[CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology

[dmc]

> I've just recently started really digging into this whole "emerging
> church conversation". It seems like non-emerging evangelicals tend to
> have a very poor view of emergents, but I have yet to see the
> non-emergent criticism present an accurate view of emergents in their
> critique. Meaning, it looks like from my study so far that emergents are
> being blindly swatted at by non-emergents.

I do not have the time, at the moment, to present
a point-by-point critique.

My brother is very enamored with the emergent church
movement and I have read some of the writings and he
and I have discussed it at some length.

It is, in general, theologically sloppy and often
leans toward a social justice/politically correct/
Crystal Cathedral "only the nice sounding stuff",
compromise-to-grow philosophy.

> Anyway, as Ed's approach to this opensourcetheology.net site
> demonstrates, there is benefit in reading outside our personal beliefs.
> I think there is a issue with many who only read what they will agree
> with them, but don't allow their own views to be challenged by those who
> may sit in opposition.

I am equally critical of the sloppy theology found in
many mainline churches, Roman Catholicism, Arminianism,
Calvinism, Reformed, the charismatic/pentecostal movement,
and evangelicalism.

Human preference and tradition are too often mistaken
for and promoted as Biblically-equivalent truth.

In considering the emergent church movement proposals
I find some things with which I agree and some with
which I do not -- mostly from a clear Biblical perspective
and some from psychological/sociological and strategic
perspectives.

It is also interesting that many in the emergent church
movement are as unteachable as those from whom they
wish to differentiate.

Fallenness ... doc