Yup.

:)

Alan

Chris is a “breath of fresh air” around here? Does that mean the rest of us stink?

:-)

cb

Your comment in #42 is classic Big Daddy Weave style. That is the Big Daddy I love to engage. You must have been a little “under the weather” on a couple other post just recently.

Glad to see you back in top form.

:-)

cb

Your comments are always refreshing because you continually focus on Jesus and the beauty of grace and the power of the gospel. You are a breath of fresh air in the blogosphere.

I do not disagree with anything that you say here. I guess that the best way to look at what I am saying is just that I think that the gospel of the Kingdom includes all that you have said and also transformation of the individual that works its way through culture. Luke 4:18-19 is in view here as Jesus began His ministry by saying what He came to do. I guess that I see ALL of Jesus’ work as the good news of the in breaking Kingdom, not just the aspects of regeneration and justification, although that is absolutely necessary to experience the rest of what God has for us in Christ.

Of course, God performs the sanctification as well as we cooperate with Him by faith.

I too, love this conversation when it turns to a view of Christ and what He brings those adopted into His body. When you said, “I also struggle with dividing all of this up into justification and sanctification, as though any other element of the message of Jesus is optional after people confess their sins and are born again. That just does not square with Christ’s message. In pursuing this thinking, it seems that a lot of people want to be justified but not sanctified.”

Your probably right that many people do not like sanctification, and that would be because those believers that have been imputed with the righteousness of Christ are still sinners. And unless they hear the sweetness of Christ on a daily basis, they will continue to run from His sanctification. However, it is essentially important to understand that one cannot be justified without sanctification being present and continuing from the moment of regeneration. Believers are being sanctified by Christ alone in this life and sustained by Him throughout eternity! We do not sanctify ourselves. But through the freedom that Christ has brought, we now are free to obey and recognize the sanctification that He alone provides by means of the Holy Spirit applying sanctification to us.

Romans 6:22-23 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. (23) For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (14) It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I do agree that the result of sanctification grants our relationships with what only God can provide to His children to carry out the edification of the body of Christ in this world. That is a tremendous blessing.

Thank you for your insight Alan,

Blessings,
Chris

I always appreciate your comments. You asked, “Isn’t the good news only defined in Christ alone as rescuing and redeeming us from the wrath of God? Is there any other news that makes up the evangel?” I think that that is the core of the gospel, but that the gospel goes beyond that. This is what I think that Emergent is trying to get at, but they are failing miserably, in my opinion.

Ephesians 3:6-7 provides just one example: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. I became a servant of THIS GOSPEL (emphasis mine, obviously) by the gift of God’s grace given me through the working of his power.”

In this passage, we see both the vertical and horizontal aspects of the gospel. Not only did Jesus reconcile us to God, but He also reconciled us to one another in Him, even across racial divides. This happens in Christ. Jesus is the focus of the gospel, not forgiveness of sins. Of course, forgiveness is key to the gospel, because without it, we could not know God. But, in Christ, we not only come to God, but we also come together in one body. Forgiveness is essential to reconciliation, but the process of reconiliation goes beyond forgiveness, and I think that this is gospel as well. This is why it is called the gospel of the Kingdom (Matt. 24:14), not just the gospel of forgiveness of sins.

I completely, wholeheartedly believe that the atonement is at the center of the gospel and that this message must be preached. My whole point is that the gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus preached is larger than the gospel that we seem to be advocating. Maybe that is part of our problem in America. We proclaim forgiveness of sins and we leave out other aspects. We become very individualistic. In doing so, what are we calling people to repent from? Where is conviction? Where is life change? I also struggle with dividing all of this up into justification and sanctification, as though any other element of the message of Jesus is optional after people confess their sins and are born again. That just does not square with Christ’s message. In pursuing this thinking, it seems that a lot of people want to be justified but not sanctified. That doesn’t really make sense. The problem is solved when you call people to Jesus and not just a state of forgiveness. It seems that much of our preaching is Christ-less and Cross-less and it focuses more our calling people to a place of forgiveness and personal peace. Shouldn’t we be calling people to Christ? If we do so, then do we not call people to embrace all that He is? Isn’t He more than just forgiveness?

Again, I want to keep justification by faith central. But, I also think that the gospel encompasses more than just that. This is why Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom – the reign and rule of God in Him.

Good thoughts….well said.

Blessings,
Chris

Would you consider Driscoll an “Emergent Type”? Would you consider Patrick, in St.Louis an “Emergent Type”? They would say they are not Emergent Type, but they would consider themselves Emerging. There is a difference in Emergent and Emerging. Patrick does a great job giving the history on his blog. It is a great listening session. Thus, McLauren, Pagitt, and others that are within this group are the “Emergent Types” that our younger Sister Shannon was defining, it seemed, in the paper.

As to your assessment that we would agree on the Baptist Identity threat in Emergent Theology, you would be correct. Whatever you do, don’t return to Baylor and tell them that you, CB Scott, and I agree on something. They will yank your degree. :).

Blessings,
Tim

You can’t write a paper without defining your terms.

I’ve written enough to know that.

If the author had defined her terms and defined the Emergent Church as comprised solely of McLaren, Pagitt and Jones then that would have worked. But the author did not do that.

In the case of David Crowder and UBC, “postmodern” and “Emergent” are synonymous. They themselves at UBC use the terms interchangeably. I understand the difference: one can be postmodern without being Emergent. But in certain contexts (such as this one), some folks choose to use the terms interchangeably. For example, see the blog of Rick Davis. A classmate of mine when talking about all things Emergent, chooses the phrase “New Monasticism.” As to Crowder, the less you know about his theology – the more you might like him :-)

Tim,

It is true that “not everyone” believes that the old style ways of doing evangelism still works. Some do prefer to focus on building community and establishing relationships, something that doesn’t happen at a Passion Conference or a tent revival. That is preference of SOME. That’s not painting with a broad brush. I’m merely making assertions that I doubt anyone will refute.

The author used selected quotes from three men to represent a growing movement. You took those selected quotes, painted beautifully with a broad brush, and stated that her thesis was “proved” “concerning Emergent types.” I hope you will concede that the beliefs of Pagitt, Jones and McLaren do not represent all “Emergent types.” I don’t think anyone in four pages could provide enough research to make such a claim. That’s like another author writing that several Southern Baptist leaders don’t believe that women should be permitted to teach men in a seminary setting due to their theological convictions. And then you jump in and claim that the aforementioned author’s thesis was proved concerning “Southern Baptist types.” Broad Brush. Broad Brush. And inaccurate.

Actually, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a fan of McLaren and author Emergent authors because I believe that what they are selling is a threat to Baptist Identity. It’s also a threat to Methodist identity and Lutheran identity. From what I’ve read, it seems as if Emergent authors would like Christians to leave their denominational identity and heritage at the front door. That’s not my cup of tea. I bet we can find some agreement here?

As to evangelism techniques, I’m not dogmatic on this issue. What works for you is good for you. Over the years, I’m rather sure that I’ve played a role in leading some folks to Christ. But, I’ve personally done so through relationship building. I can’t do door-to-door. I’ve done it. It doesn’t work for me.

Just for the record, I am not Shannon’s official spokesdad,…. I am fairly certain she can defend her statements just fine,…and if I know her at all, she would probably not disagree with you on the majority of your post. If I have read her correctly though, she has pointed out what some are defining as the “evangel”. Some are saying that the evangel is “all of life experiences” (emergent?), while others are disagreeing with that assessment.

So, it may be safe to say that the Christian testimony starts at the center of evangelism and falls or leans along one of two directions. One way is to keep Christ front and center of the evangel, or another way is to keep Christ close enough so that when relationships get good enough, Christ can stroll into the room and save the day. The extremes get mentioned when one falls so far one direction or the other from the evangel that heresy becomes obvious. But that still does not preclude the evangel being defined.

I still believe that the evangel, which is the foundation of evangelism, is nothing more the euangelion, and that good news is articulated by scripture alone, not culture or relational endeavors. Isn’t the good news only defined in Christ alone as rescuing and redeeming us from the wrath of God? Is there any other news that makes up the evangel?

We certainly do reap numerous benefits of our standing in Christ and how the Holy Spirit sanctifies us to live peacefully in the world to love our neighbors like never before. But, am I wrong to say that the evangel is not complete in Christ alone? Maybe that is what bugs someone enamored by what they feel is emergent….

I am still trying to find out what the “Emergent” is emerging from. If they say they are emerging from a stagnant church life, or they are emerging from dead Christian orthodoxy, or they are emerging from charismatic emotionalism….then I think I might agree with them, but then I would probably call that repentance, not emergence.

Blessings,
Chris