|
Review Summary: Carson and the Emerging Church |
Date: 2007-10-10 |
|
| |
Details:
Carson does it again. This is a superbly written and insightful book. he offers fair and cogent analysis. Strongly recommended. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Another witch hunt |
Date: 2007-07-16 |
|
| |
Details: That Carson has an axe to grind is obvious. His research is limited - he looks for what he wants to find and looks no further. The use of a singular example (McLaren) as a sample shows how entirely unrepresentative his description of the emerging church is. Worse than this, Carson comes close to deliberately misrepresenting the movement by his category mistakes - attempting to portray the movements motivations as naive theological adventurism (as if George W. Bush were running the rock-show), instead of a multi-faceted attempt at greater missionary engagement with the contemporary context.
Those who wish to embark on a witch-hunt will find all the 'absolutely true, objectively factual evidence' that they need here. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Conversation transmit ideas |
Date: 2007-07-01 |
|
| |
Details: Conversation with the Emerging Church by D.A. Carson
Is the Emerging church about worship style and an approach to the same gospel, but with a different audience in mind: An attempt to make the church more welcoming and more profound worship experience: More traditional worship atmosphere and music then today's Willow Creek style churches? No auditorium feel.
People are taught a different way then a hundred years ago and people think a different way today. Does it not make sense the word should be presented for today's audience? The emerging church believes in spreading the word of God and in an active supernatural God. God does intervene through miracles. The reader of this book is given the question whether this new semiretro style of worship with a message for today's postmodern audience teaches the essential gospel or a new gospel with a different Jesus? The author argues the movement makes a compromise with the message that essentially changes the understanding of man's fallen ness and need for atonement.
This book gives scant argument about the pro's and cons of Church architecture and sanctuary style. He does give his impressions about the worship service and what he feels is wrong with it. The focus of the book is about what is written in the Bible and what is taught in these congregations. In other words is the theology of God or the creation of man? The phrase a generous orthodoxy is used. Three chapters of the book deal with postmodern and modern thought. Carson argues that the emerging church forms its thought based on the idea of encouraging the Gospel based on the idea its listeners have bought into the ideas of the postmodern. The author argues the movement has given into the ideas of the postmodern. The Emergent church defines traditional evangelical churches as Modern: the idea or concept that people generally believe in absolute truth. Carson does not argue about this or the fact it is a distortion of the modern perspective or modern academic argument has never accused the evangelical church as coming from modern philosophy. These three chapters are philosophical in nature, but not overly complicated. The final chapters are more about how this form of argument has affected the theology by quoting major ministers in the movement. Different perspective about homosexuality, man's general falleness, and man's need for an unsinful man to die on the cross for another behavior. No disagreement on Jesus being God or Man nor him dying on the cross, but the reason. Last few chapters scripture comes into the argument. The author purposely did not talk with the leaders of the movement. People who are critical of this fact should remember word of mouth conversation is only one of many ways to have a conversation. One can respond to another's sayings and writings, without ever speaking to someone is not another conversation. Besides the nature of the book was about how the church presents itself and to have back and forth conversation would distort this.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Same old Serpent vs same old Jesus. |
Date: 2007-05-09 |
|
|
| |
Details: Carson is right on the mark. The second chapter should be studied because it reflects correct methods of applying the Gospel by any Christian group. His warnings in the later chapters are to be heeded. He is far more balanced, biblical, and truthful than any of McLaren's universal, New Age books or writings.
Being very familiar with liberal and emerging churches and their theologies, I find no difference in their final apostate outcomes or in their tactic of engaging in dialog (liberal) or conversation (emerging).
The famous: Let us agree to disagree while we continue to dialog (converse) is merely a ploy to gain a compromise of the Gospel. Imagine a rapist saying to his victim, "Let us agree to disagree while we continue to fellowship." It is the same old distortion, "Did God really say...?" Inch by inch they hope to trash biblical authority, morality, and the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus gave us the answer when he said, "Unless you repent ...!!!" There isn't any other way; postmodern, modern, or ancient. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Carson's got the knowledge |
Date: 2007-04-30 |
|
| |
Details: But I believe that the contemporary discussions in this culture are greater than knowledge and epistemology.
Carson's final charge is particularly revealing and a bit condescending as he speaks to the emerging church: "They need to spend more time in careful study of Scripture and theology than they are doing, even if that takes away some of the hours they have devoted to trying to understand the culture in which they find themselves." (234) In this book there is primarily one aspect on which Carson rests his case, and it has much less to do with Scripture or theology than it does with philosophy. Throughout the book it is abundantly clear that for Carson the issues of church/Scripture/theology/culture all grow out of an epistemological issue. That is, for Carson the church must privilege knowledge. I am not suggesting that Carson discards experience or spirituality or emotional aspects of the faith. Rather, I am submitting that Carson privileges knowledge as first philosophy. For Carson it is right and correct epistemology that drives his theology and hermeneutic.
Carson does offer some helpful insights on issues related to the study of Scripture as well as the necessity of knowledge/epistemology. Yet it remains very difficult for me to get past the fact that he dichotomizes epistemology/ontology as well as propositions/experience and then proceeds to privilege epistemology, knowledge and propositions as the more sure thing for the life of faith. He takes this for granted and then proceeds to make his case against the emerging church. But I submit that what he takes for granted is precisely the point of contention. In this generation and in especially in the current cultural context the church needs to more carefully consider the place of knowledge and the place of being. Too often pop-Christian books like Carson's duck the primary issue and then spend the vast majority of pages working under a presumed assumption. This sells books, makes money for publishers, and gives us something to argue about, yet I fail to see how it advances the kingdom or cultivates a truly reflective Christian faith. Instead we become merely a reactionary church. |
| |
|
out of 47 Reviews
