Monday, October 30, 2006

Wow . . . a good read by Scot McNight

Scot McNight delivered a clear message called "What is the Emerging Church?" to Westminster Seminary. He allowed the emerging church crowd (which he is a part of) to define themself. I enjoyed the read. Read by clicking here

7 comments:

Noah Braymen said...

Not that he's tried to deny it, but the most enlightening thing I found in this article is that McKnight clearly aligns himself in the Emergent camp.

This was a well written lecture, although I don't really agree with everything he says.

What'd you think? Do you really think what Emergent espouses is genius? Also, Carson may have hit a few pegs wrong, but there are a few places where the "cosmic child abuse" view of the penal substitutionary atonement was picked up by Emergent cohorts.

Also, to say that Christians are known by their fruits is very true, but don't the fruits grow out of a right view of God.

His analogy of the four streams running into the Emergent lake was interesting...and it was a good analogy. I still don't think they can call their views Reformed in the sense of a reformation theology.

As much as they desire their movement to be "ecclesiological" they sure have made some "theological" assertions, and some "epistemological" statements that have been very profound and I feel rightly causes the church at large to be concerned about their direction and a possible loss of the gospel [similar to liberalism/modernism that Machen wrote about].

Anyhow, just a few thoughts:)

In Christ
Noah

Noah Braymen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Noah Braymen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Noah Braymen said...

Hey Matt,

I just posted a question on my blog that I’d be interested in seeing what you’re response would be. If you could respond that’d be great!

http://newlynearlymarried.blogspot.com/2006/10/random-question.html

Thanks!

In Christ
Noah

Dan said...

This has got me good and riled up. I hope to post on it soon (within the week). I know you'll be on the edge of your seat until then.

Rick Penney said...

Matt,
Great to see you yesterday and thanks for your work on impact. I look forward to reading this article about the emerging movement.

Rick Penney

Jack said...

I'm unimpressed by McKnight's article. Assertions don't prove anything. One can say and say and say that Carson got it wrong, but saying it over and over and over doesn't prove that Carson got anything wrong. And, by that same token, just because someone says, "I'm not a liberal", does not mean that they are not a liberal.

What good is a Scripture that is clear "out there" somewhere in objectivity land, but humans were created so defectively by God that we can't know it? How is this much different from Kierkegaard, with his noumenal/phenomenal wall? Knowable truth exists, but it's on the other side of the epistomology wall, so in the end we still can't know it with confidence?

I'm tired of promoters throwing up a purple clouds of ambiguity, zigging and zagging like a soccer team passing a ball, all denying in various ways that epistomological clarity is possible, then loudly complaining that other people "don't understand" them.

They write books using words, saying that we can't know anything about words for sure, then want us to buy them. They pretend to be saving us from the evil rationalistic Fundamentalists, when so far all I read them "saving" us from is doctrinal orthodoxy.

They hide behind each other. "Maybe Tony says that, but I don't say that...in quite that way"; "Brian McClaren's not me" "I'm not him, he's not me"; and so on. They'll all claim to not be McClaren, but then are proud to appear on stage with him and never condemn him for his execrable teachings.

The only one I've seen condemn McClaren's heretical views so far is Mark Driscoll. McClaren shouldn't be out putting on joint seminars, he should be under church discipline.

To use humanistic philosophy to attack the very idea of reality's knowability presupposes that God failed to create us properly, or failed to preserve enough common grace in our heads to keep us capable of knowledge, is wrong. The Bible itself teaches the opposite of emergent skepticism. The EC is a side-door attack on the idea of Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, by attacking the very possibility of knowledge itself.