[CS-FSLUG] Open Source Theology

dmc edoc7 at verizon.net
Tue Jun 13 19:34:28 CDT 2006

> 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

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

Fallenness ... doc

More information about the Christiansource mailing list