Roger Olson Compares the Emergent Church with the Jesus Movement

I’ve heard it for years: “The emerging church is nothing more than the Jesus Movement warmed over.” Well, I don’t really think so, but who am I to say? Roger Olson is, as he states, one of the few persons who is qualified to really speak to the parallels, making this a must-read:

It’s dangerous to generalize about either the JPM or the ECM. Neither had/has a headquarters or unifying organization. Both were/are grassroots movements that seemed to spring up spontaneously and then snowball first into apparently relatively cohesive movements and then fall apart over deep differences of philosophy, theology and practice. Both had/have strong, public personalities that provide a certain degree of identity to their movements, but neither had/has any single personality looked up to by everyone associated with them. Both were/are very diverse but unified by a common, minimal ethos that set/sets them apart from the “mainstream” of American Christianity—evangelical or mainline.

Read the rest at Emerging Churches and the Jesus People Movement Compared (you’ll have to overlook Roger’s poor formatting)

Stanley Fish on Defending a Sacred Text

Earlier this week, I wrote about Chuck Colson. Colson, in his 2006 attack on the emergent church movement, wrote negatively about literary critic and commentator Stanley Fish, saying,

The arguments of some emerging church leaders, I fear, draw us perilously close to the trap set by postmodern deconstructionist Stanley Fish. Defending himself after his sympathetic statements about the 9/11 terrorists boomeranged, Fish claimed that postmodernists don’t really deny the existence of truth. He said there is simply no “independent standard of objectivity.” So truth can’t be proved to others; therefore, it can’t be known—a verbal sleight of hand.

Fish is a favorite of mine. He is so, in large part, because he often does not say and write what you expect him to say and write. He is unpredictable (not an attribute of Colson’s). Last week, his post at NY Times, for instance, takes liberals to the woodshed for poo-pooing those of us who put stock in a sacred text. Money quote:

[Read more...]

What Religion Is

I’ve had several conversations recently with friends and acquaintances about what religion is, and I’ve read a couple book manuscripts about it.

Those who are pro-religion tend to refer to religion as a root system. It’s like the bulb of a plant, and from that bulb grows our spirituality. Without roots, our faith is unhinged from anything. We become spiritual-but-not-religious, New Age syncretists.

Religion is not this.

But this isn’t religion. I think, instead, that God is the bulb, the roots. It is from God that our experiences of God grow.

[Read more...]

Exactly Which Church Are These Letters To?

This post is part of the Patheos Book Club. Check out the Book Club for more posts on this book, an interview with the editor, and for responses from other bloggers and columnists.

As I am wont to do, I’ll begin with my quibbles. These aren’t letters to a future church, as the book’s title promises. They are letters to the church today. Actually, I’d be very intrigued by a book of letters to the church 100 or 1,000 years from now. But that’s not this book.

This book is a group of letters by Christian leaders to the church today, telling the church what it’s doing wrong and how to fix it. As with many multi-author books, it’s hit and miss. For my part, the spoken word poetry doesn’t work in print. But other letters are great.

Among the latter is David Fitch’s “The Ideologizing of the Church”:

We get distracted from the fact that things haven’t really changed at all, that our lives are caught up in gamesmanship, not the work of God’s salvation in our own lives and his work (missio dei) to save the world.

But, I think the very best of this book is three letters that lie at its center:

[Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X