Welcome
Welcome to Running With Rocks and Paper, the personal web site of Connor Carney. Everything here (content, graphics, and design) is Connor's original work.

Unless it shows up in a quote box. The things in the quote boxes are quotes.
IM + Twitter
    Links

    Reading Ahead

    Only MeIn My Own WordsMisc. Web Sites

    Calendar
    March 2010
    Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
     << <   > >>
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31      
    Show/Hide Categories
    Search
    Search
    Registration
    Other Stuff
    Syndicate this blog XML What is RSS?
    Just in case you didn't figure it out, everything here is ©2004 Connor Carney.
     

    Matt at From the Morning interviews staunch "emerging church" opponent Frank Turk. This is an interesting interview, since the questions are definitely geared towards people in the emergent way of thinking. Turk, while I have several points of disagreement with him, takes the opportunity to make some very astute observations. Here's my favorite:

    Emergent Interviews: Frank Turk:
    The Gospel is still the Gospel when we are sick unto death ? and it is perhaps the most crucial time in which people need to reckon with the Gospel. May God forbid that we ever fail to deliver the Gospel because someone is apparently too sick or hurt to hear it.

    But that, to me, is the epitome of Emergent thinking. Yes, we have this thing which is a very nice story, but if you're sick it might offend you; if you find out it means a costly change in your life, it might offend you; if it turns out that it says you aren't fine just the way you are, it might offend you ? and if it offends you, we are going to postpone its preaching until you're not going to be offended.

    That's not liberalism: that's spiritual cowardice. It's the seeker movement gone to its logical and completely-false end.

    To some degree, I think Turk's criticism is mistargeted -- that is, some of the views he is criticizing do exist (possibly even within Emergent), and are a problem, but are neither defining nor representative of what emerging christianity is. On the other hand, it seems that even people who identify with "emerging christianity" have trouble defining what, exactly, it is. I'll try to write more about that later...


     

    Comments:


    Comments:

    I will not take the criticism "neither defining nor representative of what emerging christianity is" seriously until the person giving that criticism can bother to define emerging Christianity.

    One of the most pervasive problems with atheists (stick with me here) is that they constantly -- and by constantly, I mean "every time they open their mouths" -- misunderstand or misrepresent the Gospel. Now, as a guy who is apologetically inclined, I love to say, "that comment is neither defining nor representative of what the Gospel says," but then I define the Gospel to clear it up.

    Clear it up for me. If I am wrong and you guys are the new Puritans, I'll admit it. But if I'm right, you giuys have more than a lot of 'splainin' to do: you have a serious internal problem to which you are completely blind.
    Comment from centuri0n [Visitor] · http://centuri0n.blogspot.com
    09/02/06, 22:28


    Centuri0n,

    I've never been completely sure what exactly was meant by "emerging church," which is why I've never described myself that way (in fact, I would be kind of surprised if more than a handful of people at my church had ever even heard the term used -- so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "you guys."

    That said, Frank's criticism seems to be directed more at liberal theology than at the emerging church -- the term "emerging" with respect to religion is typically used to describe a method rather than a theology (again, I'm not exatly certain of what method). The point is that the same method applied to literalist theology is no less "emergent" as when applied to liberal theology.

    I think that people hear assertions like "the emerging church isn't about theology" and interpret that as "emerging churches don't care about theology." This isn't true; it's just that emerging methods -- of reasoning, of relating to people, and of putting one's theology into practice -- can be used across a wide variety of theologies.

    I don't doubt that many people who use the term are more theologically liberal than you or Mr. Turk -- certainly not "the new puritans". The thing is, so are most mainline denominations and a significant chunk of evangelical christians. What you are arguing against is not the emerging church -- it is the much larger issue of theological liberalism, which is pretty much orthogonal to the question of emerging vs. non-emerging.
    Comment from Connor Carney [Member] Email · http://www.rocksandpaper.com/
    09/04/06, 22:18


    Leave a comment:

    Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
    Your URL will be displayed.
    Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
    Options:
     
    (Line breaks become <br />)
    (Set cookies for name, email & url)
    Enter code: