Comments on: A Response to Roger (Questions on my review of “The Truth War”) http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war ...dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:52:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Paul http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-87883 Paul Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:52:43 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-87883 Wow. I like the study and level headedness that went into this blog. It's measured, careful and thorough in many ways. I think we would all do well to continue to examine the fruit from the postmodernist trees, because that will tell us much about whether there is good in it. We shouldn't forget in this process to also examine the roots. If they are bad then we know the fruit will be bad. So, if we see good fruit, as with Driscoll, we know there is something he is doing fundamentally right, however much we may disagree with any postmodernism influence in his belief system. On the other hand, when we look at the tenets of postmodernism itself, where it started, the roots, its initial proponents, I think we will be shocked by its utter relativism, secularism, denial of absolute truth and amorality. Why should such a philosophy inspire us? How should Derrida, for example, bring us closer to God? Only in the most indirect way should secular critics and philosophers change our way of thinking. And then, only to cause self-examination and bring us back to our true roots, the Bible and New Testament Christianity. All good reformations and revivals hold this element in common. We will never "move on" from New Testament Christianity. Wow. I like the study and level headedness that went into this blog. It’s measured, careful and thorough in many ways.

I think we would all do well to continue to examine the fruit from the postmodernist trees, because that will tell us much about whether there is good in it.

We shouldn’t forget in this process to also examine the roots. If they are bad then we know the fruit will be bad. So, if we see good fruit, as with Driscoll, we know there is something he is doing fundamentally right, however much we may disagree with any postmodernism influence in his belief system.

On the other hand, when we look at the tenets of postmodernism itself, where it started, the roots, its initial proponents, I think we will be shocked by its utter relativism, secularism, denial of absolute truth and amorality. Why should such a philosophy inspire us? How should Derrida, for example, bring us closer to God?

Only in the most indirect way should secular critics and philosophers change our way of thinking. And then, only to cause self-examination and bring us back to our true roots, the Bible and New Testament Christianity. All good reformations and revivals hold this element in common. We will never “move on” from New Testament Christianity.

]]> By: Kyle Potter http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81958 Kyle Potter Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:22:36 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81958 I get very tired of blog pundits who forget that "postmodernity" means <i>after modernity</i>. I don't think it's possible to offer blanket criticisms of whatever version of "postmodernity" without implicitly accepting the controlling narratives of modernity. It's about modernity, and how dead it is or is not, and what we are to do, and how we are to live and speak <i>after</i> that. Michael, have you heard Tom Wright's comment about how "postmodernity preaches the doctrine of the Fall to arrogant modernity"? I love it. Nice post. Blessings. I get very tired of blog pundits who forget that “postmodernity” means after modernity. I don’t think it’s possible to offer blanket criticisms of whatever version of “postmodernity” without implicitly accepting the controlling narratives of modernity.

It’s about modernity, and how dead it is or is not, and what we are to do, and how we are to live and speak after that.

Michael, have you heard Tom Wright’s comment about how “postmodernity preaches the doctrine of the Fall to arrogant modernity”?

I love it.

Nice post. Blessings.

]]> By: wnpaul http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81896 wnpaul Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:53:31 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81896 Michael writes, > Those in the Purpose Driven movement who think that having > a service with candles makes them emerging are wrong. and later, > Expect to hear a lot more about spiritual formation and > to sense an openness to the larger, more ancient church. Don't you think that that's precisely what the Purpose Driven folks think, that having candles constitutes openness to the more ancient church? More on-topic than the above comment: I really like some of John McArthur's stuff, but like many of us he has a tendency to make sweeping judgments of whole movements which is always a dangerous thing. But he's done it with Charismatics and Catholics before, and I am not surprised that he does it with the emerging crowd. Big difference is that he makes these sweeping judgments on air and in print, which most of us fortunately don't get a chance to do. Michael writes,

> Those in the Purpose Driven movement who think that having
> a service with candles makes them emerging are wrong.

and later,

> Expect to hear a lot more about spiritual formation and
> to sense an openness to the larger, more ancient church.

Don’t you think that that’s precisely what the Purpose Driven folks think, that having candles constitutes openness to the more ancient church?

More on-topic than the above comment:

I really like some of John McArthur’s stuff, but like many of us he has a tendency to make sweeping judgments of whole movements which is always a dangerous thing. But he’s done it with Charismatics and Catholics before, and I am not surprised that he does it with the emerging crowd. Big difference is that he makes these sweeping judgments on air and in print, which most of us fortunately don’t get a chance to do.

]]> By: Scott M http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81831 Scott M Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:13:48 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81831 For grasping postmodernism while retaining a Christian perspective, I would recommend Newbigin's "Proper Confidence" and Caputo's "Philosophy and Theology". They're both fairly short books. I think Scot McKnight addresses some of the things those with a less modern perspective seek in "The Jesus Creed" and "Embracing Grace". For grasping postmodernism while retaining a Christian perspective, I would recommend Newbigin’s “Proper Confidence” and Caputo’s “Philosophy and Theology”. They’re both fairly short books. I think Scot McKnight addresses some of the things those with a less modern perspective seek in “The Jesus Creed” and “Embracing Grace”.

]]> By: steve yates http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81828 steve yates Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:53:29 +0000 http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-response-to-roger-questions-on-my-review-of-the-truth-war#comment-81828 I would recommend ed stetzer (sbc missiologist) and scot mcknight's takes on the conversation (ed splits emergents into 3 categories, scot into 5 - but they both seem to make good points). it's hard...i was brought into this emergent idea by mcclaren's writings, so i'm a bit more sympathetic for him (his earlier work is better - 'a new kind of christian' is his first real thesis on the movement) - mostly because i attended his church in maryland around the time he was leaving...you'd be suprised on how non-"emergent" it was. mcclaren simply has a tendency to publish his musings on God w/o realizing his influence. i definitely learned more from pagitt in terms of methodology than theology - i just finished 'church reimagined' and was pleased with the concepts presented (the book includes a number of journel entries from his church members; not everything excites me, but they helped me see what 'normal' emergent church members are in pagitt's view). another 'flavor' of the emerging church (for lack of a better term) worth exploring are the new monastics of Shane Calibourne and the simple way - Michael did a book review of his book 'the irresistible revolution' a little while ago. hope this helps. steve I would recommend ed stetzer (sbc missiologist) and scot mcknight’s takes on the conversation (ed splits emergents into 3 categories, scot into 5 - but they both seem to make good points). it’s hard…i was brought into this emergent idea by mcclaren’s writings, so i’m a bit more sympathetic for him (his earlier work is better - ‘a new kind of christian’ is his first real thesis on the movement) - mostly because i attended his church in maryland around the time he was leaving…you’d be suprised on how non-”emergent” it was. mcclaren simply has a tendency to publish his musings on God w/o realizing his influence. i definitely learned more from pagitt in terms of methodology than theology - i just finished ‘church reimagined’ and was pleased with the concepts presented (the book includes a number of journel entries from his church members; not everything excites me, but they helped me see what ‘normal’ emergent church members are in pagitt’s view).

another ‘flavor’ of the emerging church (for lack of a better term) worth exploring are the new monastics of Shane Calibourne and the simple way - Michael did a book review of his book ‘the irresistible revolution’ a little while ago.

hope this helps.

steve

]]>