Nooma should be MEma

I just struggled through watching Rob Bell’s new Nooma DVD (#18:Name) and I am thinking that the series needs to be renamed MEma as the focus is not on God but on ME. Yes there is truth in the DVD; that we do all too often focus on wanting to be like others and not wanting to be who we are. However, the message is simply psychobabble that we are to learn to be comfortable and accepting of who we are. Yes there is a level where this may be true but at the end of the day we are to seek to be who God calls us to be and that is the message of scripture.

Rob Bell is not alone in proclaiming messages that turn scripture into stories about us rather than about God. He uses the story of Jacob wrestling with God to say at the end of the day Jacob had to simply accept who he was. But Bell stops short, actually as he mentions the sun rising (Gen 32:31) he skips over, because in the passage God changes Jacob’s name to Israel (Gen 32:28). So the whole premise of accepting who you are, your name, is out the window because God changes who He was just as He did with Abram to Abraham and Saul to Paul. We are to seek to be who God wants us to be and we see in scripture that people do not stay as they were but are changed by God to be who He wants them to be and to be used as He wants to use us.

While watching the video my impression was, as the names on the back of the t-shirts flash by, that no matter who you are that is who you are and you need to simply accept it, in Bells words (best I can remember) “good, bad and everything in-between”. But since when we become a believer we are a new creation and the old is changed are we not new creations in Christ (2 Cor 5:17)? Yes we have a past that we have to deal with but God changes us so that we are not to stay who we are but are to be who God calls us to be and that design is revealed in scripture.

In all of this production there was no call to deny oneself and take up a cross (Matt 16:24) it was all about feeling good about yourself. That is the essence of psychology but then again the video starts out with a story about someone that is in therapy so I guess at least he is consistent. The sad par t in all of this is that many churches get sucked into this sort of man centered theology as the message seems right but as scripture says we all too often seek after what tickles our ears (2 Tim 4:3) or as Judges ends in Jdg 21:25 “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” For too many King Jesus is not their King so they do what seems right to them.

If you want to preview this it is free here.

Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo on Hell, what's next?

Well at least Brian McLaren has said something we can put a finger on, yet he still does not back his assertions up with anything but conjecture from his own reasoning and he does still seem to leave himself enough wiggle room to claim he is not a heretic. There was a couple posts over at Christianity Today: Post 1, Post2 with regards to Tony Campolo and Brian Mclaren’s views on hell and trying to form a third view. McLaren actually admits to be closer to the idea of universalism than he does to those that believe in exclusivism. But once again McLaren seems to set up a dichotomy that instead of dealing with theological truth we just need to feed the hungry, care for the poor and so on. The problem is that we are to do both and not either/or. Simply because he sees the church doing a poor job dealing with social issues does not mean that the church is wrong on theological issues or should ignore them.

Tony Campolo in Part 1 shows that simply using scripture is not enough as scripture needs to be rightly divided. He uses two passages Ephesians 4:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:19 to conclude that there is a good chance that there is a second chance to go to heaven once one dies. He seems to ignore much of other scripture for passages that in his words “can be interpreted” to back up his assertion.

It is interesting that those that have aligned themselves with the so called Emerging Church side of things so often do exactly what they claim they are against. I hear that the church has become to consumer and individual oriented, and I agree with this, but their answers seem to simply cater to a different consumer a, I guess, more compassionate consumer. So in doing this they simply create theology that includes all so all can be included in what they see God calls them to do. This in the end leads to a lot of busy and compassionate people heading towards hell, a hell that does exist regardless of the machinations these two men try.

By the way it is not only men like McLaren and Campolo that desire to deal with hell in a less than biblical manner. I remember reading a quote by John Stott, I wish I could remember where so this is just from memory so check it out yourself, on hell. In the quote he admits to his view of annihilationism as not being founded so much on scriptures teaching on hell but on his views of God. I hear he may have restated this in some manner but now simply says he is not sure (If any one has a link to where this was done it would be great to have that).

Bottom line is that the doctrine of hell is discomforting to the world and it is meant to be that way. If we water it down or deny it we are not telling the truth to people and more importantly we are denying what God’s word actually says.

New Kind of Christian - Concluded

Well I finished McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian and have to say it was frustrating to read at times. As I said at the beginning of this I am sure that my reading of McLaren’s journey is tainted by seeing where he has arrived so far.

Instead of spending much time on the last chapters I thought I would summarize my thoughts as best I can. First, I would say that McLaren is reacting to much of what many dislike about the church. Such things as consumerism and a lack of the church living as it preaches are things that I would say are issues that need to be addressed. The problem is that McLaren attributes these issues to Modern mindset and seems to see a Post-modern mindset as the antidote.

Second is that throughout this book it seems that either he is unsure of key concepts as the atonement or instead does not want to be accused of proclaiming some absolute truth. This is no different than when I saw him questioned on Larry King about homosexuality and answered, well non-answered, that any answer he gave would hurt someone so he did not answer.

If a New Kind of Christian is to be of a Post-Modern breed then the sort of double talk of McLaren will seem to be the norm. The other issue is the topic of propositional truths that scripture proclaims. The Post-Modern person dislikes these truths as it places them in a bind and does not leave an alternative and those trying to accommodate this in the end sacrifice the scriptures.

What I also see is that in an attempt to counteract a consumerism that is rampant in the church the New Kind of Christian is in the end just as much a consumer and the church reaching them is driven to provide what is sought after. All in all things are not made better but basically stay the same but in a new format.

I do think it is important that those dealing with today’s culture read something from McLaren, even if it is difficult to digest at times, so as to see the direction that I would guess many seminaries will all too soon head. The seminary of NEO’s dreams is not to far away if it is not hear already somewhere in some form or another.

Emerging Questions

I was reading the comments to Phillip Johnson’s comic book cover relating to “The Emerging Conversation” and found one of the comments interesting. The question was asked about whether Phil had had informal dialogue with the individuals who theology and practice are in question. Since the writings of people like McLaren are public and a personal audience is not so easy a task it would seem we have to let the authors writings speak for themselves. It is also true that the more that they write, McLaren for example, the more clear, or at least as clear as a “Post-Modern” writer can be, their theology becomes.

It was also mentioned that the leaders of this movement, sorry conversation, are asking good questions. That may or may not be true but my issue has been that in the midst of this conversation they are dragging unsuspecting people into the abyss. It is much different for individuals to ask probing questions and deal with the issues but when the conversation is played out in front of an audience and that audience becomes sort of the test ground, as pastors we would seem to be culpable for leading the sheep astray. Some time back I wrote on some disturbing quotes from Rob Bell. I do not say we should not question what we believe; I for one have done so and stand even firmer today than before on many things because of this. The issue is that as a Pastor when this is done in public there are many that will simply take the Pastors answers and make them their own. We might say that this is their problem as they should be more discerning but that is not how people work.

It is OK for McLaren, Bell and others to question things but simply because one is questioning something does not make that which is questioned wrong. This is where the problem really starts as all too often the questions are asked because it is assumed that the previous conclusions are based on a wrong construct, modernism. So right from the start it is assumed that what was previously thought is wrong in some way and needs to be refashioned some how.

Bottom line is we can and should ask question but as Pastors it needs to be done much differently than individuals because the consequences of what we teach and where we lead are much more serious.

Tony

New Kind of Christian? (Prt. 3)

Here are some further thoughts on Brian McLaren’s A New Kind Of Christian

CH. 9

In this chapter I would agree that I to have a dislike for the consumer packaging of religion that seems to permeate church life. But from here the conversation goes to allowing for one to be a Christian and culturally a Buddhist or Muslim which is all well and good to say but can it really be true when the scriptures seem to speak of salvation being a life changing event. Daniel in Babylon saw a need to be counter cultural when it collided with his belief in God. This all seems to either misunderstand or be naive about the belief systems that are trying to be melded in some way.

Over and over I see a goal of constantly equating Christianity as we know as intimately tied to modernity and defining modernity as either wrong or passed by. By doing this NEO seems to step right in with an answer and even though the answers are either vague or wrong they are to be accepted because the alternative is to be modern, which is wrong.

CH. 10

Again I find areas to agree on but the reaction to them is different. Such as I agree that the attitude of many towards the Gospel is selfishness in that it turns it into more of a self help program than a God glorifying event. However, the solutions provided by NEO are not adequate or the only possibility.

When NEO is asked about getting into heaven (salvation) his answer or actually non-answer seemed was very Mclarenish. His minimalizing of hell is in contrast of the amount of scripture that speaks of Hell as real place. The description of hell that comes from the reading is that of simply being heaven with the wrong glasses on. Basically heaven and hell are the same place but it is only heaven for those who want to be there and it is hell for those that do not desire heaven. So what is accomplished is making hell no more than being at a Sex Pistols concert when you desire to be at a Bach recital. But the bible speaks of hell as a much more terrifying place and it should not be minimized to accommodate the mindset of the sinner.

CH. 11

In chapter 11 again hell is relegated to the nebulous realm of imagery and blames the orthodox understanding on modernity. By now it has gotten old to continue to see that whenever the orthodox view of scripture is disliked it is simply thrown out as a consequence of modernity. When NEO begins to equate cohabitating and sin with the early church issues with Kosher and non-kosher he seems to be mixing categories. Also it would seem that the concept of accepting people in sin as is shown may prohibit church discipline as that would be judgmental and harm the offenders person some how. However did not Paul deal with the same issues in Corinth and even kick a church goer out for his own good? The Bible does have a moral code and the letters to the Corinthians show Paul’s concern for the moral state of his charges.

This all said I do agree where it is mentioned that sin is all to often categorized and not dealt with. But the alternative is not to ignore the issues as this is even more harmful. This is the usual tactic of those supporting homosexuality as they relate how adultery permeates the church and is just as sinful but is not dealt with as readily. Well the answer is not that both are ignored but that the church needs to more seriously deal with all sin.

CH. 12

This was one chapter that got an “Amen” and an “Oh Man.” The amen was in reference to the complaint that the gospel is all too often packaged ass a slick sales pitch or that so called friendship evangelism is often a ruse. So that in the case of friendship evangelism quite often once the prey is seen as no longer viable as a convert they are dismissed. While this may be true of general contacts as in the analogy of shaking the dust from ones feet this does not fit the bill when one seeks friendship just to sell God somehow. The problem in the narrative is that the answer to this is incomplete and lacking.

This is where the “Oh Man” comes in. The Gospel is not defined except as what it is more than. This is a way to say that one side is wrong without really answering the question as to what is right. I guess I really \do not expect much more than this since post modernism is notorious for not only denying there is an absolute truth but staying as far away from it as possible.

More to follow as time allows.

Tony

More on the Emergent Church

As work has impinged on my reading, how dare it, I do intend to finish my reading of “A New Kind of Christian” by Brian McLaren however difficult it is to do. It is difficult not so much because it is a hard read in terms of language; it is not, but because of its content. I am sure if I had read this when it first came out I would have probably seen the same issues but when reading it now and having read some other articles and listen to McLaren I can see that what is revealed as a journey in the book seems now to be where McLaren is at. Unfortunately, as is the case with many “Emergent” pastors, it is hard to tell where he is other than not being orthodox.

In the mean time I ran across this article, EMERGING WITH A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SCRIPTURE, which I am sure will offend some of those who embrace the Emergent Conversation, remember it is not a movement, because he takes a position and that position is against the direction the “conversation” is going. I guess I see this whole Emergent issue as very dangerous because it seems to play into the next step of the seeker sensitive church concept and this step is ever farther from the truth, by the way there is truth in scripture and we can know it.

Tony

New Kind of Christian? (Prt 2)

After spending a good part of the week in Seattle on a project for work here is a continuation of my thoughts, see part 1, on the reading of Brian Mclaren’s A New Kind of Christian.

CH. 6
Early on NEO seems to use the straw man that many today use, that of finding those who do not apply the scripture correctly and applying it to all. Of these arguments is the often used one of slavery. To say that because some Christians condoned slavery all that claim the bible as authoritative are wrong is using a straw man that burns easily. To say that Christians that claim the authority of scripture do not recognize the so called traditional grid they supposedly see scripture through is a ploy to stop an argument by simply saying one does not see what they think they see.

When NEO speaks to fallibility of man and thus them not really being able to interpret scripture authoritatively he is waling down the popular post-modern mindset. To deny absolute truth and being able to discern it denies what the bible says is truth and absolute. One cannot simply state that the only way one sees this is because they are looking through so called modern glasses. By trying to move from the authority of scripture to Jesus the route used neglects the fact that scripture is where we see and hear God. So scripture can be the foundation because it is the written revelation fo God and thus God’s word to us.

CH. 7
To imply that those that seek concrete answers from scriptures are not “humble seekers” is make an unnecessary conclusion. But, from Mclaren’s view (I mean NEO) this needs to be done as it would not fit nicely for there to be answers that would make something right and other things wrong.

I agree with the thought that scripture is often turned into moralisms but that only speaks to a wrong understanding of scripture and not necessarily a modernistic view. Even if it was a modernistic view this does not presuppose that a post-modern reading is better. The proposed reading of scripture very much sounds like the reader-response reading method which allows the text to say what ever you want as ling as it says it to you (whatever that means).

CH. 8
As we move on we seem to be getting into the ever deepening quagmire of post-modernism. To imply that truth is some moving nebulous thing allows for people to generate their own truth and that truth can not be questioned because it is the individual’s truth. This chapter reveals what I seemed to hear when I heard Mclaren on Larry King in that he does not want to answer anything that may place him on one side of an issue or the other. Thus the ploy is not to answer because in the minds of the post-modern world it seems that there are no real answers. In response to some of what is said in chapter 8 I need ask: Why does cultural change in truth have to drive scriptural truth?

When NEO speaks of a non combative way of sharing one’s faith I would have to say this is entirely possible without entering the post-modern world. It is true that Christians have begun to rely to greatly on apologetics and less on God but this again is not reason to abandon reason and truth.

It is in this chapter that I think NEO and thus Mclaren reveals a gospel that is not the gospel. NEO says on page 65: “And I really believe that not one person will be in real contact with God the Father apart from the work and wisdom and love of Jesus.” But what does it mean to be in “real contact with God” and where is Christ’s sacrifice for sin in this message. Is the gospel to NEO a life enhancement program? Interestingly this is much the same view of the gospel espoused by the seeker sensitive movement of which many in the Emergent church seem to be reacting against. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Well that is all for now more to follow. I realize that some of what I have said needs to be built on more but this is simply my thoughts as I read through the book. As I read more I see more of what is so dangerous in the goal of many in the Emergent movement, that of reaching a post-modern culture. In trying to reach a people the church begins to morph into post-modernity, which contrary to NEO is not a good thing.

Grace and Peace,
Tony

New Kind of Christian? (Prt. 1)

I am reading Brian Mclaren’s A New Kind of Christian as it seems to be important to the “Emergent Church” conversation. I have to be honest in that my reading is jaded by having seen Mclaren on TV and also having read a review or two prior to my reading. I would also like to say that one possible response to this review is that I just do not get it and I would like to affirm that; I do not get it. But it is not that I do not get what Mclaren is saying, I do not get how people can be so consumed by what is said. Another argument is that I was not supposed to read the book as a theology dissertation, that would be so modern of me, but as a story. However, even stories carry the author’s presuppositions and theology as does A New Kind of Christian.

Mclaren lets us know from the begging that this story tells much about his disgruntlement with where he was in his ministry. So I take it that in this story he is both NEO, even though he is supposed to represent those that have guided him, and Dan since one side is where he was and the other is where he is going. What I intend to do is to give brief thoughts on some chapters. These thoughts came as I read and represent the initial thoughts and not some over thought out response. The more I thnk about what I read the more concerned I become.

So here goes.

INTRO
That Mclaren refers to himself of being sick of being a pastor and almost sick of being a Christian (ix) says to me he did have issues to deal with as we all do at one time or another. But to be sick of being a Christian says that maybe he had a misunderstanding of what a true Christian was. He gives three possibilities but he seems to leave off a fourth which would be to simply to re-evaluate what he considered a Christian and a Pastor to be and see if his sickness was caused by a wrong understanding. This may be part of his third possibility but his third possibility seems to assume he needed to move on.

On page xiv in point 5 he refers to a needed conversion to having a 21st century faith but I would say the goal is to have truth faith, a faith that transcends time. Why is it assumed that because there is a problem today that we need to move forward, maybe we need to move back? I am not necessarily saying this is what we need but it needs to be an option.

Ch. 2
The idea that faith is related to ones time period may be how things are but it is not because of the faith but because of misunderstandings. Scripture does not speak of a changeable faith, with regards to time, but speaks of a faith from an unchangeable God. So the idea we need to move on from modernism as a world view does not necessitate Christianity changing because modernism is passé. Just as likely is that Christianity needs to re-evaluate cultures effect on it and corrects it’s course.

CH. 3
Modernity is pictured as an aggressor and that postmodernity is an asylum from this aggression but the true story is that Christianity needs to be the asylum and not any world view (other than a true Christian World view). Just because Dan is pictured as feeling comfortable with the thought of postmodernity does not make it the haven it is being portrayed as. Truth is that I am sure that the decadence of many periods in history felt comfortable for some people but that did not make it right.

CH. 4
The whole idea that Dan was shocked by a past teacher saying there was not Christian world view and now feeling it was right does seem to show a path that the book is heading. The fact that we can not know all things and that people can be influenced by the age they are in does not mean there is no absolute truth and that Scripture cannot be interpreted apart from ones culture. If the idea that the Christianity of modernity was on the way out may be true but that just says that Christianity should not be tied to a culture position but rely solely on scripture. So I would say this is all the more reason to avoid molding how one lives out ones faith to the times.

CH. 5
To see the divisions between groups such as Catholics and protestants on the road to disappearing neglects or maybe foresees the minimalizing of theology. In many ways this is seen in the politicization of belief in that many times the theological differences between groups is minimalized to save some cause. Even so called conservative Christians tend to go this route and rationalize the greater gain is in saving something, except the gospel.

Neo uses the picture of Luther seeking change (41) but I would say that Luther sought change of culture through scripture while Neo seems to want culture to change scripture. There also seems to be a move to divorce the Holy Spirit from scripture (42) and thus ones feelings of being “moved by the spirit” trumps all things.

Well that is where I will stop for now. I will say that the book does make me ask the question of whether modernity has influenced my views of scripture and thus what being a Christian is. This only means, though, that I would need to correct beliefs and not take on the cultures change. If scripture denies the culture so should we.

More to follow.

Grace and Peace,

Tony

The Emerging Church Pt. 3

Boy it can be difficult to find the time to write ones thoughts on a daily basis.

As I said previously there are some good characteristics in the Emerging Church Conversation/Movement. The hard part in defining them is defining who is truly in this movement and who claims to be in it. So much of what I say is a generalization as that how the whole thing seems to sit now. For this segment I will one of the positives, at least in direction, I see.

A good thing about this movement is that it is reacting against the CEO mentality of many of the mega churches. Encased in this mentality is that to be large and successful, you must be large to be successful, one needs to simply find out what people need, supply it and grow. The issue that arises from this is that ones surface needs may not be what is truly needed and by focusing on individual needs so much the narcissistic tendency in all of us seems to blossom. For a large church this may remain somewhat unnoticed as people are still in the fold that will serve and get things done. The larger problem comes when the goal of success is portrayed as the mega church model and smaller churches get sucked into this vortex. What happens once everyone is seeking his or her own needs is that you get a small church of narcissists. A church that will only do what it sees as benefiting them and that does not ask them to sacrifice. This is a far cry from the concept of Christian Hedonists (see his book Desiring God by John Piper for more on this as well as this article) that does seek their individual joy but in God not self. When a small church becomes exceedingly inward focused on their own personal needs they will eventually die or they will become simply a stagnant non-missional (the word for the month) church.

This said there are large churches in this movement and they seem to be large because they are meeting a need, again not a bad thing. These churches will realize, if they have not already, that whatever it was they used to draw the people is what will have to be used to keep them. If God’s word, and thus God, draws them then that is what will keep them. But, if people are drawn because of comfort and feeling accepted, with God's word being secondary, then the tendency will be to do whatever it takes to keep them, often at the expense of skipping those scriptures that speak of sin and such. Personally I believe that by relying on the only unchanging thing in the world, the word of God, we can know that those that are drawn to church are there because of the word of God and not necessarily because we have good music, comfy chairs or other such items. The items mentioned are not bad in and of themselves but it is when they become central that problems arise.

More to follow.

Grace and Peace,

Tony Konvalin

The Emerging Church Pt. 2

As I was browsing the web I was led to an article on Rob Bell:Repainting Faith: Dynamic pastor publishes book, who is the Pastor of the 10,000 person Mars Hill Church outside Grand Rapids Michigan. I do not know if Rob Bell considers himself Emergent, see CT article, or not but he does appear to reflect the end of the Emergent church that is worrisome.

What sounds very much like the reader response view of interpretation, there is nothing new under the sun, is his seeming fluid interpretation of scripture which would mean scripture holds no timeless truth if it can be interpreted based on culture, and other surround elements. Below is from the article:

"It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says," Bell writes. "We must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people."

He also uses the straw man of the abuse of scripture to support his thought.

Noting the Bible has been used to defend slavery and mistreat women, he writes, "sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up."

Unfortunately it is the ability of the reader to interpret based on his personal context that leads to this. Thus just how he would like to see scripture leads to the abuse that makes him want to vomit. So a KKK member can read scripture as he likes in the context of his time, place and people and end up with decidedly perverse results.

While Rob does not, as far as I have seen, speak for the Emerging church his understanding of scripture seems to reflect the thoughts of the various articles and bloggs of a segment of the Emerging church conversation that I heave read lately.

The move to somehow seem more loving by not declaring that absolute truth exists leads to a myriad of errors. The least of which is the exclusivity of Christ as savior. When dealing with this issue Rob seems uncertain:

What does that mean for salvation? Bell says it's a question he's wrestling with.
"I think you have to begin to ask questions about whether Jesus died for everybody or just a few," he said. "I challenge the notion that the cross is just for a couple people who happen to say some particular prayer or happen to be in some sort of inside club. I think it goes way bigger."

We do need to wrestle with scripture but that does not mean it needs to change but we need to change to its meaning, even if the truth found is uncomfortable. His wrestling with the issue of the cross is something he needs to do, we all do, but what does that mean for those he preaches too. It is not a matter of us all coming to our own conclusions but we need to come to God’s conclusion.

I did not mean this to be a Rob Bell bashing but it was just that in one article I see reflected so much of the wrong side of the “conversation.” There is a side that is asking questions that need to be asked and answered and I will focus on that next time.

Grace and Peace,

Tony

The Emerging Church, Pt 1

I am in the middle of reading D.A Cason's "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" as well as reading the new Modern Reformation which is entirely on this topic. By the way you can read D.A. Carson's article online titled The Emerging Church. It has made me think about what they, The Emerging Church, say as there is some truth in what they desire to see done but at the cost of truth they all too often go too far.

My interest in this came while sitting in the Seattle airport some months ago and watching Larry King interview Brian McLaren, transcripts here, along with Franklin Graham, T.D. Jakes and Tim and Beverly LeHaye. These people were chosen since they were on Times Most Influential Evangelicals. It is unfortunate that most influential seems to have more to do with public awareness of them than anything else. It also shows a loose use of the word Evangelical since from what I can discern from T.D. Jakes, and his take on theology, does not believe in an Orthodox view of the Trinity and thus is dealing with a different God than those who do. (This is a tpic all its own.) What I found most interesting was the non-committal talk of McLaren and since I knew little of him, thus not very influential on myself, I was not cognizant of his stand on postmodernism, well I know now. What amazes me more is that those who listen can applaud one who never really says anything and while trying to sound as "Generous" as he can be is not generous at all to those he disagrees with, but he is nice about it.

But this is not about McLaren, instead it is about the alarming move of some to jettison the Gospel of the Bible for some form of community derived belief. It may be easy to say that we can know nothing for certain unless we are all knowing but this idea misses the point that the Bible does and can make such statements. It would be entirely different if this so called movement, or as it is referred to in decidedly postmodern language - a conversation, were to deny the scriptures and be up front about it. However, many of those moving in this direction do not seem to want to be up front about this but instead try and say that for thousands of years we have all been wrong and they now have it right, I guess they are all knowing.

There are some that have taken the good things of the Emerging church and see a need to define their beliefs, actually take a stand for something doctrinally, while attempting to move the church back from its more secular bent. One of the goals of the emergent church was to move the church away from the CEO mentality of the mega church and I applaud them for this. One place I have gone to lately to see this side of the movement, I mean conversation, is the Acts 29 Network. If you go to their doctrinal statement it definitely sets out their beliefs and they even have a section on what they do not believe so as to make sure they are not wrongly lumped in with Emergent movement.

This is just some of what has crossed my mind while reading and may or may not make sense to you but it is definetly something the church has to recognize. What I find peace in is that while this movement or conversation may call itself Emerging the Bible says in Matt 16:18 that the ".... I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " so the church is not gone and does not need to Emerge. It needs Reformation of it's people but society and other things will not destroy the church. In the up coming weeks I will write more as I read and study but the warning that the Emergent church sets before us is that even though it a movement against a culture of modernism it is itself being subsumed by the culture of postmodernism.

Grace and Peace,

Tony