Of course the emerging churches argument would be that this simply proves their point that anyone who questions the evangelical churches concept of sound doctrine are ridiculed for their thinking!Let’s not forget that The Salvation Army itself was emergent in its own way and suffered ridicule at the hands of the mainstream churches. Ironic isn’t it!
Well done for snatching at the bait! :o) As a believer in the first doctrine of The Salvation Army, its my duty as an officer to uphold it…the scriptures, from where sound doctrine comes from, are to be upheld as authorative. Paul himself said that anything contrary to sound doctrine is to be refuted strongly. But really, this is just a pop and the rediculous watering down we see. But on a serious note, we must be aware of ‘itching ear syndrome’…people flocking to hear what they want to hear.The Salvation Army may have been emergent in the sense that we pioneered new forms of church, making church relevant etc but salvation was salvation, Jesus was Lord, scriptures were inspired, holiness was obtainable….I could go on (and often do!)I firmly believe its possible to emergy from a stable core of belief. There is nothing new under the sun, said Solomon the wise.
The problem is tarnishing everything emergent with the same brush is devaluing the good aspects of it! Not all emergent writing devalues the Bible, rather it questions whether some interpretations are correct, just as Biblical criticism has done throughout the ages.
I’ve been quite impressed with Dan Kimball – author of “The Emerging Church” and pastor at Vintage Faith (I’m not sure exactly what the church is called… but you can find out more at http://www.vintagefaith.com). For him, emergent is about repackaging the oldest truths in a way the “emerging” generation will be able to connect with.
Absolutely Chris…I’m all for that. I’m happy when emergent is new forms and sound doctrine creatively taught.Just not for watery gospels or watery teachers.yoursAndrew
I’d agree Chris, I really like what Dan Kimball has to say and he seems to live it out as well.As for the theology Andrew, well there is a fair bit of dodgy theology amongst so-called bible-believing evangelicals who would adhere to our first doctrine!
I’m all for upholding the first doctrine, but it all comes down to interpretation. Many within and without would question some of the ways that the Army has interpreted Scripture. For some people, upholding Scripture (in their interpretation) causes tension with some of what the Army practises.It’s unfortunate that there are some within evangelical circles who immediately jump to ridicule whenever the word ’emergent’ is mentioned, because at least there are those within that movement who are willing to stand up and say that there is much within Western Christianity that is not right.The way you use the word ‘sound’ makes it seem like it is all straightforward. I wish it was.
I really hesitate to jump wholeheartedly into the debate, Andrew, because we are called to be one Church, and division doesn’t do anyone any favours. However, I’m interested to know though is WHERE you are seeing this “watery gospel” you mention, ?From my limited observation of the challenge to the Emgergent/Emerging “conversation”, there are dangers of attributing certain theological stances to people or communities when they may not be there.Some prominent Emergent figures have appeared to take heavy criticism (usually accepting it with remarkable good grace), when sometimes even a cursory read through their work does not stack up with the criticism meted out.Peace & blessingsJ
Where? many places. In the Army and outside the Army…its not an exclusive disease.Whilst we are called to be one in Christ, this doesn’t cancel the call to hold each other to account. Paul is very clear about this in his writings (cf his teaching to Timothy in particular). Any figure, emergent or not, myself included, must always be weighed under the light of scripture and if found wanting be challenged. So, this is not just an emergent attack. I’ve already outlined in previous places that whilst people like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are contributing positive things to the church, there are strong areas of error in their message. Having said that, there are some people closer to home that I won’t mention who are equally as ‘guilty.’
Hi Andrew,Thanks for all your comments.I’m going to leave this dialog now, but it’s been good to “talk”…maybe sometime we’ll have to opportunity to talk over a latte! ;-)J 🙂
Andrew M Clark 
Of course the emerging churches argument would be that this simply proves their point that anyone who questions the evangelical churches concept of sound doctrine are ridiculed for their thinking!Let’s not forget that The Salvation Army itself was emergent in its own way and suffered ridicule at the hands of the mainstream churches. Ironic isn’t it!
Well done for snatching at the bait! :o) As a believer in the first doctrine of The Salvation Army, its my duty as an officer to uphold it…the scriptures, from where sound doctrine comes from, are to be upheld as authorative. Paul himself said that anything contrary to sound doctrine is to be refuted strongly. But really, this is just a pop and the rediculous watering down we see. But on a serious note, we must be aware of ‘itching ear syndrome’…people flocking to hear what they want to hear.The Salvation Army may have been emergent in the sense that we pioneered new forms of church, making church relevant etc but salvation was salvation, Jesus was Lord, scriptures were inspired, holiness was obtainable….I could go on (and often do!)I firmly believe its possible to emergy from a stable core of belief. There is nothing new under the sun, said Solomon the wise.
The problem is tarnishing everything emergent with the same brush is devaluing the good aspects of it! Not all emergent writing devalues the Bible, rather it questions whether some interpretations are correct, just as Biblical criticism has done throughout the ages.
I’ve been quite impressed with Dan Kimball – author of “The Emerging Church” and pastor at Vintage Faith (I’m not sure exactly what the church is called… but you can find out more at http://www.vintagefaith.com). For him, emergent is about repackaging the oldest truths in a way the “emerging” generation will be able to connect with.
Absolutely Chris…I’m all for that. I’m happy when emergent is new forms and sound doctrine creatively taught.Just not for watery gospels or watery teachers.yoursAndrew
I’d agree Chris, I really like what Dan Kimball has to say and he seems to live it out as well.As for the theology Andrew, well there is a fair bit of dodgy theology amongst so-called bible-believing evangelicals who would adhere to our first doctrine!
I’m all for upholding the first doctrine, but it all comes down to interpretation. Many within and without would question some of the ways that the Army has interpreted Scripture. For some people, upholding Scripture (in their interpretation) causes tension with some of what the Army practises.It’s unfortunate that there are some within evangelical circles who immediately jump to ridicule whenever the word ’emergent’ is mentioned, because at least there are those within that movement who are willing to stand up and say that there is much within Western Christianity that is not right.The way you use the word ‘sound’ makes it seem like it is all straightforward. I wish it was.
Hi AndrewWhere are the “watery gospels” and who do you consider to be the “watery teachers.”?Peace & blessings?J
John…a watery gospel is forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration and heaven without hell.
I really hesitate to jump wholeheartedly into the debate, Andrew, because we are called to be one Church, and division doesn’t do anyone any favours. However, I’m interested to know though is WHERE you are seeing this “watery gospel” you mention, ?From my limited observation of the challenge to the Emgergent/Emerging “conversation”, there are dangers of attributing certain theological stances to people or communities when they may not be there.Some prominent Emergent figures have appeared to take heavy criticism (usually accepting it with remarkable good grace), when sometimes even a cursory read through their work does not stack up with the criticism meted out.Peace & blessingsJ
Where? many places. In the Army and outside the Army…its not an exclusive disease.Whilst we are called to be one in Christ, this doesn’t cancel the call to hold each other to account. Paul is very clear about this in his writings (cf his teaching to Timothy in particular). Any figure, emergent or not, myself included, must always be weighed under the light of scripture and if found wanting be challenged. So, this is not just an emergent attack. I’ve already outlined in previous places that whilst people like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are contributing positive things to the church, there are strong areas of error in their message. Having said that, there are some people closer to home that I won’t mention who are equally as ‘guilty.’
Hi Andrew,Thanks for all your comments.I’m going to leave this dialog now, but it’s been good to “talk”…maybe sometime we’ll have to opportunity to talk over a latte! ;-)J 🙂