Helpful materials if you want a brief summary of Driscoll's angle.
I think it's interesting that he still identifies so much with 'emerging' even though he has admittedly parted company with so many of them.
It is also interesting how he talks about the 'emerging' project as being centred on issues of style. If this was the case then you could see how he thought 'emergent village' were way off.
This is a very different picture than that painted by Phyllis Tickle widely regarded as the main church historian of what is now referred to as 'emergence christianity'.
For Tickle, and most of those involved in the emergent conversation, this is so much more than an issue of style. For some it is about deconstruction, for some it is about cultural connection, for some it is a continuation of Bonhoeffer's unfinished project of Religionless Christianity (Rollins). For some it is our last desperate attempt to pull the church out of an age that has passed. Far more than just an issue of style.
My disagreement with Driscoll could be summed up in one phrase from the second clip. "Questions that should not be asked". Now, I know what he's getting at, and I recall your previous post, Paul, about Brian McLaren being asked about the cross. However, I think this is a neat summary of what I would call Driscoll's misunderstanding of the emergence project.
Anyone who has read Velvet Elvis should realise that Rob Bell is not saying there was no Virgin Birth. The statement is designed to arouse questions. Rob Bell and others are though heretics because they do not use evangelical language. But this is precisely the point.
How can we say "Questions that should not be asked" of a teaching that demands we question the very fabric of reality? The nature and even the existence of God? We have a book full of people crying out, and they are rarely answered with neatly packaged orthodoxy.
Part of the emergence project has been to reclaim the immediacy of the Biblical narrative.
Excellent comment. I thought of only having the first clip rather than both because he comes accorss as less balanced in the second. I have watched Phylis Tickle's conversations with Peter Rollins on You Tube. I think she views the emerging church through very rose tinted glasses. At one stage she seems to see it as the force that can unite all strands of the Christian church in a was that has not been done since the east and west split. I am going to post another video that you may well have seen, a conversation amongst Al Mohler, Spoul and Ravi Zacharius. I'd be interested what you think. I am not sure that the more liberal stream of the emergent movement will have much impact outside the western nations (including NZ/Australia). I may be wrong on this (I didn't think that text messaging would ever take off!). Paul
2 comments:
Helpful materials if you want a brief summary of Driscoll's angle.
I think it's interesting that he still identifies so much with 'emerging' even though he has admittedly parted company with so many of them.
It is also interesting how he talks about the 'emerging' project as being centred on issues of style. If this was the case then you could see how he thought 'emergent village' were way off.
This is a very different picture than that painted by Phyllis Tickle widely regarded as the main church historian of what is now referred to as 'emergence christianity'.
For Tickle, and most of those involved in the emergent conversation, this is so much more than an issue of style. For some it is about deconstruction, for some it is about cultural connection, for some it is a continuation of Bonhoeffer's unfinished project of Religionless Christianity (Rollins). For some it is our last desperate attempt to pull the church out of an age that has passed. Far more than just an issue of style.
My disagreement with Driscoll could be summed up in one phrase from the second clip. "Questions that should not be asked". Now, I know what he's getting at, and I recall your previous post, Paul, about Brian McLaren being asked about the cross. However, I think this is a neat summary of what I would call Driscoll's misunderstanding of the emergence project.
Anyone who has read Velvet Elvis should realise that Rob Bell is not saying there was no Virgin Birth. The statement is designed to arouse questions. Rob Bell and others are though heretics because they do not use evangelical language. But this is precisely the point.
How can we say "Questions that should not be asked" of a teaching that demands we question the very fabric of reality? The nature and even the existence of God? We have a book full of people crying out, and they are rarely answered with neatly packaged orthodoxy.
Part of the emergence project has been to reclaim the immediacy of the Biblical narrative.
And I'll stop there.
Dear Mr Spence:
Excellent comment.
I thought of only having the first clip rather than both because he comes accorss as less balanced in the second.
I have watched Phylis Tickle's conversations with Peter Rollins on You Tube. I think she views the emerging church through very rose tinted glasses. At one stage she seems to see it as the force that can unite all strands of the Christian church in a was that has not been done since the east and west split.
I am going to post another video that you may well have seen, a conversation amongst Al Mohler, Spoul and Ravi Zacharius. I'd be interested what you think.
I am not sure that the more liberal stream of the emergent movement will have much impact outside the western nations (including NZ/Australia). I may be wrong on this (I didn't think that text messaging would ever take off!).
Paul
Post a Comment