Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don't
 

Rodney Shaw has followed up on his oft-controversial series with a new blog entitled "How Do We Minister?: Theology and Method, Part I"

Here is a sample:

Has Shaw gotten the following memos?:

1. The one from the General Board of which his pastor is a part of, particularly from the sub-committee appointed by K. Haney and headed by Paul Mooney that methods do matter to them.

The same the committee that blasted the use of the undiscipled in various ministries and lambasted the "absence of authoritative worship and preaching" in the methods used by some who have succumbed to the "emerging" church.

Stating:

For more on this committee's report click here-
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24736

and

2. The UPCI doesn't have an official theological stance on the New Birth - intentionally since the merger between the PCI and PAJC.


One has to wonder if he has a pulse as to what is really going on here? Or maybe he does.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Maybe it's those at the top that don't have the pulse on what is going on. Sounds like Shaw is on the money about the keeping the main thing the main thing.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

If you read between the lines, he's saying that those changing methods to more casual, conversational (read "emergent") style of churches, aren't having the outcomes where people are receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Pentecostal worship. At least that's what I read. He says it much more eloquently of course.

He has a point. To him, the UPCI and the affirmation statement reflects 3-step doctrine, which most of the UPCI agrees. How many churches that no longer preach HG Baptism as essentiality still have a high percentage of believers receiving the HG with tongues? Valid point and concern from his perspective.

It's not the method, though. It's what the outcome he's seeing. I think it takes some line-reading to see this.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Perhaps it might be seen as a challenge for both sides?

Are the so-called "Ultra-Cons" producing fruit with their methods or turning people off to the message? And, can the "younger" crowd untuck their shirts and still produce "tongue-talking" converts?

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Correct me if I'm wrong... this Shaw sits under D. Bernard and is dipping his toe in to "emergent" church methodology?

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

I think he sits beside D. Bernard, supporting the work of D. Bernard and is simply asking some folks to "grow up."

Though it should be understood - the "grow up" phrase is my own take on the matter - Shaw appears to be too much of a gentleman to say that.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Some are, some aren't.
We know many discussion-oriented, casual Sunday Joe's are toning down the emotional offerings to God, and you tell me how many are still receiving the Baptism of the HG with tongues? Just an observation on my part thus far. The numbers are lop-sided.

Yes, untucked shirts can still pray them through, preach Christ, have exuberant worship. Not the point (really). It's usually a package deal. But not always. So point well-taken.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Too much focus has been about bringing people to church, where there is an order to everything, the place is nice and well kept, visible carpet lines from a freshly vacuumed carpet, everyone has their suits and dresses on...

We need to bring church to the people!

Are we going to develop new doctrine which states, "It is a shame for a man to pray or prophecy with his shirt untucked."?

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

:thumbsup


(kinda makes me think of that song - 'Would Jesus be welcome in our churches").......carry on

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Speaking of emergent, a friend of mine sent me a blog that is of interest and is generating quite a little debate: http://alturl.com/u86j

Are lights and fog machines part of this mysterious, underground "emergent" movement? hehe. Ironically, I actually think there are many who are tired of anything related to production-based church, and they are the farthest thing from conservative! They want to meet in homes, enjoy small group Bible Study methods, big into discipleship and community outreach.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Simply dressing casual, not using a pulpit and using lights and fog machines doesn't equal emergent.

Emergent has a belief system and doctrine; it's not simply how a minister dresses or fx used.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

n_david, I was being facetious in light of the blog post.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

David. I would actually argue that "emergent" has no particular belief system or doctrine. It's an attitude of restlessness with religiosity fleshed out in so many different ways. But true "emergents" are the utmost of heretics. That's why it's funny that our brothers and sisters are called "emergent" by people who are ignorant of what the word represents.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Why don't they just call them progressive instead of emergents?

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

I didn't think you were being serious. But there are folks who are misguided as to what emerging church is.

I'll have to find some stuff I found online. They do have a type of common belief system. It's not just about new verbage like "journey" and such. It's a belief that any doctrine or anything written - even in the Bible - is subject to interpretation and relevancy.

People think emergent or emerging church is a cute, innocent, misunderstood kitten, but in reality its a slimy, scum-covered beast on a mission to replace Biblical doctrine with humanistic views.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Emergent is outdated. It was a movement within Christendom where people were sick of their dead and dying religion. It has only surface effects on Pentecost, in terms of methods and the way we do church only. The only remaining true emergent, is probably Rob Bell. Mark Driscoll is the new man on the scene, and he despises "emergent philosophy."

True emergents are truly as you described, which is why it boggles my mind that any brothers would call another "emergent" on the basis of doing church differently.

It's the new "charismatic."

The blog I linked, I told my friend it amazed me how people fight over the most trivial of things.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

I agree.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Emergent = not holding to UPC standards

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

I thought Charismatic = not holding to UPC standards?

Apparently according to the UPC, Emergent = the new Charismatic.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

And code words like "relevant" and "missional" evidently are worse than cuss words.
http://alturl.com/u86j

Nevermind rational thought.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Charismatic is a 70's term.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

In our District, many of us have been called to the carpet for such terminology. Thankfully, the "carpet callers" are just far removed and generally ignorant. This is why I can appreciate someone like RS.

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

There is a "progressive" element within the UPC that employs a bit of a different usage for the term than the way it's used in the broader culture. WH often opens his meetings with an "I'm a 'Progressive Apostolic' ..." intro. He then goes into detail to describe how he's willing to "put up" with folks that don't adopt the standards right away as long as there is "progress" in their development, otherwise.

The "Progressives" in the UPC strike me as the type that don't want to be hassled by UC's if they have people show up at camp with cut hair and/or long hair on the wrong types of people. It's a way of saying "me too!" when it comes to outward standards without having to harp on the subject everytime you're in a pulpit. IMHO.

Of course, all of this begs the question, "Why not just preach what's in the Bible?"

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

He's a good dude.

*Disclaimer to protect RS from ever being identified with my own opinions: RS has closely cropped hair and no facial hair whatsoever. I have never seen RS in short sleeves or short pants. RS does not have season tickets to sports venues. ** RS is an ardent and crazed "Three Stepper" who thinks I'm lost and on my way to a devil's hell.

** Just in case. Don't know who his new DS will be yet. http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ons/icon11.gif

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Perhaps RJ or JK will put their hat in the ring as DS!

RIGHT!

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

what is dumb is that is not what "emergent" is

Re: Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don'
 

Anyone see the blog post? Interested because there are 3 camps regarding methods:

1) Keep Doing What We've Always Done & Hold the Fort

2) Do it all. Pump it up. Lights, Camera, Action.

3) Simplify the Gospel. Clothe it with humility. No more mega-churches. House-church, small-group style. Serving, Gospel in action.

Anyone else notice that? Do you consider yourself a hybrid?