Comments on: Changing Church Part.1 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:32:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Darius http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-633 Darius Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:52:06 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-633 <em>"Many modern protestant churches view the Emerging Church as a threat becasue of this ancient spirituality that it is attempting to bring into the church. To many in the modern church it smells of Roman Catholicism and is not evangelical. On another level perhaps it is simply not what they are use to, and they want to hold on to their own traditions, while the Emerging Church wants to embrace an older tradition. In any event, the worship wars that existed over the type of music sung in church that died down over the past decade seem to once again be heating up over the practice of worship in church as a whole."</em> To my understanding, much of the "threat" of the Emerging Church as perceived by Protestant churches lies not in the worship style (a matter of mostly personal opinion or taste) but in the Emerging theology and adherence to truth (or lack thereof). For example, in his "Becoming Conversant" book, D.A. Carson mostly ignores the differences in worship styles and primarily tackles the tendency toward postmodern relativism and theological weakness apparent in the writings of many Emerging authors, namely McLaren and Chalke. If it were merely a difference in worship styles, I doubt many, if any, Protestants would have a problem with the Emerging Church. Likewise, Protestants' problem with Roman Catholicism doesn't hinge so much on their worship and liturgical differences as on some of the deeply flawed theological beliefs held by the Catholic church. “Many modern protestant churches view the Emerging Church as a threat becasue of this ancient spirituality that it is attempting to bring into the church. To many in the modern church it smells of Roman Catholicism and is not evangelical. On another level perhaps it is simply not what they are use to, and they want to hold on to their own traditions, while the Emerging Church wants to embrace an older tradition. In any event, the worship wars that existed over the type of music sung in church that died down over the past decade seem to once again be heating up over the practice of worship in church as a whole.”

To my understanding, much of the “threat” of the Emerging Church as perceived by Protestant churches lies not in the worship style (a matter of mostly personal opinion or taste) but in the Emerging theology and adherence to truth (or lack thereof). For example, in his “Becoming Conversant” book, D.A. Carson mostly ignores the differences in worship styles and primarily tackles the tendency toward postmodern relativism and theological weakness apparent in the writings of many Emerging authors, namely McLaren and Chalke.

If it were merely a difference in worship styles, I doubt many, if any, Protestants would have a problem with the Emerging Church. Likewise, Protestants’ problem with Roman Catholicism doesn’t hinge so much on their worship and liturgical differences as on some of the deeply flawed theological beliefs held by the Catholic church.

]]> By: Bryan http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-634 Bryan Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:46:37 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-634 It depends on which critics of the Emerging Church your listening to. There are some who want to deal primarily with the question of truth and post-modernism, I'm guessing Carson would be in that camp. But take a look at sites like: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/02/rob_bell_in_a_n_1.html http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/06/tony_jones_and_2.html http://understandthetimes.org/commentary/c46.shtml Here it is not the theology that is first called into question, but the practice. Remember however that theology and practice are are inseparable, If you take issue with one's theology, you'll likely take issue with how they live out that theology. Likewise, if you don't approve of how a person is practicing something, you'll often find the root of that disagreement in a theological difference. It depends on which critics of the Emerging Church your listening to. There are some who want to deal primarily with the question of truth and post-modernism, I’m guessing Carson would be in that camp.

But take a look at sites like:
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/02/rob_bell_in_a_n_1.html
http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/06/tony_jones_and_2.html
http://understandthetimes.org/commentary/c46.shtml

Here it is not the theology that is first called into question, but the practice. Remember however that theology and practice are are inseparable, If you take issue with one’s theology, you’ll likely take issue with how they live out that theology. Likewise, if you don’t approve of how a person is practicing something, you’ll often find the root of that disagreement in a theological difference.

]]> By: thainamu http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-635 thainamu Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:50:52 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-635 I for one was sorry to see the Pope's move to encourage Roman Catholics to use the Latin mass. I suppose the rationale of congregations who turn that way may be similar to what Protestants are thinking--things were better back in the good old days. But what good is scripture (or the liturgy) if no one can even understand it? I know there still exists a living priest or two who can actually speak Latin, but not many. I for one was sorry to see the Pope’s move to encourage Roman Catholics to use the Latin mass. I suppose the rationale of congregations who turn that way may be similar to what Protestants are thinking–things were better back in the good old days. But what good is scripture (or the liturgy) if no one can even understand it? I know there still exists a living priest or two who can actually speak Latin, but not many.

]]> By: mario http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-636 mario Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:05:37 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-636 People do not need the church to become more worldly. We already know the world (and attached to it), we do not need the church to teach us about it. What we need is for the church to reach out to the heavens, away from the world, so that people may follow. There is one basic thing that young people need to know: "Nothing material can satisfy the human heart, nothing material can satisfy the human soul." So don't experiment with what the world has to offer, the past generation already did that, and were sorry. Just go straight to God and nourish your soul. People do not need the church to become more worldly. We already know the world (and attached to it), we do not need the church to teach us about it. What we need is for the church to reach out to the heavens, away from the world, so that people may follow.

There is one basic thing that young people need to know: “Nothing material can satisfy the human heart, nothing material can satisfy the human soul.” So don’t experiment with what the world has to offer, the past generation already did that, and were sorry. Just go straight to God and nourish your soul.

]]> By: Changing Church Part. 6 at Zeal For Truth http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-1856 Changing Church Part. 6 at Zeal For Truth Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:02:38 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part1/#comment-1856 [...] is the final part of the Changing Church series. For reference see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part [...] […] is the final part of the Changing Church series. For reference see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part […]

]]>