Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don't

[n david]

Originally Posted by Justin

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

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

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.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by n david

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.

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

[Jeffrey]

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.

[rgcraig]

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

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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

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

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

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.

[Jeffrey]

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.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

I agree.

[rgcraig]

Emergent = not holding to UPC standards

[n david]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Emergent = not holding to UPC standards

I thought Charismatic = not holding to UPC standards?

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

[Jeffrey]

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

Nevermind rational thought.