tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post115894929943962218..comments2023-10-02T06:59:48.447-04:00Comments on faithmaps blog: Is the Distinction between "Emerging Church" and "Emergent" Obscurantist?Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-68715779998831717522007-05-11T10:15:00.000-04:002007-05-11T10:15:00.000-04:00If we consider Mark Driscoll in any way 'emerging'...If we consider Mark Driscoll in any way 'emerging' (if we consider 'missional' as a sub-category of 'emerging' then he would definitely be part of the movement), as he is definitely seeking to minister to a post-modern culture, given the size of Acts 29 Network, I'd say that automatically sways the balance of the 'emerging movement' towards traditional theology (even though it's expression may be culturally liberal), and away from liberalism/revisionism. I consider myself emerging/missional, yet not 'emergent'/emergentvillage, being influenced greatly by the ideas of Stetzer, Driscoll, Chandler, McManus, Radical Orthodoxy, and even somewhat by Rob Bell - but being fairly cautious of folks like McLaren and his camp. My experience has been that the majority of the 'emerging church' folk are less revisionist than those who are the most outspoken, like emergentvillage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159591464253270722006-09-30T00:44:00.000-04:002006-09-30T00:44:00.000-04:00LOL!Now you might know why I bypass all of this an...LOL!<BR/><BR/>Now you might know why I bypass all of this and use "emerging thought" as it is more the information being relayed than an identifier. To me it has been "emerging church" for all, and "Emergent" as the ones that are trying to get organized... which is not a bad thing. <BR/><BR/>I love that Steve Taylor reminded us that we are using UScentric goggles! That is rich and something we all (US and outside) need to have TONS of GRACE AND MERCY with each other over... <BR/><BR/>Again, though it is the combined unity of all of our "emerging thought" that seems to make us different from the mainstream... don't you think? The freedom to explore and define, then redifine... to add structure then take it away... in a way, to "play" with/in our faith in Christ. To be human and explore eternal possibilities that really are beyond our own grasp... To exchange my "story" and live in His, and share that with you... to see were we meet, and don't meet, yet share grace and mercy and love in our shared knowledge/ignorance... without shame!?!<BR/><BR/>I am rambling a bit here i know. Yet, as we pool our thoughts it enriches us all... it edifies and builds us up. <BR/><BR/>Like a new thought, be it inspired, caught, taught, the "emerging church" will grow and emerge from under the detritus of past theologies, and as long as we seek to stay connected to the Head... we will find unity as Jesus spoke of in John 17.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>iggyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08894632401827590745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159395486803150012006-09-27T18:18:00.000-04:002006-09-27T18:18:00.000-04:00"It should be a lot of easier if emergent just cha..."It should be a lot of easier if emergent just changed their name."<BR/><BR/>LOL -- don't get Bob Hyatt going on that one; he's been saying this for months!!Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14507750513253177476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159386982252145152006-09-27T15:56:00.000-04:002006-09-27T15:56:00.000-04:00No Worries. Relpy at your leisure.After reading a...No Worries. Relpy at your leisure.<BR/>After reading all the comments, I'm specifically speaking of the "emerging church" (at least in the U.S.) independent of "emergent."<BR/><BR/>It should be a lot of easier if emergent just changed their name. LOL.A.O. Floreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13919270616682396333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159364375205513142006-09-27T09:39:00.000-04:002006-09-27T09:39:00.000-04:00aaron,I haven't missed your comment - I'll get bac...aaron,<BR/><BR/>I haven't missed your comment - I'll get back to it! Thank you!<BR/><BR/>Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for the dialogue. <BR/><BR/>you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"You are using a theological one to try to define emerging and emergent; and then to try and say that based on numbers and nuance, the distinctions are "obscurantist." In saying this, you are using ideas ie theology, to remove difference."<BR/><BR/>Not quite. I have been a long-time advocate that there is most definitely a difference between the two (along with jason clark in the uk and others in the states)within the United States. My concern was that within the US, however, the two are popularly used interchangeably. I suspect that is what you've been reacting against and I understand. Let me affirm clearly that I do not believe that the emerging church conversation is limited to the United States. <BR/><BR/>you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"And then a secondary issue emergeddis; that the use of ideas; ie theology; is often a tool used by dominant groups to remove voice and difference. You ask for an example - women and submission - would be one. The use of Scripture and hermenuetics becomes a game played (by males) that often marginalises. So ideas are used to remove voice. The Bible is used to enforce silence."<BR/><BR/>THanks for the example. I believe that the pretext for unorthodox and orthodox beliefs can be used oppressively. <BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/>"I got hot under the collar cos firstly because to reduce emerging vs emergent to theological ideas alone ignores context "<BR/><BR/>Yes, I think your complaint here was legitimate. I really was thinking about the North American context and I can see how my suggestion (which was not my preference at all) that we should just treat "emerging church" and "emergent" as synonymous then collapses the worldwise emerging church conversation down to what's happening at emergent village. Steve, I apologize for this and will post a separate clarification post. Thank you for making noise about this and you were right to do so.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159351456853612842006-09-27T06:04:00.000-04:002006-09-27T06:04:00.000-04:00Stephen, I suspect we are using totally different ...Stephen, I suspect we are using totally different lens. You are using a theological one to try to define emerging and emergent; and then to try and say that based on numbers and nuance, the distinctions are "obscurantist." In saying this, you are using ideas ie theology, to remove difference.<BR/><BR/>I responded initially to that by saying that from where I sit, the differences are contextual; ie there are lots of people exploring faith in postmodernity who have very little connection with "emergent."<BR/><BR/>And then a secondary issue emergeddis; that the use of ideas; ie theology; is often a tool used by dominant groups to remove voice and difference. You ask for an example - women and submission - would be one. The use of Scripture and hermenuetics becomes a game played (by males) that often marginalises. So ideas are used to remove voice. The Bible is used to enforce silence.<BR/><BR/>(It does this at a range of levels - men think in certain ways and argue in those ways and that can be exclusive; men are more likely to go to seminary, so have more Bible tools to reinforce their alleged hermeneutics etc). <BR/><BR/>Don't know whether that helps. I got hot under the collar cos firstly because to reduce emerging vs emergent to theological ideas alone ignores context (hugely ironic given that the whole postmodern question is about context; the role of culture and gospel); and secondly that your reply to me in terms of saying you were just theological, merely reinforced the way that theology was ignoring context.<BR/><BR/>does that help?<BR/><BR/>steve<BR/>emergentkiwiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159328964996824272006-09-26T23:49:00.000-04:002006-09-26T23:49:00.000-04:00Steve,I fear we're talking past each other. See b...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I fear we're talking past each other. See below<BR/><BR/>On 9/26/06, Steve Taylor wrote:<BR/><BR/> post it if you want ...<BR/><BR/> my response to your comment is this:<BR/><BR/> i appreciate that you wanted to listen to me. i think it is important<BR/> to note that it is a classic colonial response to say 'i was just<BR/> talking theologically.' How I read that is "the big ideas ie theology<BR/> can and are being used in a way that squeezes out the perspective of<BR/> those outside the US."<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry; I'm sort of lost here. Can you parse this out a bit more? Might you give me an example of what you're talking about relevant to the theological topics being discussed (homosexuality, hell, penal substitution, etc)?<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/> Colonisers have a great history of using their ideas and their<BR/> definitions and their academic revisions to silence the Other.<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Ah, Foucault! Ok, I'm listening.<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/> There are thousands of people and hundreds of countries outside the US<BR/> that would consider EmergentUS only one of many, many dialogue partners.<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Yes.<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/> Sure it's co-opted US$ to produce books (mine included - I'm the author<BR/> of Out of Bounds Church? and I am constantly amazed that a US publisher<BR/> would accept my manuscript and fiurther, would even let me keep all my<BR/> indigenous examples) and thus to dominate the conversation. Again,<BR/> typical US use of technology and power and resource. But why does that<BR/> mean that the hundreds of countries outside the US need to have our<BR/> Christ-following conversations defined or revised or theologically<BR/> messed with?<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>I got a little lost again on the last sentence. Not sure if this question I'm about to ask quite addresses your concern. The doctrines being challenged were codified in Europe (right? - I'm thinking Westminster Confession of Faith, and the other Reformed era Creeds) so .... Not getting the American part in terms of theology. Can you help me? I want to understand and I don't think I do. I'm not sure we disagree.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159328266271995862006-09-26T23:37:00.001-04:002006-09-26T23:37:00.001-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159328228215191432006-09-26T23:37:00.000-04:002006-09-26T23:37:00.000-04:00from Steve Taylor in response to above:my response...from Steve Taylor in response to above:<BR/><BR/>my response to your comment is this:<BR/><BR/>i appreciate that you wanted to listen to me. i think it is important<BR/>to note that it is a classic colonial response to say 'i was just<BR/>talking theologically.' How I read that is "the big ideas ie theology<BR/>can and are being used in a way that squeezes out the perspective of<BR/>those outside the US."<BR/><BR/>Colonisers have a great history of using their ideas and their<BR/>definitions and their academic revisions to silence the Other.<BR/><BR/>There are thousands of people and hundreds of countries outside the US<BR/>that would consider EmergentUS only one of many, many dialogue partners.<BR/>Sure it's co-opted US$ to produce books (mine included - I'm the author<BR/>of Out of Bounds Church? and I am constantly amazed that a US publisher<BR/>would accept my manuscript and fiurther, would even let me keep all my<BR/>indigenous examples) and thus to dominate the conversation. Again,<BR/>typical US use of technology and power and resource. But why does that<BR/>mean that the hundreds of countries outside the US need to have our<BR/>Christ-following conversations defined or revised or theologically<BR/>messed with?Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159328171185733632006-09-26T23:36:00.000-04:002006-09-26T23:36:00.000-04:00steve taylor gave me permission to post this email...steve taylor gave me permission to post this email exchange here:<BR/><BR/>Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for responding. Pls see below.<BR/><BR/>On 9/26/06, Steve Taylor wrote:<BR/><BR/><BR/> emergent is a US organisation.<BR/> emerging is used to describe life outside that US organisation. That<BR/> includes the rest of the world. That rest of the world actually feels it<BR/> has some place in the body of Christ.<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Please believe me when I tell you that I have never heard these two terms differentiated that way. I consider "emergent" as applying to emergent village and that to be a subset of the "emerging church" which I consider to include the US and the rest of the world. I've never heard "emerging church" as primarily representing the conversation internationally while "emergent" represents the term in the US. I always understood "emerging church" as denoting the conversation wherever it occurred irrespective of nationality. Am I understanding you correctly here?<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/> To quote from A-team (yes an unlikely source):<BR/><BR/> "Emerging" refers to any church or Christian who takes into<BR/> consideration the cultural context in which they minister, regardless of<BR/> spatial or temporal location. In other words, a church does not need to<BR/> be North American and dealing with postmodernism in order to be<BR/> "emerging." .... "Emergent" refers to a specific group of individuals<BR/> and churches within the contemporary emerging church that have formed an<BR/> organization < http://www.emergentvillage.com/Site/index.htm> to promote<BR/> certain ecclesiastical changes within the North American postmodern<BR/> context."<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Ok, I think I see what you're saying. What I'm trying to say is that within the US there are emerging church folks who do not consider themselves "emergent." This is mostly because of emergent's tendancy to do theological reformulation though some may have some other reasons.<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/> So when you dismiss the significance of emerging church, as you did on<BR/> your blog, I hear you a continuation of the UScentric outlook that<BR/> typifies so much US attitude to things (including Christian) outside<BR/> your context,<BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/>Ok, I'm missing you here. I don't mean to dismiss its significance...wait..... Ok, ok, ok, I think I might be getting you here. So when I say should we should just give up on differentiating "emergent" and "emerging church" to you that means that we should say the whole thing's American! Ok, I get you now. No, that's not what I was trying to say. You see, I wasn't really intentionally limiting my understanding of "emergent" to just the States. Chalke, for example, would be more emergent in the way I was using the term. But, you might correctly counter, the term "emergent" originated with the "emergent village' and is therefore American. I hear you and that's fair. But please understand that it was not the American feature of the term I was focusing on, it was the theological revisionism I was focusing on. <BR/><BR/>And - further - please also understand that I consider myself part of the emerging church! It's just that more and more, it seem that you can't be considered a part of the emerging church unless you're a theological revisionist, In fact, if you want to get the exact gist of what I was blogging about, read "theological revisionist" every time you read the term "emergent" and you'll catch my sense exactly.<BR/><BR/>Does that make more sense?<BR/><BR/>And - because you have brought up a very important distinction that I simply was not thinking of at all (which I am willing to admit might be very typically American of me) I would like to post this entire email in comments so that others might see this interchange. Is that ok with you? <BR/><BR/>Further, feel free to just say yes and then post your response to this note here. Your perspective on this needs to be heard and I appreciate it. <BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I seem to be getting more agreement and response from my international readers than from my domestic readers!<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/><BR/> my response probably reads as harsh. i don't know how to make it<BR/> lighter. it should not be read as personal. <BR/><BR/>Stephen:<BR/><BR/><BR/>No, I'm ok. I think I see where you were coming from. You saw me as depreciating the international emerging church when I really wasn't attempting to make any kind of national/international comment at all. I really was just talking about theological revisionism.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159325819877678332006-09-26T22:56:00.000-04:002006-09-26T22:56:00.000-04:00Stephen, you asked:Are non-revisionist emerging ch...Stephen, you asked:<BR/><BR/><I>Are non-revisionist emerging church conversation participants so rare and so far away from the emerging church mainstream, that they just confuse people by claiming to be emerging church at all?</I><BR/><BR/>Missional is one of vMemes (a value gene that comprises a culture) of the American emerging church. A high percentage of individuals attracted to the values of the emerging church culture are seeking something missional. This missional value is greater than the value to revise theology and I would venture to say that the latter is not all that salient of ec in the U.S. <A HREF="http://thevoiz.typepad.com/weblog/2006/09/to_be_or_not_to.html" REL="nofollow">More.</A>A.O. Floreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13919270616682396333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159312779825793402006-09-26T19:19:00.001-04:002006-09-26T19:19:00.001-04:00jamie,thanks for your post! I'll take a look.jamie,<BR/><BR/>thanks for your post! I'll take a look.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159312749212492342006-09-26T19:19:00.000-04:002006-09-26T19:19:00.000-04:00hi steve!there may be a lack of international ec v...hi steve!<BR/><BR/>there may be a lack of international ec voices in the us ec but you're the third country to show up so far in comments to this post! :)<BR/><BR/>but i do need some help with your comment because I'm not following you. are you saying that outside of the us, international ec participants use "emergent" to denote all US emerging church folks and use "emerging church" to refer to the worldwide phenomenon? Is that what you're saying?<BR/><BR/>and - if i'm tracking with you - the wiki commenter, I believe, was talking about the ... if I can use this term ... non-emergent emerging church folks with his comment. I don't think he was equating "emerging church" with all those participating in the world. <BR/><BR/>but pls say more so that we can understanding what you're saying.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159308693355174502006-09-26T18:11:00.000-04:002006-09-26T18:11:00.000-04:00The distinction between emergent and emerging is a...The distinction between emergent and emerging is a way those of us outside the US have used to maintain some sort of voice in the conversation. So I'm saddened by this conversation. <BR/><BR/>"the size and distinction of that group is small enough that it does not warrant its own article". <BR/><BR/>How many countries are there outside the US that now longer warrant a mention?<BR/><BR/>steve taylor<BR/>blogging at emergentkiwi.org.nz<BR/>(idealistically dreaming that a non-US voice would be welcome at an emerging table)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159299105896662832006-09-26T15:31:00.000-04:002006-09-26T15:31:00.000-04:00Stephen,I just posted on the taxonomy question ove...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>I just posted on the taxonomy question over at my blog. Just FYI.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>JamieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159279039862757572006-09-26T09:57:00.000-04:002006-09-26T09:57:00.000-04:00jamie,adam's mandate to name the animals and ec no...jamie,<BR/><BR/>adam's mandate to name the animals and ec nomenclature. *that's* a fascinating connection! i'll look forward to any further thoughts you have on that!<BR/><BR/>thanks,Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159278530119625332006-09-26T09:48:00.000-04:002006-09-26T09:48:00.000-04:00Stephen,I share you frustration, at times, with ta...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>I share you frustration, at times, with taxonomy being an issue. Then again, I can't help but think that this is a part of our nature- in a good way. Consider Adam's first task from God. I'll have to think about it more.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>JamieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159233811026397332006-09-25T21:23:00.000-04:002006-09-25T21:23:00.000-04:00hi jamie,ok i follow. [sigh] sadly, it does make...hi jamie,<BR/><BR/>ok i follow. [sigh] sadly, it does make sense. <BR/><BR/>it'll be interesting to see how it playes out. i'm frankly getting tired of feeling like every time I talk about "emerging church" i have to launch into a taxonomy discussion. i fear it's becoming a distraction.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159233638343796622006-09-25T21:20:00.000-04:002006-09-25T21:20:00.000-04:00hi leighton,one of the things that's fascinated me...hi leighton,<BR/><BR/>one of the things that's fascinated me has been the canadian-australian alignment i've been seeing in the ec. i believe i first learned about one of my new heroes - <BR/><A HREF="http://faithmaps.blogspot.com/2006/07/new-book-by-mike-frost.html" REL="nofollow">mike frost </A>- from the ever impressive <A HREF="http://www.jordoncooper.com" REL="nofollow">joron cooper</A>. And the resonance between the two countries seems to be around the missional concept.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159233358997591342006-09-25T21:15:00.000-04:002006-09-25T21:15:00.000-04:00hi iggy,i like the contrast betw 2 Tim 1:13,14 and...hi iggy,<BR/><BR/>i like the contrast betw 2 Tim 1:13,14 and "doctrines of man." valid, I think. <BR/><BR/>i'm not really directing the following comment to you, iggy:<BR/><BR/>one of the things I've seen in ec has been - imo - a disregarding of the proper contexts for questioning. example: it's one thing for a believer to share disturbing thoughts she has about the trinity with a friend or for a new christian to express concerns ab the trinity to his mentor. it's quite another for a pastor to reveal his doubts in the pulpit.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10238745383108764223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159197493846335192006-09-25T11:18:00.000-04:002006-09-25T11:18:00.000-04:00Stephen,What I meant by that comment was that fewe...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>What I meant by that comment was that fewer people will have the time or energy to argue for a more broad definition of emerging/emergent and rather opt for other terminology (i.e. missional). As a result, it will look like there is an increasing consistancy about what emerging/emergent means, when it might have more to do with fewer people identifying with it. Does that make more sense?<BR/><BR/>While I agree with you that the information world is largely levelling off, I am not convinced that it is playing out that way in practice. The fact is that American's (generally) are a more daring, vocal and innovative people- something they should be proud of, thus this is not a critique- but as a result the amount of time, energy & resources being invested into the American conversation gives it a powerful edge, especially where those outside the conversation looking in are concerned.<BR/><BR/>Again, this isn't to fault the US, but rather acknowledge the realities of a given culture & context.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>JamieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159161763464062392006-09-25T01:22:00.000-04:002006-09-25T01:22:00.000-04:00My trip to Australia a little while ago revealed t...My trip to Australia a little while ago revealed to me most of the Forge crowd would be in the reconstructionist camp. <BR/><BR/>In era of the reformation the label Anabaptist applied to any ragtag group of state church dissidents. I think the EC is very similar. <BR/>As things mature we will see a splintering. I think the only thing that has kept the peace is a tentative humility around theological issues. Eventually those that affirm core orthodox doctrine are going to say to those who don't "you have invented a new religion. We aren't in the same league let alone the same ball game."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159131371360507842006-09-24T16:56:00.000-04:002006-09-24T16:56:00.000-04:00Stephen,It is not that: "unless you're open to cha...Stephen,<BR/><BR/>It is not that: "unless you're open to changing your theology, you can't be emerging."<BR/><BR/>What I am proposing is more in line with:<BR/><BR/>Are we really protecting sound authentic doctrine as in 2 Tim 1:13,14 or are we protecting “doctrines of man”. When I was just a wee little “Postmodern Christian”, I was attacked for even questioning doctrines… Especially the Trinity, Christianity as the only way to salvation, and for looking into the possibility “Mid Tribulation” or worse that I may believe there is no Rapture at all! <BR/><BR/>To even question was to be a heretic… at least in the circle I was in. <BR/><BR/>To be free to question is to realize that we are truly FREE, and that God, is big enough for our questions, that He is not afraid of them is to be able to allow God to freely move and teach by His Spirit without out involvement that can usually hinder or confuse.<BR/><BR/>What I am proposing is not that we throw out the systems to study, but that we do not then try to contain God within our finite systems. If there is a shibboleth it would be that one must be open that others can question their structure, and those who are mature (this of course is not some type of “growth chart”) who understand that growth does not always come with having the answer given or to give, but in the asking and seeking. <BR/><BR/>Once in Christ,(which is both a line in the sand and not at the same time) I see it is not in drawing lines in the sand saying you are in and you are out… but that we are on a journey, and some may decide to stop and say they are content with a “system” and other have decided that that “system” is not enough both giving grace to let each other grow (1 Cor 3:6) at their own pace as God grows them. I see that the line that IS drawn is usually from the outside (outside emerging thought) by those who have decided to stay within the system, be it an institution, theology, or whatever. <BR/><BR/>I think that it is rising above “shibboleths” in that we try to define ourselves and let God define us… in that we receive our true identities. It is moving from the “seen” to those things of faith. (2 Corinthians 4: 18, 5: 7)<BR/><BR/>To me it is fulfilling 2 Cor 13: 5. Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test. NIV If one stays static and is unable to change, then they have at least to me "defined themselves" before they have received that name that only Jesus will call us. (Rev 2:17)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>iggyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08894632401827590745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159070079755825142006-09-23T23:54:00.000-04:002006-09-23T23:54:00.000-04:00I struggle with these distinctions.But its fun to ...I struggle with these distinctions.<BR/><BR/>But its fun to try to figure it out.Missional Jerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496760677134661370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591706.post-1159049355738830032006-09-23T18:09:00.000-04:002006-09-23T18:09:00.000-04:00Stephen, Distinctions are important where identity...Stephen, <BR/><BR/>Distinctions are important where identity is concerned, I would argue. And, on a certain level, clarity of terms is essential for genuine conversation. But, where dialogue is really going to take place progressively, it will be in the space of Christian friendship (in the instance). The distinction is important for the reason Jamie mentions as well, considering the international scope of the movement, which may define itself differently from the American one. As I Canadian I certainly hesitate from being affiliated to EV in an direct way, and it is for precise reasons related to the terms in question. And we can work on your ethnocentrism at our next Doube T meeting, Stephen! ;) (I'll bring some Ketchup chips & poutine!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com