My First Look at "Emergent Church" Material

[Marko]

So do some "Conservative" theologians (I'm NOT talking about N.T. Wright, just to be clear).....they also deal in 'cognitive dissonance' and tend to 'compartmentalize' their lives with regards to how they actually live versus 'what' they believe.

The concept of compartmentalization had never really occured to me when it came to Theologians. However, on Christmas Day, there was a program on Channel 4 (in the UK) caled 'the secret family of Jesus' by a chap called Robert Beckford, a liberal theologian. He was basically saying that the original message of Jesus was passed on to the likes of James and Jude, and Paul and Peter disorted it (yet again, Paul is a hate figure for the liberals). Along with this came all the garbage about James and Jude not believing jesus was divine or that he was raised from the dead etc.

At the very end of the program though, Beckford virtually renounced everything he had said in the previous two hours, saying some vague things about tradition and his faith being intact. This would suggest that is theology was at odds with his faith.

This is very different to - for example - Wright, whos thoelogy anf faith seem a lot closer.

[Marko]

As long as you do things like call the OT cultic rituals "bizarre" you're going to keep sounding like an opponent, because that is what sources like the Skeptics' Annotated Bible say. Do you really want to imitate someone like SAB? Would that kind of language pass if you were watching a Hopi rainmaking ceremony?

Say "bizarre TO ME" and I'll accept it. As it is you're putting the problem on the text itself immediately, which is far from reflective of careful consideration or objective judgment.

Whatever.

Yes? Your problem with those is what?

I was joking (British humour). I like your cartoons. Eidolon is my favourite character.

Start where you will.

I've been reading the pentathingy, and find rather a lot confusing. In Exodus and Leviticus where it says a number of times "The LORD said to Moses" does that mean Moses heard the Lord in a clear audiable voice?

[jpholding]

Whatever.

It's not that simple....but I trust it will be remembered.

I've been reading the pentathingy, and find rather a lot confusing. In Exodus and Leviticus where it says a number of times "The LORD said to Moses" does that mean Moses heard the Lord in a clear audiable voice?

Not necessarily, if you mean one that others could overhear. If you mean, could Moses himself hear a clear voice, regardless of what others may have been able to hear, there's nothing in the terms used or in the contexts to suggest otherwise.

Since you're fond of Eidolon, I'll note that this would be how he'd say the Spirit of Prophecy speaks to him. No one else can hear it. In one of my recent installments he professes to have had such a message about Bimf, but there's no audible voice that others can pick up on.

[OU812]

Yes, a clear scriptural condemnation is enough for me.

To include things other than homosexuality? Are there other things as well that if not clearly condemned in scripture they'd leave a 'blank spot' in your moral code?

By background context, I assume you're speaking of the liberal theological position that Paul and Moses were addressing sexual practices only as related to paganism, not the sexual practices in and of themselves. I've looked into that, and that explanation is sorely lacking.

Of course, another question would be why you find that to be 'lacking'.......but I was assuming that like some 'conservative' theologians/apologists, you believe that background context matters - except for the case of homosexuality, for some reason.

Perhaps I'm mistaken and you don't think that context matters in any case.

You and Marko display the cross in your postbit, so I assume that both of you do ascribe to a Christian worldview. Therefore I will address you both as if this is so.

True, but those that share the same worldview might forget that what they see as 'self-evident' amongst themselves might not be so self-evident to those who don't subscribe to that worldview........

I'm not speaking to nonchristians right now, so this is irrelevent. Of course I wouldn't start here when speaking with nonchristians and attempting to convince them of the truth of Christ, the Resurrection, etc. But that is not the case -- I am speaking to fellow Christians here.

And you'd be right, were it not for the fact that in your posts with Marko, you assume the 'doctrine' of inerrancy as though it were a 'given' and that all Christians not only subscribe to it, but think that it's be-all end-all for the Christian worldview/Gospel.....so, actually it's not irrelevant; it's VERY relevant to the discussion.

No, and I have no idea where this comment comes from. It's a complete non-sequitur. Let's see if I can explain this properly. Jesus gives us clear commands in the Bible to preach the Gospel throughout the world. Can Jesus reach people another way? Sure, it is within His power. However, He gives us no indication that He will do so, and even if He does it does not change the fact that we have a clear command to follow.

So, why not conclude, given that explanation, that if people did nothing to spread the Gospel, it wouldn't spread, regardless of what God can or can't or will or won't do?

That 'non-sequitur' came about because it seems to me that perhaps you've never considered the not-so-controversial fact that worldviews don't just 'propagate' by themselves......

And Marko holds to a Christian worldview. I am speaking to someone who already believes Christianity is true, including that hell is real. If you note our conversation above, you'll see that his questions concerning hell are on its exact nature, not its existence.

There can be 'in-house' discussion until dawn, but eventually, those 'outside' will have to be included in what we're talking about......so, my point about what Jesus preached was to ask, "when was Hell preached to the non-believers?" (judging by the Bible..........since you obviously adhere to 'Sola Scriptura').

If you can answer that - how was Hell 'used' in kerygmatic statements meant for proselytizing, if it was - then perhaps a discussion on the 'exact nature' of Hell could follow.

If they compartmentalize their lives as you suggest, they cannot rightfully be considered conservative theologians. That is a hallmark of the liberal theological movement. "Believe what you want so long as it doesn't actually affect your life in any meaningful way. Hold any belief you want so long as you don't assert that it's true. Keep the secular and the sacred separate. Etc."

If such a subjective characterization (i.e. "they cannot rightfully be considered conservative theologians" ) can be made about 'conservative' theologians, then it's no less subjective or arbitrary when said about 'liberal' theologians, yet you treat it as somehow 'absolute' in the latter case....why is that?


No, the compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance that I speak of regarding some of the 'conservative' theologians is characterized by the use of an epistemological 'crutch' that involves over-reliance on either:

The 'doctrine' of scriptural 'inerrancy'/'infallibility in conjunction with 'Sola Scriptura' (or 'bibliolatry'), and a very denominationally-driven (no matter how contrarily claimed) sense of doctrinal 'superiority', a.k.a. "God is on my side, not yours....I know God's will; you do not".

(And to a lesser degree, a more or less 'pentecostal' epistemic belief system, a.k.a. "I believe this because the Holy Spirit tells me so; you can't or don't believe this, because you don't have the H.S."; however, if they were consistent about "all truth comes exclusively from the H.S.-and-or-Bibleonly", they would have never learned math in school.......)

Sorry, I don't buy into cultural relativism.

But you apparently believe that everyone everywhere in everytime had the same culture that we (presumably) and many others here share???

"Sorry", indeed.

Christian doctrines and principles are right whether they make sense in our culture or not. As Christians, we are to mould our beliefs and actions to the truth as presented in the Bible to the best of our ability(asking God for support when we cannot do so on our own, of course).

That's a huge mess of circularity and question-begging that you have going there......how do you determine what's 'true doctrine' beyond just assuming biblical inerrancy and 'sola scriptura'?? And you're basically advocating the idea of 'de-contextualizing' the bible as if none of the books have an informing context.....curious.

The truth does not adjust to accomodate our errant beliefs and cultural practices.

And the writers of the Bible weren't without 'errant' beliefs and cultural practices either....so, what do you do? Ignore context?

Whether you know about it or not, there's such a thing as a 'client-patron' paradigmatic model, followed by various societies in history down to this day....but not much in the West nowadays. The idea of 'whom' one serves being of 'ultimate concern' over 'what' or 'how' comes from that particular mindset; those who don't already follow that model aren't just going to blindly accept it.

[Little Shepherd]

To include things other than homosexuality? Are there other things as well that if not clearly condemned in scripture they'd leave a 'blank spot' in your moral code?

The laws and principles in the Bible are quite thorough. Most, if not all, situations that are likely to occur are covered adequately. If you have something specific that you believe is not covered adequately, then bring it up. Otherwise you're asking a worthless hypothetical question.

Of course, another question would be why you find that to be 'lacking'.......but I was assuming that like some 'conservative' theologians/apologists, you believe that background context matters - except for the case of homosexuality, for some reason.

Perhaps I'm mistaken and you don't think that context matters in any case.

Liberal theologians make a claim about the context of the verses that condemn homosexual practice. They say that taken in the proper context, these practices weren't being condemned in and of themselves, but were rather being condemned as part of pagan rituals. What I actually said is that I don't believe that is the proper context at all. I believe that taken in proper context, the verses are condemning the acts in and of themselves, and that pagan practices have nothing to do with it.

We don't disagree that context is important. We disagree on what the proper context is.

True, but those that share the same worldview might forget that what they see as 'self-evident' amongst themselves might not be so self-evident to those who don't subscribe to that worldview........

So what? If I speak to nonchristians then I will tailor my speech accordingly. That is not the case here. Also, I have no control over what mistakes other Christians might make in this regard. You were admonishing me over something that I have not done.

And you'd be right, were it not for the fact that in your posts with Marko, you assume the 'doctrine' of inerrancy as though it were a 'given' and that all Christians not only subscribe to it, but think that it's be-all end-all for the Christian worldview/Gospel.....so, actually it's not irrelevant; it's VERY relevant to the discussion.

I am an inerrantist, and so I presume inerrancy. Now I understand Marko isn't an inerrantist, and may not believe something even if it is clearly addressed in the Bible. All I have done is assert that the issues he is struggling with are covered adequately in the Bible. If one accepts the Bible as a sourch of truth, then the matters he is struggling with are very clear. That is all. If, due to his errantist position, he chooses not to accept those particular passages as truth, that is another thing altogether.

So, why not conclude, given that explanation, that if people did nothing to spread the Gospel, it wouldn't spread, regardless of what God can or can't or will or won't do?

That 'non-sequitur' came about because it seems to me that perhaps you've never considered the not-so-controversial fact that worldviews don't just 'propagate' by themselves......

Who cares? Really. What I claimed is that we cannot know either way whether Christ will or will not reach people through other means if we as Christians do not obey His command to spread the Gospel. I also claimed that His doing so or not is irrelevent to us because we have clear commands to spread the Gospel that we as Christians are obligated to obey no matter what the case may be.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario. Jesus has just commanded me to deliver a bag of marbles to the orphanage. I have a clear command to do so. If I obey, the marbles get delivered. If I do not obey, Jesus may or may not deliver the marbles Himself -- I don't know, and it's irrelevent. My duty is to deliver the marbles, end of story.

There can be 'in-house' discussion until dawn, but eventually, those 'outside' will have to be included in what we're talking about......so, my point about what Jesus preached was to ask, "when was Hell preached to the non-believers?" (judging by the Bible..........since you obviously adhere to 'Sola Scriptura').

First off, what we discuss here doesn't actually have to go any further than here. That's a false statement. I'm not going to run off and discuss what we're talking about with any nonbelievers, and you don't have any reason to do so either. Neither of us has to discuss anything here with anyone else(though we may certainly choose to do so).

Second, at least one of the gospels -- Luke -- was written to a Gentile audience. So while Jesus may not have spoken directly to Gentiles of Hell, His speaking of Hell was recorded specifically for a Gentile audience by at least one Gospel writer. Furthermore, Paul speaks of the destruction awaiting unbelievers in a number of his epistles -- written to Gentiles. And the Book of Revelation was written for 7 churches that were primarily Gentile, and it makes Hell a reality.

Third, the concept of hell(at least in the form of punishment after death) was not absent in Gentile thought. If you look at the religious beliefs of Gentiles, you will notice that most of them have a belief in the afterlife and that part of that belief includes some form of punishment for the wicked and unjust. While they may have gotten some details wrong -- such as what actually constitute wicked and unjust actions -- the basic idea of a "hell" was there most of the time.

And fourth, Hell is an important part of the Gospel message. Whatever you believe about its exact nature -- annihilation, torture, separation -- the destruction it represents is obviously not good, and it is one of the things that the Salvation through Jesus saves us from. Yes, we are also freed from our own corruption, but where does our corruption lead? There is no reason to desire freedom from our corruption if it doesn't actually lead to an undesirable outcome.

*snips garbage about compartmentalization actually being due to taking the Bible seriously as the infallible Word of God*

I personally don't know anyone who would claim that all truth comes from the Bible/Spirit only, though they might claim that all important spiritual truth comes through such channels. These same people would also acknowledge that all truth ultimately comes from God -- even such truths and principles of logic, mathematics, and history, as God created them, sustains them, and provides us with the means to understand them.

Viewing the Bible as the inerrant Word of God -- if taken seriously -- leads to the person attempting to live his life consistently by the principles set forth in the Bible. It actually dissuades compartmentalization in life as you claim, as the person is to bring everything in his life into submission to Christ. Now are there people who are hypocrites in this regard, and people who merely give intellectual assent without any followthrough? Sure. I already addressed them. However, you fail to see that it's the liberal stance -- that the Bible is errant, and that it is not to be taken seriously as the source of absolute truth -- that leads to people compartmentalizing their lives, and to people not attempting to bring every aspect of their lives into submission of Christ, attempting to keep some aspects away from Him.

But you apparently believe that everyone everywhere in everytime had the same culture that we (presumably) and many others here share???

Actually, I fully admit that there have been different cultures. In fact, I have many beliefs now that are countercultural in our culture right now due to my learning about ancient cultures such as that of the ancient Jews during the time of Christ. Now, not every belief of mine is counterculture, as often cultural differences don't have a moral component -- they're just different. But where I do see a moral component, or something that appears to have been particularly important to Christ, I attempt to adjust my thinking and values accordingly.

That's a huge mess of circularity and question-begging that you have going there......how do you determine what's 'true doctrine' beyond just assuming biblical inerrancy and 'sola scriptura'?? And you're basically advocating the idea of 'de-contextualizing' the bible as if none of the books have an informing context.....curious.

I determine what is true doctrine first by reading the Bible to get a basic understanding of what it says, at least in the English language. Then I look to people who have done far more study than I have -- such a JPH here, as well as other people I've met through Tweb -- to help me figure out what the Bible actually means once one takes into consideration such things as cultural context, nuances of the original languages, etc. And even if they cannot make things clear for me, often they can point me to a respected scholar(or 5 or 6) who has the answers I'm looking for.

It is laughable that you accuse me of disregarding context simply because I disagree with you about the context of one verse. I value context a great deal -- obviously more than you, I would say. This is because I look to find out what the context actually is, such as with the homosexual acts verses in Leviticus. Let me make one thing clear -- the idea that the proper context has something to do with pagan ritual is wrong; it is wishful thinking; it is not the proper context. I am not disregarding the actual context of the verses -- I am disregarding the improper context that some liberal theologians(and many a bitter homosexual) merely wish was correct.

And the writers of the Bible weren't without 'errant' beliefs and cultural practices either....so, what do you do? Ignore context?

The "imperfect person can't do anything without error" fallacy. I am imperfect; however, I am able to do some things(such as basic maths) without error. Also, you disregard the Bible's divine inspiration -- a God who's in control, and Who is divinely inspiring certain men to write certain things, is perfectly capable of making sure the product is without error.

Whether you know about it or not, there's such a thing as a 'client-patron' paradigmatic model, followed by various societies in history down to this day....but not much in the West nowadays. The idea of 'whom' one serves being of 'ultimate concern' over 'what' or 'how' comes from that particular mindset; those who don't already follow that model aren't just going to blindly accept it.

I don't expect blind acceptance, but because our society is set up in a way that makes it difficult to comprehend(and accept) something, does that somehow invalidates its truth? Puh-leeze.

Also, you'll notice that even in our highly individualistic society, we still have certain relationships that, while not identical to relationships under the client-patron model of ancient Israel, share certain similarities and can be used to make comparisons to foster understanding. There is a cultural hurdle, but for anyone with a modicum of intelligence it's not insurmountable.

[kogseeker]

The emerging movement, like other movements in Christianity, is a mixed bag. It is reactionary and very protestant in that it feels that Christianity could be a much better religion than it is by getting back to the teachings of Jesus. But the movement has been concerned more with deconstruction than with new construction and, while good at pointing out why modern Christianity is ineffective at reaching postmoderns, has only recently started offering alternative ways of being "a new kind of Christian" to a world that, for the most part, thinks the "old kind of Christian" is either stupid, apathetic, or even evil.

The Prostentant movement was easily and quickly condemned by the Church of that age. Its leaders were either forced to recant, imprisoned, sanctioned, or killed. It is only in hindsight that the Protestant movement appears to be a move of God among his people. The Church of that age saw Protestantism as a departure from the faith and as a threat to its power structure. Things haven't changed much.

Good trees take a while to bear good fruit.

Perhaps the emerging movement should be accorded the freedom by the Church of this age to grow and bear fruit before the Church of this age easily and quickly condemns it. Let's see what kind of fruit it bears.

One thing I do appreciate about the emerging movement is that it is honest in telling folks that it isn't for everyone. If you are happy with your conservative evangelical church and you can love God and love others there, then praise God and keep doing what you're doing. The same can be said for the more liberal churches. But if you find that the "absolute answers" given from institutionalized churches and their pulpits fall way short of the teachings of Jesus, if you wonder why Christians aren't much like Christ, then emerging may be an alternative worth exploring. As Neo says to Dan in "A New Kind of Christian", "A new kind of Christian is not THE new kind, just A new kind."

Will the modern Church of this age be graceful with the emerging movement and wait and watch for fruit before judging it? Will it try to dialog with emerging folks to discover a better way of living out the kingdom of God in this new century? Or will it simply dismiss it because it doesn't fall in line with the famous "7 Last Words of the Church" -- "We've never done it that way before"?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Oh please. It is exactly that stuff that gives me the heaves.

[blossom]

Perhaps the emerging movement should be accorded the freedom by the Church of this age to grow and bear fruit before the Church of this age easily and quickly condemns it. Let's see what kind of fruit it bears.

One thing I do appreciate about the emerging movement is that it is honest in telling folks that it isn't for everyone. If you are happy with your conservative evangelical church and you can love God and love others there, then praise God and keep doing what you're doing.

I really do think that we ought be fair and give this new trend some fruit-proving time. We do best to be Bereans and search for truth ourselves, remembering that the Spirit has not retired from His job of leading us through the scriptures.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mormons bear some good fruit.

[Little Shepherd]

I really do think that we ought be fair and give this new trend some fruit-proving time. We do best to be Bereans and search for truth ourselves, remembering that the Spirit has not retired from His job of leading us through the scriptures.

Hello, Blossom! So glad to see you're getting around Tweb well. I'll try to address this.

People such as Darth Xena, JPH, and myself aren't attempting to say that people in the emergent movement don't do "good things," or that they don't have some valid points. However, they also encourage certain ideas that are lazy, and sometimes dangerous. As Christians, there are many things we can know to be true. We have a rich 2000-year history of answers to many of the questions still being asked today.

While not everybody can be a scholar, there are scholars who have done the footwork to learn many things about our Bible, and who have often written down their findings in ways that us laymen can read and understand. People tied to the emergent movement often downplay this research, telling us that we should not trust that we have answers that we really do have. We may have to work a bit to find reliable scholars and get the answers, but the answers are there and should not be so easily dismissed.

Now people in the emergent movement do make some valid points. As Christians, we learn certain theological terms that make sense once one understands the attached concepts, but to people outside the church using these terms will only lead to confusion. And Christians often forget this, and use unfamiliar terminology with unbelievers instead of wording their message in a way people can understand. As Christians, we already know that the Gospel message is relevent to everyone's lives -- we must learn how to effectively communicate this fact. That is a rightful admonition. However, the people in the emergent movement don't merely communicate the Gospel message clearly -- they often change the message to make it seem relevent to people today. This is dangerous. It means that the people who do this are preaching a message that is not actually the Gospel.

Note my use of the word "often." There are people who ascribe to certain ideals held by the emergent movement -- such as clear communication -- without falling into the same pitfalls of intellectual laziness and a distorted Gospel message. But they are real problems that are abundant in the emergent movement. Also note that people who fall into these pitfalls aren't unique to the emergent movement -- they simply seem to abound more within it, and the emergent movement seems to draw people who already have these characteristics.

Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason wrote a really nice piece on the emergent movement -- pointing out both the good and bad points of the movement -- and I think it's a worthwhile ready. Click here to download the PDF. Oh, and Stand to Reason is an awesome website in general. You can't go wrong visiting it and reading its many articles on various topics from time to time. Okay, enough of the shameless plug.

But yes -- as said before, there is nothing unique in the emergent movement. Both the good and bad aspects of it have been around for a long time. Now it is worth learning about the good aspects, but we must be careful not to fall victim to its negative aspects as well. We don't simply wait for it to produce fruit because to people reasonably well-versed in Biblical truth the problems with many of its positions are readily apparent.

I've probably said enough on this. I'm not nearly as well-versed in the emergent church movement as many others here, so I'll let them field any further questions you might have(unless you just happen to ask one of the few questions I'm really equipped to handle, but what are the chances of that? ).

[blossom]

Mormons bear some good fruit.

Who is a Mormon? Are Emergents Mormons? Sorry I didn't know that.

[kogseeker]

People tied to the emergent movement often downplay this research, telling us that we should not trust that we have answers that we really do have.

I disagree with you on this statement, my friend. Some of the theologians that emerging movement folks listen to (such as NT Wright, Dallas Willard, Stan Grentz, & John Franke) are very involved in researching the historical/cultural context of the scriptures in order to understand what the scriptures meant in their original, ancient context before we try to apply them to our modern context. I think this is a very worthwhile endeavor.

I don't think that the emerging movement is trying to say that we don't have answers. What I think it is trying to say is that we need to remain humble and teachable before God as a lifelong attitude, instead of struting around like we know everything there is to know about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, and life. There is God as he really is...and then there is God as we understand him to be. God as he really is may be infallible and inerrant, but our understanding of him is always subjective and relative and, therefore, fallible and errant. If I meet a Christian who claims to completely understand everything, that is a pretty sure sign that they haven't really wrestled with the complexities of faith and/or life.

However, the people in the emergent movement don't merely communicate the Gospel message clearly -- they often change the message to make it seem relevent to people today. This is dangerous. It means that the people who do this are preaching a message that is not actually the Gospel.

And therein probably lies some of the rub. What is the gospel?

The gospel according to Jesus is that the kingdom has finally come, that God's will is beginning to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

The gospel according to Paul is that Jesus died and rose again.

The gospel according to the Church for nearly a thousand years was to trust in the Church and the Pope as the sole mediator between Christ and mankind.

The gospel according to the Reformers was that God could declare someone righteous without ever changing their behavior. The secondary gospel according to the Reformation was that good works are completely opposed to faith.

The gospel according to the modern Church (Protestant) is that the Pope has been kicked off the throne of authority and the Bible, not Christ himself, is solely authoritative in all matters. Secondarily, the gospel of the modern Church is that God wants us to be healthy and wealthy, a gospel of consummerism, claiming to follow Jesus only because heaven is the reward.

So what is the gospel?

If we are going to claim to follow Christ, then he must be the source of what we understand the gospel to be and how that good news should be lived out. That is what emerging folks are exploring. If the modern gospel of the Church is that God wants everybody to be good Americans, living out "Leave It to Beaver" lives while the rest of the world goes to hell in poverty, AIDS, genocide, wars, famines, lack of health care, etc., then maybe we really should look at what kind of "gospel" is preached from our pulpits and religious institutions.

Now it is worth learning about the good aspects, but we must be careful not to fall victim to its negative aspects as well.

Very much agreed. No theological system or movement is perfect. The early church was started by Christ and shepherded by the apostle Paul, but it was still frought with misunderstandings, bad theology, and the problems of fallen humans dealing with each other. The answer for the early church (and for the emerging movement) is to grow in grace and seek to be conformed to the image of Christ so that we can be salt and light to a world that desperately needs him -- to not just ask, "What Would Jesus Do?", but to do it. The emerging movement is just trying, above all else, to be faithful to Jesus and his gospel in our cultural context. Isn't that what we should all be striving for?

[blossom]

Hello, Blossom! So glad to see you're getting around Tweb well. I'll try to address this.

Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason wrote a really nice piece on the emergent movement -- pointing out both the good and bad points of the movement -- and I think it's a worthwhile ready. Click here to download the PDF.

Thank you! I will take a look at this article. I am not qualified to discuss the movement with any accuracy at this time.

[kogseeker]

Who is a Mormon? Are Emergents Mormons? Sorry I didn't know that.

No, emerging folks are not Mormon. As far as I know, there are no emerging Mormons.

The statement was being made as a way to say, "See, Mormons do good works and they are all surely going to hell."

What is interesting is that in all of the coming judgments that Jesus spoke of, good works was ALWAYS the issue. Always. There is no judgment where Jesus checks to see who has said the "sinner's prayer" or who holds to the Nicene or Apostles' Creed or to the Westminister Confession of Faith. The judgments have to do with how we treat each other, not with with what doctrinal precepts we hold to.

[Dee Dee Warren]

No, emerging folks are not Mormon. As far as I know, there are no emerging Mormons.

The statement was being made as a way to say, "See, Mormons do good works and they are all surely going to hell."

What is interesting is that in all of the coming judgments that Jesus spoke of, good works was ALWAYS the issue. Always. There is no judgment where Jesus checks to see who has said the "sinner's prayer" or who holds to the Nicene or Apostles' Creed or to the Westminister Confession of Faith. The judgments have to do with how we treat each other, not with with what doctrinal precepts we hold to.

Blatantly false.

One example:

"Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."

Do you pick cherries too, or just cherry-pick the Bible?

As I said, Mormons have good works. So out of one side of your mouth, you distance yourself from the Mormons, but out of the other, hey, as long as they got good works, who cares if they think Jesus is the spirit-brother of satan right?

Incoherent, Christianese babble. And peeps wonder why I say it gives me the theological heaves and deserves the heave-ho.



Make up your own religion all you want, but don't be surprised when people object to your riding on the skirt-tails of one that already means something to those who use the words.

Each time I hear emergent-blither-blather it only solidifies me more that this is in insidous wolf playing nicey nice blah blah.

My what big teeth you have grandma.