Why We're Not Emergent by Keving Deyoung & Ted Kluck

[rossid]

Authors are Keving Deyoung and Ted Kluck.

I listened to about the last half our of Steve Deace's interview with Kevin on my way to church last night.

http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podca st=deace.xml

[mcgreen311]

Hmm...I'm actually reading a book that could probably be a counter to that called Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? by James K. A. Smith.

I admit I didn't listen to the file, but I think Smith references this book.

[VerbumReale]

Hmm...I'm actually reading a book that could probably be a counter to that called Who's Afraid of Postmodernism? by James K. A. Smith.

I admit I didn't listen to the file, but I think Smith references this book.



Why is it that anyone who is critical of postmodern thought or the emergent movement spawned by postmodern thought is always accused of being "afraid?" Why can't it be that maybe they might actually have some valid criticisms?? I know you weren't necessarily agreeing with Smith's thoughts, but title of his book is what I am responding to.

[mcgreen311]

Why is it that anyone who is critical of postmodern thought or the emergent movement spawned by postmodern thought is always accused of being "afraid?" Why can't it be that maybe they might actually have some valid criticisms?? I know you weren't necessarily agreeing with Smith's thoughts, but title of his book is what I am responding to.

I'm actually not terribly familiar with that much literature from the church regarding postmodernism, so I don't know about the "fearmongering.";) The last time I read any of this in a church-y sense was in college about 5 or 6 years ago, and I've only dealt with it secularly for other classes since then.

In any case, do that many emergent thinkers use the label of fear when addressing their subject? Off the top of my head I can't think of anything, but my experience is mostly limited to Brian McLaren.

I know that there will be criticisms of any philosophy since none of us can get it perfect, but I thought that this (the Smith book) was really good. Have you read it?

[cheewiee]

Anyone in the emergent movement would tell you, that if you wern't onboard... it would only be because of fear...;)

So I grew up , in a very Contemporary, Nondenominational/Charismatic setting.

Now, I am in a a nondenominational self described evangelical church that while not emergent, endevors to understand and be relevent to the post modern culture that is to use the term, emerging in our society.

But in all honesty, that is what the church has always done, and hopefully always do, be a voice of truth, communicating those truths using whatever cultural methods necessary.

[mcgreen311]

To further keep talking about one book in a thread about a different book ;) , I will say that while being in the middle of an Augustine class, I can see the premise Smith makes about the early church being sort of postmodern (not to argue about the whole church based on one father, though).

[cheewiee]

To further keep talking about one book in a thread about a different book ;) , I will say that while being in the middle of an Augustine class, I can see the premise Smith makes about the early church being sort of postmodern (not to argue about the whole church based on one father, though).

I think that the early church was much more organic, and dynamic, than the church of today. And in those regards it has alot more in common with the "emergent" or "post modern" church, than it does the Traditional, or contemporary church.

but I think Paul would take serious exeption to be being lumped in with those like Brian McLaren...

[Gandalf]

To further keep talking about one book in a thread about a different book ;) , I will say that while being in the middle of an Augustine class, I can see the premise Smith makes about the early church being sort of postmodern (not to argue about the whole church based on one father, though).
The hallmarks of postmodernism are subjectivism and the rejection of absolute Truth, and I can't really think of many figures further from those distinctive elements than Augustine ...
I think that the early church was much more organic, and dynamic, than the church of today. And in those regards it has alot more in common with the "emergent" or "post modern" church, than it does the Traditional, or contemporary church.

but I think Paul would take serious exeption to be being lumped in with those like Brian McLaren...
Agreed.

[mcgreen311]

The hallmarks of postmodernism are subjectivism and the rejection of absolute Truth, and I can't really think of many figures further from those distinctive elements than Augustine ...


I agree with you on the subjectivism and to an extent the rejection of absolute truth. However, the concepts I am thinking of here (specfically related to Augustine) are related to reader response/textual criticism and the inability for an author to fully communicate an "unadulterated" message to the reader, especially if the reader has a completely different cultural context.

[Gandalf]

OK ... but textual criticism and the recognition of human inability to perfectly communicate thoughts are both ideas that long predate postmodernism, and aren't what people object to about the emergent church movement ...

[mcgreen311]

OK ... but textual criticism and the recognition of human inability to perfectly communicate thoughts are both ideas that long predate postmodernism, and aren't what people object to about the emergent church movement ...

Fair enough.

[cheewiee]

The hallmarks of postmodernism are subjectivism and the rejection of absolute Truth, and I can't really think of many figures further from those distinctive elements than Augustine ...

Agreed.

Not all of what could be defined as emergent churches are truely Post Modern. Many consider Mosaic LA or Mars Hill in Seattle to be emergent.

The important thing to consider is that the "Emergent Movement" is out of a desire to deal with our culture moving from modern thought to Post modern thought.

So you have people like McManus, and Driscoll who are pretty solid thologically on the fringes of this movement, because they recognize that You cannot present the absolutes of the Gospel, using moderism to reach people who reject absolutes and embrace post-modernism.

[Gandalf]

Good point. There is a pretty big variety within "emerging" church movement - this 2007 Christianity Today article details five distinct streams (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html) within it. Those who, in the words of that article, minister as postmoderns, rather than to postmoderns, may indeed be the minority, but they definitely do get a lot of attention. This is, of course, in large part because they're more willing to abandon sound doctrine, and the other branches that are simply trying to reach people with the actual Truth are not as controversial. Paul spoke with his audiences using the philosophical frameworks of their time, but he also intentionally presented the undiluted message of the Cross, knowing it would seem foolish to them - such a combination of adherence to the Truth and accommodation in presentation is more what the theologically solid parts of the "emerging" group are after.

The stylistic stuff, has typically been called the "emerging church" while the term "emergent" comes from Brian McLaren's theological organization. There is, obviously, much confusion due to the similarity in terms. But many churches are quite willing to call themselves "emerging" because they focus on reaching unbelievers in our culture, but avoid the term "emergent" because they do not identify with the particular theological positions taken by McLaren and others.