This is an interesting post from a conversation happening on the emergent village blog. I think that emergent pastors and theology are getting a lot of press lately, but I agree with the writer of this blog - I haven't seen a lot of conversion growth. It seems like many young pastors have jumped on this emergent bandwagon and do quite a bit of conversing, thinking, and "theologizing" - but is there more fruit in their ministry than non-emergents?
Where do you stand on the whole emergent conversation?
I too am waiting for emergent ministry to explode, but I haven't seen much yet.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I agree that there is some value evaluating the emergent movement in terms of "fruit" / "conversion growth", but I think a proper evaluation must go much deeper than that.
To confine an evaluation of a ministry or movement to a review of its fruit is dangerous. An evaluation of the "fruits" of a ministry can be very subjective. For example, Mormonism could appear to be very fruitful. Its churches are exploding with growth, it emphasiszes "traditional" values, and many converts claim that it has transformed their lives. However, from a biblical perspective Mormonism is a deceitful perversion of God's truth - simply another instance of Satan masquerading as an angel of light.
So going beyond a cursory review of its' spiritual fruit, an examination of any ministry must look deeply at its underlying theological and doctrinal convictions.
In my opinion, the emergent movement has very little in the way of actual convictions. That is why it is called a "conversation". I am not convinced that men like Brian Mclaren or Rob Bell would actually be willing to die for the Christianity they suppose to profess. Everything having to with God and Scripture seems to be open for re-evaluation. What do these men actually CLING TO as truth?
Can anyone direct me to a clear explanation of something akin to "the fundamentals of the faith" for the emergent movement?
I think Phil Johnson is very much on target with these comments
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/10/criticism-of-emergent-rob-bell-and.html
(re-posted from his blog at http://www.teampyro.blogspot.com/)
Tim,
Good thoughts. Thanks for the link, I hadn't read this blog yet. As far as a resource that defines the fundamentals of the "Emergent" conversation - good luck! It is difficult (if not impossible) to get one set of fundamental beliefs from the conversation because it is just that, a conversation. (Anyone know of a resource?)
To get any understanding on what people in a movement or conversation believe, I read blogs and books from the leaders. I like to "get it from the horses mouth" so to speak and then decipher what they are really saying and how it meshes (or clashes) with my view.
Who knows, maybe our conversation on the emergent church could end sooner than we think.
(see http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2008/09/rip_emerging_ch.html)
As with many movements I think it has got us to think in new ways, but will not last for long. It will evolve or split (it has already started to in my opinion) into new "movements" or "conversations" or whatever word is made into a buzzword to describe it.
Again, thanks for the thoughts- I really appreciated them!
- Bill
Post a Comment