Tim Samoff // Weblog (old)

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url

So this is Tony’s distillation of:


http://www.emergentvillage.com/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=33
???


Consensus? We don’t need no stinkin’ consensus!

dave paisley () (URL) - December 22, 2004 at 12:57 pm

does that fact that he (they) are disaffected with the structures and theologies mean those of structured faith are wrong. perhaps its an unpleasant reception to the Gospel. i still have yet to hear any concrete theological criticism or faults pointed out in theology before they go off and create new ones. simply saying “im not satisfied with this” doesn’t constitute a revoltion. typically, you point out the error before you fix it. “rediscovery” has taken previous reformers centuries… i’d love to have this guy on our apologetics show and hash it out.

Dennisthemenace () - December 22, 2004 at 1:28 pm

That’s a good observation, Dennis. And, in fact, Tony may be a guy who is saying that “modern” expressions of faith are “wrong” and that they should be changed — I’d wager that he’s one of the more hard-nosed about the issue, though.


Some of us, while being “disaffected” with modern institutional Christianity ( read “religion” ) don’t necessarily feel like the old ways are wrong, but moreover, that they can be learned from and improved. Emergent (as an organization) doesn’t think that their ways are “right,” just new.


In the modern sense of thinking, this is a revolution!

timsamoff () (URL) - December 22, 2004 at 1:45 pm

Christianity is revolution yes, revolution within Christianity can be heresy. thats all i’m saying. improvements are always needed but i think biblically it should be done within the church, and regionally. with votes, counsel and order. this all still sounds more like a christian fellowship, which is totally great. but not church. fellowship is different. it lacks the biblical definition of church. and thats of course another topic. perhaps thats where the conversation should begin, what is the biblical definition of a church? from there, i think my point can be better made. somewhere all the pondering, antithetical Greek thinking and well of opinions needs to come to a concrete conclusion and i see so little of that here.

Dennisthemenace () - December 22, 2004 at 2:12 pm

Umm…I never actually thanked you for your help with spamming my website. It jas made a huge difference. Now the only “junk” comments I get are about once a week and they are about losing weight or getting a credit card. No more nasty ones. Thank you and Merry Christmas!

Lydia () (URL) - December 22, 2004 at 6:07 pm

For everyone who reads Lydia’s comment… I actually helped to DE-spam her site, not spam it.

timsamoff () (URL) - December 23, 2004 at 06:04 am

Dennis~ Emergent is far from heresy (at this point). No one is calling for major doctrinal changes or anything like that… Just a different way at looking at and interpreting doctrine. (I’d elaborate on this, but there are plenty of people who already have, in case you want to look around.)

timsamoff () (URL) - December 23, 2004 at 06:05 am

im not incredibly familiar with emergent, but i do know that the church, as whole, has a lot of things a that are little off. perhaps not theologically, but at least in the way things are treated, handled, and carried out. a at least that’s been my experience. what it seems to me is not that emergent is trying start something new within christianity, but getting back to what was always supposed to be there in the first place, and perhaps was once upon a time. as for “church” and “fellowship,” i think it’s erroneous to draw a distinction between the two. they go hand in hand. fellowship does not necessarily equal church, and vice versa, but it seems to me that the elements of both are simultaneously present when they are carried out. i mean, the early church was born in and thrived on fellowship…anyways there’s a nutshell of my thoughts.

jared () - December 23, 2004 at 11:24 am

Good thoughts, Jared. I agree.

timsamoff () (URL) - December 23, 2004 at 11:28 am

i also think that “emergent” is just as vulnerable to becoming a dead and religious movement as anything else Christianity has ever experienced. Emergent is by no means the answer to the Church’s problems. That has always, and always will be, Jesus’ job. Not saying anyone’s saying otherwise, but historically people like to put their faith in movements rather than Christ, and that’s one reason so many awesome revolutions are today either non-existent or bone dry. I guess I’ve been thinking that for awhile and so there ya go.

jared () - December 23, 2004 at 11:30 am

Yeah, that’s totally true! Movements are definitely not what we should be putting our hearts behind, for sure. Christ has always — and will always — be the reason we have faith and can live His kingdom.

timsamoff () (URL) - December 23, 2004 at 11:40 am