1) I completely reject any mentality that believes that the way to reach a postmodern generation is to become postmodern. The only message for the church to give to a postmodern world is that postmodernism is unbiblical, followed by the gospel. I say this from the perspective that a person cannot be postmodern, and a Christian simultaneously; for if they were, they would not be able to affirm biblical truth, state that Jesus is the truth and the only way, or even that they are “truly” a sinner. A postmodern worldview should be shed after conversion, and to try and make the church postmodern so they will feel more comfortable with the cross is unbiblical. When emergent leaders refuse to state that homosexuality is sin, that hell is a real place of eternal torment, etc…, they are no longer a Christian – in any camp. They are simply scattering, rather than gathering, because their message is no longer Christian.

2) The church does need to be careful to remain as the scriptures describe church and its order and ordinances. In addition, it must remain completely passionate and unwavering in its preaching of the Word of God, without sugar-coating, or softening the message in any way – it must be the crux of the gathering.

3) Having said that…if a church wants to remove the pulpit, and put in couches rather than chairs or pews…I have no scriptural basis to speak against that…as long as the Word of God is completely and fully preached! The whole council of God!

SE Wilson

Hope you are well and blessed these days.

Your in-depth series defending sola Scriptura has just been brought to my attention by one Ken Temple (a Baptist pastor), on my blog. I’ve looked it over and it looks like it a very respectable piece of work indeed.

I’d like to critique it at length, from my Catholic perspective. Perhaps you and your readers would enjoy interacting as I go along, either here or on my blog, or in both places. You’re all most welcome on mine, and will be treated with respect. Ken just implied (and not just as a joke) that Catholics are mentally ill because we believe in the infallibility of the Church, but that’s okay; we have a lot of fun and tease each other, and he can be a very entertaining guy.

I eagerly look forward to dialoguing with you (if you want to) and interacting with your series. It’s refreshing to see a vigorous Protestant treatment of this all-important issue of authority and Holy Scripture, that is not from an anti-Catholic perspective (i.e., the position that denies that orthodox Catholics are Christians altogether).

I commend you for your thoughtfulness and zeal. I admire it, and respect the effort you have put into this. I also enjoyed our past interactions.

No promises on how soon I can do this (right now I’m working furiously on a new book of mine, trying to finish it, and it is extremely laborious), but it is on my agenda. Maybe I’ll do some sort of beginning this weekend, but my family is busy doing some things then, too. After my book is finished it will definitely be a high priority, because I regard this as a truly fundamental, presuppositional issue between Catholics and Protestants. Everything else rests (in both systems) on how we come down on this.

God bless,

Dave

I remain Evangelical of the historic variety. This simply means that I think Evangelicals need to root themselves more deeply in our historic lineage of the rest of the church. Our roots go through the Reformation, but are not in the Reformation completely.

The emerging church is, in its essence, a movement within many Christians formerly of a defined evangelical church that were not satisfied with the lack of life expression in such churches, or at least the perception of the lack thereof (as CMP noted in the article above). The emerging church especially wanted to know how to become relevant to the emerging generation, that generation which is coming up, or even presently with us. In the late 90’s, it was concerning how to reach the ‘emerging’ generation of postmodernism, though it had been around for a while. Unfortunately, the church generally takes a couple of decades to catch up to what is going on in the world. So, with that in mind, emerging church, in and of itself with that intent in mind, is not evil or bad, something to be opposed, unless we don’t want to reach the current generation.

It is just that many standard evangelicals, more of the traditional and/or mainline denominations, have been somewhat opposed to and questioned the emerging church movement because of it’s lack of defined theology as traditionally held by Christians from the ‘modernist’ era (first 5 or 6 decades of the 1900’s). You can click on that article CMP posted above, or read this one by him as well – http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/the-second-coming-of-emergers/

The gist is that emergers don’t try and empirically define every doctrine. The purpose is pursuing and loving Christ.

It is the emergent ‘village’ that has really been seen as the more liberal section/arm of this movement, though they are now seen as a separate group, as CMP noted in his chart.

I guess the next big question is not how to reach the postmodern generation, but to be praying and considering how to reach the next generation, whether we call it the post-postmodern generation or whatever.

Thanks for the chart and the comments, as always very astute and thought-provoking.

“All movements, reforms, and vitalizations meet militant antagonism at their inception. It is during this time that they further define and reinvent themselves. This is the way it has always been with every attempt to reform.”

This is not only very true, it should be expected and encouraged as a sign of a healthy maturing process. It is in a way comparable with the birth and emergence of the charismatic movment. At its inception there was a period of militant antagonism, with a large number of Christians almost believing it to be the spawn of the devil…some still do!! Yet following its growth, development and maturity, I would contend that the best of the charismatic movement has had a profound and healthy impact on the church whereas the worst aspects sometimes has to be seen (or heard!…who can forget the infamous animal noises surounding certain aspects of the “Toronto blessing”) to be believed. Similalry the best aspects of Reformed Evangelical Christianity have had a deep and profound impact on the church. The worst aspects, eg a dull formallism which successfully manages to engage the mind/intellect whilst simultaneously by-passing the heart and soul, can make a person yearn for the odd animal yelp on a really bad day!

Also there is a danger when making negative comparisons with the original Reformers, as surely they went through a very similar process themselves. There is a worrying tendency to view the Reformation and its various leaders through rose-tinted glasses, conveniently forgetting that there were as many divisions, distinctions and stormy arguments as the Reformation unfolded which make some of the fallout from today look like a stroll in the park by comparison. We only have to look at how Arminius was treated when he had the temerity to question some of the teachings of John Calvin and his later followers. I get the feeling that there are some who would not be too unhappy to see Brian McLaren meet a similar fate! My own personal view (and it is purely a personal one) is that the church needs the Arminiuses and McLarens of this world to shake up the church and rouse it from complacency, lazy theology and inflexible dogmatism. I reckon that last sentence has got folks hammering out a furious response on their keypads!

I was also very interested Michael in your take on the future implications of all this. Please could you enlighten me a bit more on the distinction between a “missional” Evangelical Christian and an “emerging revived” evangelical Christian as it would help me to locate myself more accurately on the map/chart! At present I feel as though I could apply either category to myself.

I need to tread a bit carefully here, as you may respond by coming up with a whole new category of “beyond the pale” especially for the likes of people like me!

The best I can do for an understanding of the emeging church is lead you here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/08/will-the-real-emerger-please-stand-up/

I wonder why you called Brian MacLaren a “sacrificial lamb” on the emergent side when in fact as I see it he is indicative of the internal yet present apostasy from Christianity within the liberal ranks. MacLaren reminds me of Spong!

Further you observe: “The more radical progressives continue to distance themselves from traditional Christianity.” Was this the goal of the “emerging church” to streamline and distance itself from the radical and apostate left while at the same time maintaining the historical roots and continuity of traditional historical Christianity?

Vladimir