as compassionate servants who are salt and light in a world that is often startlingly dark and sour, in desperate need of Jesus' disciples who are willing to give their lives away in His service. Our loving God will undoubtedly fulfill his promise: that despite our flaws, mistakes, and failures, that in seeking Him with our whole hearts, we will surely come to find Him in the end.Chaplain Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08469322141585778401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155596282680258802006-08-14T15:58:00.000-07:002006-08-14T15:58:00.000-07:00"I've been dealing with this stuff for nearly two ...<I>"I've been dealing with this stuff for nearly two years and the EC "conversation" has managed to split a beloved local church in half. I recently received a copy of David Fitch's most recent book to add to the numerous others in my library on this subject. Hosting an apologetics radio program requires digesting a lot of material. And lately, a lot of Maalox. <BR/><BR/>For every time I get asked if I've read EC material, I'd like to retort with a question of my own. How much Bible have they read lately?</I><BR/><BR/>See, it's exactly this kind of thing that needs to be called out by people that want to actually get somewhere...<BR/>1. The "EC 'conversation'" has split zero churches. Immature Christians do that.<BR/><BR/>2. The broad-stroke of "People in the Emerging Church don't read the Bible" is about as helpful as "Reformed people don't care about evangelism." Not only is it needlessly pejorative, I think it qualifies as "bearing false witness." You may disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, but ad hominems like that needlessly drag the conversation down.bob hyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133441010401276589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155248021807599992006-08-10T15:13:00.000-07:002006-08-10T15:13:00.000-07:00Would someone please help this guy out? I ask tha...Would someone please help this guy out? I ask that you do it ONLY in the spirit of 1 Jn 4. <BR/><BR/>Two wrongs dont make a right:).<BR/><BR/>http://www.myfourwalls.net/?p=849#respondmi familiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16661623601528017892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155188978906599592006-08-09T22:49:00.000-07:002006-08-09T22:49:00.000-07:00Randy: "If God is sovereign, then it seems that we...<B>Randy:</B> <I>"If God is sovereign, then it seems that we shouldn't be too concerned about possible false teachings."</I><BR/><BR/>I believe that is known as "Reason Number 134 Why the Emerging Conversation Is a Non-Starter."<BR/><BR/>Has it occurred to you that your statement contradicts at least 2 dozen clear commandments in Scripture?Habitans in Siccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666311435942322569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155184570141358672006-08-09T21:36:00.000-07:002006-08-09T21:36:00.000-07:00Randy, I too believe that God is sovereign but I t...Randy, I too believe that God is sovereign but I think you've created a false dichotomy here. One EITHER believes that God is sovereign and will guide his church OR one contends for the faith once delivered to the saints and exposes falsehood. Is such a dichotomy faithful to the biblical texts? I think not but I'm willing to be shown otherwise.KPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11054540901897686853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155182567857945032006-08-09T21:02:00.000-07:002006-08-09T21:02:00.000-07:00Perhaps it is the role of the Spirit to guide his ...Perhaps it is the role of the Spirit to guide his church? "If we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit?" <BR/><BR/>If we are to be faithful to the biblical text, it is the Spirit of God who will protect the church from false teachings. Unless you are convinced that you are a prophet? <BR/><BR/>If the questions and theology of the emerging church are not of God, this too will pass.<BR/><BR/>If God is sovereign, then it seems that we shouldn't be too concerned about possible false teachings. One could argue that the opponents of emerging churches don't really embrace the sovereignty of God. <BR/><BR/>For the record, I believe God is sovereign.Randy Buisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01663135907402873552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155102939745251642006-08-08T22:55:00.000-07:002006-08-08T22:55:00.000-07:00Scott. un-founded acusations common to a Jr. High ...Scott. <I>un-founded acusations common to a Jr. High girls locker room.</I> A Jr. High girls locker room consists of...Is Mark Driscoll cute or not? <BR/><BR/>( spoken from a middle school teacher's point of view)candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088593538648596769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155097092803195772006-08-08T21:18:00.000-07:002006-08-08T21:18:00.000-07:00hi phil,thanks for your comments. I'm not at all ...hi phil,<BR/><BR/>thanks for your comments. I'm not at all sure I agree that evangelical don't comprise the silent majority of the emerging church conversation. the challenge is that emergent is the most public institutional face of the conversation and so it's very typical for folks to assume that where emergent goes, there goes the emerging church (i recognize you appreciate the distinction). it may be that the efforts that many have made to differentiate the two will prove for naught and evangelicals who affirm penal substitution, believe that homosexuality is a sin, believe in the historic view of hell, etc will increasingly disassociate themselves from the whole thing. i honestly am not sure where matters will lead. time will tell. in the meanwhile, it's far more important that we discern what "christian" means than what "emerging" means and i know that's something with which you can agree!<BR/><BR/>blessings,Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155086637793252002006-08-08T18:23:00.000-07:002006-08-08T18:23:00.000-07:00Martin,I'm sure you're right - regardless, we'd bo...Martin,<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you're right - regardless, we'd both agree that ECM isn't a "return to mere Christianity", though it is an attempt to identify what the authentic Christian life looks like in contemporary contexts.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155079963671017962006-08-08T16:32:00.000-07:002006-08-08T16:32:00.000-07:00Blueraja,Didn't Lewis borrow the phrase from Baxte...Blueraja,<BR/><BR/>Didn't Lewis borrow the phrase from Baxter? And puritans like Baxter saw mere Christianity as doctrine-ethics-piety as it always should be. I guess it is about common denominator propositional content, but never just that. Is there ever such a thing except in the jaundiced eye of critics? I've never experienced it.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155075341832264952006-08-08T15:15:00.000-07:002006-08-08T15:15:00.000-07:00Martin,I guess I was thinking more of Lewis than B...Martin,<BR/><BR/>I guess I was thinking more of Lewis than Baxter - isn't the notion of mere christianity primarily a statement about common-denominator propositional content?<BR/><BR/>Dan,<BR/><BR/>One word: <B>Chafffing</B>.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155074049839387722006-08-08T14:54:00.000-07:002006-08-08T14:54:00.000-07:00Raja -- Hopefully they won't interfere with all th...<B>Raja</B> -- <I>Hopefully they won't interfere with all the heretic-hugging we plan to do while wearing them.</I><BR/><BR/>One word: <B>Velcro</B>DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155072939814263532006-08-08T14:35:00.000-07:002006-08-08T14:35:00.000-07:00"Mere Christianity" without praxis? Richard Baxte..."Mere Christianity" without praxis? Richard Baxter revolves in his grave at the thought of it.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155072820935612802006-08-08T14:33:00.000-07:002006-08-08T14:33:00.000-07:00Eleven years ago here in the UK Dave Tomlinson wro...Eleven years ago here in the UK Dave Tomlinson wrote "The Post-evangelical". It caused a small ripple for a little while and has I gather been republished recently in the US by Zondervan/YS (but correct me if I am wrong). The book captured disaffection with evangelicalism for those who were going liberal in their theology and looser in their ethics (granted that some of this was a reaction to brethren/house church pietism). The book didn't really have a strong enough positive agenda to offer what EV seems to be offering.<BR/><BR/>From a British perspective I have pondered on the EMC/EV momentum because of the big mistake that is the Megachurch phenomenon. In which case it is much less about evangelical theology and more about reaping what untheological pragmatism has sown. In the UK we are a deeply secular nation with no signifcant portion of society attending church and I don't think we will be so impacted by EV. I may be wrong.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155071519471056392006-08-08T14:11:00.000-07:002006-08-08T14:11:00.000-07:00Dan,I'm making the powder-blue membership badges n...Dan,<BR/><BR/>I'm making the powder-blue membership badges now. Hopefully they won't interfere with all the heretic-hugging we plan to do while wearing them.<BR/><BR/>Martin,<BR/><BR/>While I doubt that there is one coherent epistemological option being pushed by the movement, there are at least some similiarties in people's dispositions about knowledge claims. The reason you couldn't characterize it as a move toward "mere Christianty" is because such a concept assumes that the core of Christian faith is defined in terms of propositional content (however minimal) without reference to praxis. I would agree that there is an intelligentsia driving the warrant for these moves and influencing the rhetoric of those involved, but you're probably right to think that these don't provide the draw for the rank and file.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155065198999582972006-08-08T12:26:00.000-07:002006-08-08T12:26:00.000-07:00Blueraja,Having taken leave of fundamentalism/evan...Blueraja,<BR/><BR/>Having taken leave of fundamentalism/evangelicalism folks perusing ECM options are being offered a noticeably different epistemology aren't they? At least that is my perception of what EV is offering them. My reading of it is that people are not moving simply into "mere Christianty" or paleo-orthodoxy but a postmodernising of the faith. Perhaps I'm judging it by the views of the intelligentsia and not the rank and file.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155059387059140922006-08-08T10:49:00.000-07:002006-08-08T10:49:00.000-07:00Raja -- would you prefer to be thought of as leade...<B>Raja</B> -- would you prefer to be thought of as leader of the new "Heretic-sensitive" movement?<BR/><BR/>(c;DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155051728150764552006-08-08T08:42:00.000-07:002006-08-08T08:42:00.000-07:00Martin,That's a great point - but I'm not sure peo...Martin,<BR/><BR/>That's a great point - but I'm not sure people are attracted to the ECM because of its varied epistemological explorations. I think many of them came out of fundamentalist and evangelical churches, dismayed and distraught (over some very real issues in those circles).Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155040602971452122006-08-08T05:36:00.000-07:002006-08-08T05:36:00.000-07:00Please excuse the double post but the following is...Please excuse the double post but the following is from Scot McKnight's blog and is relevant to the concerns Phil expressed in the original post. Scot writes:<BR/><BR/>"The emerging movement is proud of creating a safe environment for people to think and to express their doubts. Partly because of what I do for a living (teach college students), I am sympathetic to the need for such safe environments. But, having said that, the emerging movement has also been criticized over and over for not having any boundaries. Frankly, some of the criticism is justified. I want to express my dismay today over what I think is crossing the boundaries. I will have to be frank; but I have to be fair. Here’s how I see this book’s theology as a Christian theologian. The more I ponder what Spencer does in this book, the more direct I have become — be glad I don’t have any more posts about this book.<BR/><BR/>Is Spencer a “heretic”? He says he is, and I see no reason to think he believes in the Trinity from reading this book. That’s what heresy means to me. Denial of God’s personhood flies in the face of everything orthodox. To say that you believe in the creedal view of God as Father, Son, and Spirit and deny “person” is to deny the Trinitarian concept of God.<BR/><BR/>Is Spencer a “Christian”? He says he is. What is a Christian? Is it not one who finds redemption through faith in Christ, the one who died and who was raised? If so, I see nothing in this book that makes me think that God’s grace comes to us through the death and resurrection of Christ. Grace seems to be what each person is “born into” in Spencer’s theses in this book. That means that I see no reason in this book to think Spencer believes in the gospel as the NT defines gospel (grace as the gift of God through Christ by faith).<BR/><BR/>I must say this: Spencer told me on the phone that he thinks all are included in God’s grace from the start solely because of Jesus’ death and resurrection; why not write that in this book?<BR/><BR/>Spencer, you’re a good guy. But I have to say this to you: Go back to church. Go back to the gospel of Jesus — crucified and raised. Let the whole Bible shape all of your theology. Listen to your critics. Integrate a robust Christology, a robust death-and-resurrection gospel, and a full Trinitarian theology back into your guide to eternity".Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155024811061209532006-08-08T01:13:00.000-07:002006-08-08T01:13:00.000-07:00The typology here is very familiar. "If only cons...The typology here is very familiar. "If only conservatives were more careful they wouldn't produce reactionary movements that are a thorn in their side". I guess that there may be some mileage in that as part of a bigger explanation for the ECM. But is that not a minor theme compared to the choices being made at the intellectual business end of the EMC conversation? And that is the choice of how theology and philosophy relate. Isn't this the same old story told by the early church, Socinianism and Protestant Liberalism of subsuming revelation to an unbiblical worldview?<BR/><BR/>My understanding is that (again at the high brow end) this is being done by explaining conservative evangelical history as indebted to foundationalist epistemology and filtering that down to the masses.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155005283381396892006-08-07T19:48:00.000-07:002006-08-07T19:48:00.000-07:00Phil:Since it's your blog, I can't really reproach...Phil:<BR/><BR/>Since it's your blog, I can't really reproach you for being off topic - but if we're talking about how to approach people who are confused, and wrestling with the questions which have given birth to the emerging church movement, <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What I do absolutely deplore is the attitude of that large mainstream in the ECM who would fall somewhere between the rank heresy of Spencer Burke and the neo-conservativism of Mark Driscoll and who take roughly the same stance you want to—marked by "ambivalence" regarding practically everything in the discussion.</I> <BR/><BR/>I'm ambivalent to the ECM as <B>I've</B> defined it, namely as a collective of people trying to answer the questions I mentioned earlier. I'm NOT ambivalent about how some have answered these questions, and I gave my disdain for poststructural interpretive schemes as a prime example. Doctrinally, I'd probably put myself squarely in Driscoll's camp, though I woulnd't call it "neo-conservative" (what does that mean?). <BR/><BR/><I>Like you, many of them have "never given blanket endorsements" to the worst authors in their movement, either—but then, most of them never make any clear repudiation of such things, either.</I><BR/><BR/>I repudiate universalism, soteriological inclusivism, pelagianism and socinianism, and my short 6 years of preaching and teaching reinforces that fact. But of course, that's beside the point - if we're talking about how to approach those who are sympathetic to the emerging church movement. Your single-mindedly contentious model of doing that is the wrong way to go, for all the reasons I mentioned, and this even more crucial one: it's the kind of response that has given birth to the reaction that is the emerging church movement. <BR/><BR/><I>And, Raja, you cannot credibly make the claim that such a thoroughly postmodern approach to truth and doctrine is "nothing more than an attempt to display some semblance of the fruit of the Spirit"—especially when you then retreat to the Boar's Head Tavern and regularly post snide put-downs of others who are legitimately concerned about sound doctrine, while peppering your sarcasm with bad language.</I><BR/><BR/>If what I've said strikes you as postmodern, I'm afraid you either are using the term way too loosely or you're reading in to what I've said - how is being kind, indentifying with people's concerns, patiently listening before speaking, and seeking to learn from others "postmodern"? These are scriptural values (as are correction, reproof and discipline - but these don't cancel out the need for the others). Did you not read the next paragraph in my comments?<BR/><BR/>As for "regularly posting snide put-downs with bad language", that's an exaggeration at best and simply slanderous at worst. Whatever your evaluation, you can aim those criticisms at Doug Wilson or even Centurion as easily as me - if only I were in the club! Link posts to my "regular" comments of these nature, and let others decide whether they cancel out everything I've said here. <BR/><BR/><I>And especially not here. You have too much of a track record at this blog for that suddenly-humble pose to work for you now.</I><BR/><BR/>Would it be possible for you to expunge my record, remember no wrongs, recognize my many former apologies (possibly offering some of your own?), and respond a little more carefully to the actual substance of my comments? Or just ban me outright? I'm not sure what to make of the quasi-hospitality.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1155000626751893172006-08-07T18:30:00.000-07:002006-08-07T18:30:00.000-07:00Raja: "Are you saying that it would be a safe gene...<B>Raja:</B> <I>"Are you saying that it would be a safe generalization to characterize the entire emerging phenomenon as denying these doctrines?"</I><BR/><BR/>You know very well I'm not. I've repeatedly and explicitly made clear that is <I>not</I> what I'm saying.<BR/><BR/><B>One more time:</B><BR/><BR/>What I do <I><B>absolutely</B></I> deplore is the attitude of that large mainstream in the ECM who would fall somewhere between the rank heresy of Spencer Burke and the neo-conservativism of Mark Driscoll and who take roughly the same stance <I>you</I> want to—marked by "ambivalence" regarding practically everything in the discussion. Like you, many of them have "never given blanket endorsements" to the worst authors in their movement, either—but then, most of them never make any clear repudiation of such things, either.<BR/><BR/>And, Raja, you cannot credibly make the claim that such a thoroughly postmodern approach to truth and doctrine is <I>"nothing more than an attempt to display some semblance of the fruit of the Spirit"</I>—especially when you then retreat to the Boar's Head Tavern and regularly post snide put-downs of others who are legitimately concerned about sound doctrine, while peppering your sarcasm with bad language.<BR/><BR/>And especially not here. You have too much of a track record at <I>this</I> blog for that suddenly-humble pose to work for you now.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1154994997905348102006-08-07T16:56:00.000-07:002006-08-07T16:56:00.000-07:00A "doctor" who can't diagnose something as obvious...<I>A "doctor" who can't diagnose something as obvious as a severed artery (and who stands in the way of emergency medical personnel in order to deliver a tedious lecture about diagnostic techniques) is worse than a "quack"; he's a criminal, Raja.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess this is why savvy people in search of medical treatment seek out second opinions ;)<BR/><BR/><I>...except when someone is denying original sin, the exclusivity of Christ, the doctrine of eternal punishment, the principle of substitutionary atonement, the principle of imputation, or the doctrine of justification by faith itself. Those are all "specific doctrine(s)," Raja, and I have pointed out numerous instances where they have come under attack from some of the most influential voices in the "Emerging Conversation." I could point out many more, and you know it.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is where I need to read more broadly - I understood certain people within the ECM to have come out against such doctrines, while others influential leaders still maintained them. The unifying thread that made all of them "emergent", I thought, was their endeavoring to re-examine and re-articulate the questions about doctrine qua doctrine I mentioned earlier. Are you saying that it would be a safe generalization to characterize the entire emerging phenomenon as denying these doctrines? <BR/><BR/><I>And yet I never see you anywhere in the "Conversation" itself trying to correct such errors. You actually seem to spend most of your energies sniping and complaining about those of us who believe those "specific doctrine(s)" are actually vital truths. In fact, you do a lot of cheerleading for various dissidents and iconoclasts.</I><BR/><BR/>If only all of my "conversations" happened on-line. And I'd correct you in this regard by noting that I've not only criticized various aspects of postmodernism and poststructuralist interpretation at my site, but have been fairly clear about my ambivalence to the ECM - I'm certainly not "cheerleader", and am even more certain that our idea of "dissident" probably differ. I've never given blanket endorsements of any author you might consider a "dissident", and while I have close friends with whom I wildly disagree, I prefer conversation to meat chubbing.<BR/><BR/><I> It's frankly pretty hard to imagine that your approach to "dialogue" is going to steer many apostates back to the strait and narrow. Admittedly, my apporoach is probably not going to convince Spencer Burke to abandon his apostasy, either.</I> <BR/><BR/>My approach is nothing more than an attempt to display some semblance of the fruit of the Spirit. It's also an attempt to live out the Scriptures more than it is an attempt to find an "effective strategy", as I've said. I don't care if it doesn't look as though it'll work - [insert comments about the foolishness of the cross and man's wisdom and all that.]<BR/><BR/><I>But what it has done and will do is convince impressionable believers who are confused by the Conversation that no good will come from their paddling around in a cesspool that regularly spews forth those kinds of errors.</I><BR/><BR/>My concern has always been (and has been demonstrated in my personal experiences/relationships) that those who are genuinely confused and grappling with the issues are usually repelled by the seemingly insecure and defensive missle-launching of people who don't seem to understand <B><I>why</B></I> they're troubled or confused, much less <B><I>sympathize</B></I> with what is driving their disquieted hearts. That's why I made the marriage counseling analogy. Sometimes I think we come off like husbands who lecture instead of husbands who show they understand, demonstrate that they've really listened and then offered choice words in the right circumstances. <BR/><BR/>In the end, you're not talking to people who are really "confused", or genuinely struggling with the personal and existential issues which fund the ECM - you're talking to (as your comment section generally indicates) people who are already inclined to agree with you or people who've heard the ruckus and are curious to hear what they should think about the fuss so that they can warn others who have heard the ruckus.<BR/><BR/><I>I'll tell you what: If you can point out three instances in the past two months on any high-profile Emerging blogs where someone propounding such ideas (denying original sin, the exclusivity of Christ, eternal punishment, or something of that magnitude) was actually convinced through collegial dialogue to accept a more sound and biblical position, I'll shut up about it.</I><BR/><BR/>Why does it have to be on a "high-profile Emerging Blog"? The thing about the blogosphere that I've noticed is that those who are really confused or trying to figure things out rarely blast away in a comments section - they just read what people write and try to sort it out. I can give you more than three examples from personal experience, and I could speak about how certain "high-profile" blogs, both emerging and Reformed Baptist have impacted people I've ministered to (and been ministered by). My own conversion was followed by a lot of confusion about the very doctrines you've mentioned, as was my brother's. I can tell you who impacted us, and who didn't and why. I'm not sure why that evidence isn't admissable. What people write impact far more people, far different people, and in much more searching ways than we usually predict. For as many people who post a "right on - go get'em" comment there are people who don't comment, and are frustrated because within these kinds of posts they can't find the slightest evidence that the author "gets" why they're confused. That's got nothing to do with "postmodern" rules of engagement - it's just how confused people are.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1154991172756378752006-08-07T15:52:00.000-07:002006-08-07T15:52:00.000-07:00Wulffenstein: "I am not sure I would consider God'...<B>Wulffenstein:</B> <I>"I am not sure I would consider God's call and the use of things in culture as opposing."</I><BR/><BR/>But that's not what I said. What I'm suggesting is wrong is not the "use of things in culture," but the idea that cultural contextualization is <B><I>the essential key</I></B> to reaching whatever generation hapens to be most cool at the moment.<BR/><BR/>I doubt it would be possible to preach or minister without "the use of things in culture." What disturbs me is the notion that maximum cultural accommodation (always to the lowbrow elements of culture) is <I>neccesary</I> in order for the gospel message to be efficacious. Our "faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:5).<BR/><BR/><B>Wulffenstein:</B> <I>"However, if you call me "wulffy" again I will have to break out my own meat chubs!!"</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry about that. I'll behave.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1154980367921056952006-08-07T12:52:00.000-07:002006-08-07T12:52:00.000-07:00wulffenstein: "My goal is not to corner you but as...<B>wulffenstein:</B> <I>"My goal is not to corner you but asking for clarity. You did say that elements of style (reasonable contextualization) were not compatable with reformed doctrine."</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, Wulffy. I missed what you were asking about. The thread is so long and frayed that it's not easy to keep the point sharp enough to thread the needle's eye every time.<BR/><BR/>I think I get you now. But my answers are basically the same. As I said in my comment to Scott Zeller, historic Reformed and biblical truth affirms God's effectual call, and rightly understood, that means the gospel message itself—not pop-cultural references, rap videos, or tacit approval of things like <A HREF="http://www.ufc.com/" REL="nofollow">UFC®</A>, but the gospel itself—is the chief instrument and power of God unto salvation.<BR/><BR/>To me, that belief is inconsistent with the philosophy running rampant nowadays: that sinners cannot be reached for Christ apart from the kind of "contextualization" that adopts and employs the seamy aspects of whatever culture we are addressing.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, I'm talking about just the kinds of things I listed above: the habitual employment of profanity and vulgar language; <A HREF="http://www.challies.com/archives/001863.php" REL="nofollow">deliberate flippancy;</A> and the careless neglect, gradual erasure, or systematic removal of boundaries between worldliness and holiness.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.com