You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
July 20, 2004
What is the Emerging Church?
“Emerging Church“ has made the Wikipedia:
So far, Emerging Church groups have typically contained some or all of the following elements:Not a bad description, if you ask me.
- Highly creative approaches to worship and spiritual reflection. This can involve everything from the use of contemporary music and films through to liturgy or other more ancient customs.
- A minimalist and decentralised organisational structure.
- A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
- A more holistic approach to the role of the church in society. This can mean anything from greater emphasis on fellowship in the structure of the group to a higher degree of emphasis on social action, community building or Christian outreach.
- A desire to reanalyize the Bible against the context into which it was written, in search of a reconstructed theology that is free from Modernist baggage.
Read the rest here.
Posted at 10:55 am
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (2):
Hi, I’m a relatively new reader. The whole Emerging Church movement is very intriguing to me. All of the above descriptors sound wonderful and attractive, but I’m a little uncertain about this one:
A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
Can you explain a little further, or at least your understanding of what this means? Where does the line of acceptability fall? Do they mean that it’s okay if people disagree on, say, predestination vs. free will? Or do they mean that it’s okay if people disagree on, say, whether or not Jesus was the Messiah?
A flexible approach to theology whereby individual differences in belief and morality are accepted within reason.
Can you explain a little further, or at least your understanding of what this means? Where does the line of acceptability fall? Do they mean that it’s okay if people disagree on, say, predestination vs. free will? Or do they mean that it’s okay if people disagree on, say, whether or not Jesus was the Messiah?
lisa () - July 21, 2004 at 06:32 am
Thanks for stopping by, Lisa!
I’m not the best person to answer this in a “studied” sort of way, but I can give my opinion.
I think what that point is talking about is some of the “fighting” that happens over minutiae and not necessarily the big Kingdom issues (but those come into play as well).
For example:
-To drink alcohol or not
-To listen to secular music or not
-To go to movies or watch TV or not
-To swear or not
-Etc.
These are things that people can disagree on and still worship together (i.e., they are not things that should split a church).
But, about the larger Kingdom issues — or should I say, “theology”? I don’t know. What I do know is that I would probably disagree with a few people within my church community about some things, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t love and accept one another.
Last, there are some undeniable “truths” that are inherent in Christianity as a whole — one being that Jesus Christ is Messiah.
Here’s the main thing for me (and I am not trying to speak for other at all). I believe that the Holy Spirit is real and that he convicts those whom he indwells (i.e., followers of Jesus). To me, this means that we, as believers, will come to terms with many of these questions before our time it up. I the meantime, we will have many questions. What is great about the Holy Spirit, though, is that he will let us know when we hear something or see smething that we don’t agree with. I must trust in this — it is central to my faith.
Does any of this make sense?
I think that we know what’s “within reason” when we see it. If it doesn’t seem to be “within reason,” it becomes our responsibility, as believers, to act.
Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.I’m not the best person to answer this in a “studied” sort of way, but I can give my opinion.
I think what that point is talking about is some of the “fighting” that happens over minutiae and not necessarily the big Kingdom issues (but those come into play as well).
For example:
-To drink alcohol or not
-To listen to secular music or not
-To go to movies or watch TV or not
-To swear or not
-Etc.
These are things that people can disagree on and still worship together (i.e., they are not things that should split a church).
But, about the larger Kingdom issues — or should I say, “theology”? I don’t know. What I do know is that I would probably disagree with a few people within my church community about some things, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t love and accept one another.
Last, there are some undeniable “truths” that are inherent in Christianity as a whole — one being that Jesus Christ is Messiah.
Here’s the main thing for me (and I am not trying to speak for other at all). I believe that the Holy Spirit is real and that he convicts those whom he indwells (i.e., followers of Jesus). To me, this means that we, as believers, will come to terms with many of these questions before our time it up. I the meantime, we will have many questions. What is great about the Holy Spirit, though, is that he will let us know when we hear something or see smething that we don’t agree with. I must trust in this — it is central to my faith.
Does any of this make sense?
I think that we know what’s “within reason” when we see it. If it doesn’t seem to be “within reason,” it becomes our responsibility, as believers, to act.
timsamoff () (URL) - July 21, 2004 at 11:04 am
