Comments on: The Dysfunctional Status-Quo http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/ Sam Metcalf's blog about a new generation of leaders for the global church. Fri, 16 May 2008 06:56:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: martin scott http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-49902 martin scott Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:22:06 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-49902 Thanks for the original post and the subsequent discussions. It is so important to get these things out in the open. The 'authoritative umbrella' scene is sadly so common. And orthodoxy being the test (whose orthdoxy?) with no real appreciation of the importance of orthpraxy seems also to be problematic. Having had two other generations live with me I soon came to realise the emotional desire to have them live with me on the basis that they brought life but did not disturb the furniture nor the decoration. Is this not how it ends up church-wise many times? We want the youth, but.... Thanks for the original post and the subsequent discussions. It is so important to get these things out in the open. The ‘authoritative umbrella’ scene is sadly so common. And orthodoxy being the test (whose orthdoxy?) with no real appreciation of the importance of orthpraxy seems also to be problematic.

Having had two other generations live with me I soon came to realise the emotional desire to have them live with me on the basis that they brought life but did not disturb the furniture nor the decoration. Is this not how it ends up church-wise many times? We want the youth, but….

]]> By: Gad Fly http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-21236 Gad Fly Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:53:26 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-21236 Sam, Thank you for responding. I agree with a fair amount of latitude in cultural expressions of church life. I also recognize that God is sovereign over religious movements today as He was throughout history, and that none of us is absolutely pure in our understanding of God. Yet are you not concerned about theological trends such as open theism, universalism and other humanistic expressions that are cropping up among some of the emergent thinkers? How can McLaren be a "calvinist arminian orthodox..."? Doesn't that reek of postmodern deconstruction of language? Is it not similar to how Machen described the liberal church movement of the 30s? I am curious if you have viewed the discussions of Piper's conference on postmodernism. You can watch them for free (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/36/) ). I would still appreciate hearing your perspective of these guys - I believe they are thoughtful critics; would you disagree? Sam,
Thank you for responding. I agree with a fair amount of latitude in cultural expressions of church life. I also recognize that God is sovereign over religious movements today as He was throughout history, and that none of us is absolutely pure in our understanding of God. Yet are you not concerned about theological trends such as open theism, universalism and other humanistic expressions that are cropping up among some of the emergent thinkers? How can McLaren be a “calvinist arminian orthodox…”? Doesn’t that reek of postmodern deconstruction of language? Is it not similar to how Machen described the liberal church movement of the 30s? I am curious if you have viewed the discussions of Piper’s conference on postmodernism. You can watch them for free (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/36/) ). I would still appreciate hearing your perspective of these guys – I believe they are thoughtful critics; would you disagree?

]]> By: Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-21181 Sam Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:43:09 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-21181 Gadfly: Thanks for weighing into this discussion. Let me offer some observations in response: The "emerging church" movement is not monolithic. There is really no "it." What lies below the surface of "it" is a variety of theological perspectives, some which I would personally wholeheartedly agree with and some that give me pause. But overall, it is a movement of God which stands squarely in the flow of the great, historical renewal movements of the past 2000 years. As in almost all renewal movements throughout the history of the Christian movement, it's messy. That's to be expected. There are always excesses, muddy thinking, and some level of deconstructionism that takes place. That was even true of the Protestant Reformation. I saw it myself in the Jesus Movement of the sixties and seventies in the U.S. While there are some distinct differences, astute observers see many interesting similarities to today. As to the increasing chorus of "critics," not all are "thoughtful" in my estimation. I am fearful that way to many of these critics may be throwing the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. While attacking one aspect or another of the emerging church, they may be missing the bigger missiological picture. What God is undoubtedly doing is raising up, on the cultural fringes, a new generation of people who are faithfully and wholeheartedly followers of Jesus and true to historic, biblical orthodoxy but committed to living that out in an increasingly secular, postmodern world. From my experience, what is most unsettling to the traditional establishment is not primarily the theological nuances but forms and ecclesiological expressions that are outside the acceptable box. While some would attack the emerging church on theological grounds, my suspicion is the real backlash is primarily cultural. Unfortunately, too much of the response from the established evangelical world to what God is doing in the "emerging church movement" is akin to a mother eating its young. I cannot help but believe that this grieves God. Gadfly:

Thanks for weighing into this discussion. Let me offer some observations in response:

The “emerging church” movement is not monolithic. There is really no “it.” What lies below the surface of “it” is a variety of theological perspectives, some which I would personally wholeheartedly agree with and some that give me pause. But overall, it is a movement of God which stands squarely in the flow of the great, historical renewal movements of the past 2000 years.

As in almost all renewal movements throughout the history of the Christian movement, it’s messy. That’s to be expected. There are always excesses, muddy thinking, and some level of deconstructionism that takes place. That was even true of the Protestant Reformation. I saw it myself in the Jesus Movement of the sixties and seventies in the U.S. While there are some distinct differences, astute observers see many interesting similarities to today.

As to the increasing chorus of “critics,” not all are “thoughtful” in my estimation. I am fearful that way to many of these critics may be throwing the baby out with the proverbial bathwater. While attacking one aspect or another of the emerging church, they may be missing the bigger missiological picture.

What God is undoubtedly doing is raising up, on the cultural fringes, a new generation of people who are faithfully and wholeheartedly followers of Jesus and true to historic, biblical orthodoxy but committed to living that out in an increasingly secular, postmodern world. From my experience, what is most unsettling to the traditional establishment is not primarily the theological nuances but forms and ecclesiological expressions that are outside the acceptable box. While some would attack the emerging church on theological grounds, my suspicion is the real backlash is primarily cultural.

Unfortunately, too much of the response from the established evangelical world to what God is doing in the “emerging church movement” is akin to a mother eating its young. I cannot help but believe that this grieves God.

]]> By: Gad Fly http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-20866 Gad Fly Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:10:09 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-20866 Sam, Though your blog claims that "reality may not be as it appears on the surface", you seem to have an infatuation with emergent ecclesiastical expressions without critically analyzing what's below the surface of its theology. Perhaps you have done so already, in which case I invite you to point me in that direction. In particular, I would appreciate hearing your response to thoughtful critics of the emergent church such as DA Carson, David Wells, Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll (who used to hang with McLaren in the emergent scene). Thank you. Sam,
Though your blog claims that “reality may not be as it appears on the surface”, you seem to have an infatuation with emergent ecclesiastical expressions without critically analyzing what’s below the surface of its theology. Perhaps you have done so already, in which case I invite you to point me in that direction. In particular, I would appreciate hearing your response to thoughtful critics of the emergent church such as DA Carson, David Wells, Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll (who used to hang with McLaren in the emergent scene). Thank you.

]]> By: makeesha http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19442 makeesha Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:58:18 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19442 yeah, I know it wasn't us, but you're right, there are far too many people like us who will read that and say "man, that sounds just like our experience" yeah, I know it wasn’t us, but you’re right, there are far too many people like us who will read that and say “man, that sounds just like our experience”

]]> By: Sam http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19436 Sam Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:51:46 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19436 Makeesha, it wasn't about you guys ...someone else, although from what I've heard about your situation, it is eerily similar. The tragedy is that there are way too many people who will read this story and identify with such abuse. But those same folks can be encouraged because they are definitely not alone. Makeesha, it wasn’t about you guys …someone else, although from what I’ve heard about your situation, it is eerily similar. The tragedy is that there are way too many people who will read this story and identify with such abuse. But those same folks can be encouraged because they are definitely not alone.

]]> By: David http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19429 David Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:57:10 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19429 Preach it! I'm glad we have found good company to come along side of. :-) Preach it! I’m glad we have found good company to come along side of. :-)

]]> By: Makeesha http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19428 Makeesha Fri, 31 Aug 2007 04:52:31 +0000 http://www.undertheiceberg.com/2007/08/30/the-dysfunctional-status-quo/#comment-19428 wow, that was creepy - if I didn't know better I'd think you were talking about us....I'm not sure whether to be encouraged or sad hehe wow, that was creepy – if I didn’t know better I’d think you were talking about us….I’m not sure whether to be encouraged or sad hehe

]]>