Posters...

Okay, okay... I know I'm late to the game.

But I can still play, can't I?

And while my posters are nicer than TeamPyro's (mostly) unfounded yet amazingly acerbic insults, they aren't nearly as nice as Emerging Grace's gracious answers.
Ahh, the via media...

Anyway, here are my contributions. What I think we are/should be all about...

And just for fun...  

Comments

[Phillip Johnson]

Well done. Your first one is the best. It's clever and it scores.

But what's on the nose of that lady on the lower right in the 1954 picture?

[Makeesha]

awesome

[grace]

They are awesome Bob. You have a brilliant and creative mind. Which is one reason I have always enjoyed watching you mix it up with the trolls. :)

[Jeff]

Your poster says "The Gospel - God Himself come to rescue and renew all of creation."

That's the problem. The emerging church doesn't teach the gospel.

Here's the gospel:

1Cr 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
1Cr 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Cr 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Where do you see "rescue and renew all of creation" in that passage?

Christ died for our sins, not to rescue and renew all of creation. He died as a sin offering for us in accordance with the laws of Moses, given to the Israelites by God. His sacrifice satisfied the wrath of God towards us due to our sin, making it possible for us to stand before God covered in Christ's righteousness.

Again, where do you see rescue and renew all of creation in the TRUE gospel? It isn't there, and that's the problem with the emerging church. It teaches a false gospel, resulting in false Christians.

[Bob]

You need to read the rest of the New Testament.
Those who think that 1 Cor 15 is the ONLY formulation of the Gospel in the New Testament end up doing just this: condemning everyone who doesn't use exactly the right words in exactly the right order and in so doing IGNORE all the places in the New Testament where the Gospel is preached with other summations.

As for "all creation"- I'll just refer you to Romans 8/Rev 21/22 since it seems like you haven't read them lately.

If you don't like my summation of the Gospel take it up with Tim Keller, a non-emerging church, Reformed pastor... it's a direct quote.

Or maybe John Piper is more to your liking?

"The invincible purpose of God for creation and for his people will not be complete until all things are made new and the glory of the Lord fills them all. In verse 5 God says, "Behold, I make all things new." And he enforces the certainty of it in two ways. He is sitting on his throne when he says it—the throne of the universe. "He who sat upon the throne said, 'Behold I make all things new.'" And after he had said it, he added, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true." So God wants us to read this and be sure of it. He wants us to have assurance that no matter how much evil and suffering and futility we see now, he will make all things new.

Let's look at four ways the newness is coming
.......

3. The New Creation

Third, God is going to make the creation new and glorious.

This is the point of verse 1: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." I don't think this means that God picks us up and takes us to a new solar system—though he certainly could if he wanted to. The hope of the prophets seems to be that this earth and these heavens will be made new. God will renovate the whole thing—a kind of global rehab project. And everything futile and evil and painful will be done away.

Paul put it like this in Romans 8:21, "The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the liberty of the glory of the children of God." The newness and the glory of the church, the children of God, is primary and first. But then God promises that the glory of his people will demand a glorious creation to live in. So the fallen creation will obtain the very freedom from futility and evil and pain that the church is given.

So when God makes all things new, he makes us new spiritually and morally, he makes us new physically, and then he makes the whole creation new so that our environment fits our perfected spirits and bodies. "

You guys drive me nuts. One of your "Discernment Heroes" or favorite dead theologians could make a statement you would applaud and then if someone like me says the same exact thing, you want to pick it apart and tell me why I'm not really saved. Unbelievable pharisaism...

[Bob]

And by the way- before you start calling people false Christians...

Never mind...

trolls.

[Rick]

Liked the Peacemakers one, Bob. Maybe we should frame some, send gift prints?

[Bob]

Ahh, yes. That one was pretty much for me.

Just for me...

sigh...

[Bob]

and speaking of which-

thanks for dropping in Phil! Much appreciated...

I think that's actually a reflection on her veil.

That, or a prosthetic nose.

[Rick]

Nice!

[Brent]

Bob, you seem to not know love. Why not just be wronged? You now name call? For what purpose? You can't make the same point from an edification standpoint? Bob...with love we are to teach. If the poster hits home, ask yourself why? Look at it from the other point and ask your heart if there is any truth to it. If there is...repent. that is dieing to self and self causes and being mature. Not petty name calling.

[Brent]

Bob, you seem to not know love. Why not just be wronged? You now name call? For what purpose? You can't make the same point from an edification standpoint? Bob...with love we are to teach. If the poster hits home, ask yourself why? Look at it from the other point and ask your heart if there is any truth to it. If there is...repent. that is dieing to self and self causes and being mature. Not petty name calling.

[Bob]

No, you pretty much nailed it.
I know not love.
I wish it were not so that I knew not love, but so few of us who know not love, know that we know not love. How will we know that we know not love unless someone tells us that we know not love??

[paula]

Man... aren't you being judgemental? I thought that wasn't allowed around here?

[Steve]

I've got a question for Jeff. Is the gospel incapsulated in just one passage? Just one new testament book? Just the new testament? Or dare I say it - from the whole Bible?

G.E. Ladd has a great little venn diagram that explains the age we are currently living in. We exist in the (1) present evil age (where satan still roams, sin still hurts and kills and many aspects of life are touched by sins impact. We also live in the (2)age to come of Jesus (present) and future rule. The kingdom began as a mustard seed. It's growing - almost imperceptably but heralds in the forestastes of the totally renewed kingdom of God - see the fruits of the spirit passage for some of what we should be experiencing in some measure. We live in the overlap of these two ages.

This gives a much broader framework for exploring themes of 'the gospel' and for our theology. For me the renewal of creation makes more sense when I realise that I can taste some it now but not all of it. I still await in eager expectation of the completion of it. But I don't sit passively, waiting for the world to end. Yes, God is renewing things today. We are being inwardly renewed everyday - while our bodies grow one day older. We live in the spirit so that we keep in step with what God is doing in the present.

A mate of mine once told me that the preacher wasn't preaching the gospel one particular sunday. Fortunately for him I challenged him to consider his understanding of what consituted the gospel and whether or not he didn't actually perceive it in that sermon. The preacher that day was a visiting Bishop - and yes the gospel was preached. It just wasn't preached in the same old packaging that the resident preacher had been using (no names because I like to think that man has moved beyond this now).
If you're reading this please don't let your favourite doctrinal statement/categories subotage useful and necessary debate about the challenges of the emerging church and living in a post-modern world as a christian.

I believe we need to engage in the tension between both (at least that's where I find myself right now). I haven't abandoned my first love, but I have asked new questions, and many more questions have been raised. I want to work with those still in the old model of Chrisendom but I won't be afraid to experiment with new incarnations of the body of Christ. I guess I'm a slightly wary supporter of the emerging church.

[Garet Pahl]

Bob,
With exception of your Generous Orthodoxy poster, and the Universalist bent of the Gospel poster, I find little I could disagree with. And without trying to jump into the whole "what is the Gospel" debate check out how John Owen defines the Gospel.

[Bob]

Universalist??!?!

Dude- that's the problem with those who criticize the emerging church. You take the WORST possible reading of everything. You come looking for something to disagree with... (and if Phil Johnson himself doesn't disagree with my Generous Orthodoxy poster...)

So, just for the record. :)

1. I'm anything but a universalist
2. That definition of the Gospel is a DIRECT QUOTE from Tim Keller (a Reformed pastor)
3. That direct quote came from a sermon (which rocked my world) that was preached at a Resurgence event (with John Piper/Mark Driscoll batting cleanup)

So- universalist?
Hardly. You're barking up the wrong tree there, friend.
Gospel

[Garet Pahl]

Bob, I wasn't accusing YOU of being a Universalist. I apologize for leaving that unclear. And I wasn't barking. Just expressing my impression of what you have produced(you did offer the link to me from Emerging Grace)- why so defensive? But there is the isolated phrase on the poster that leaves that universalist taste. Did Christ come to "rescue" ALL of creation? My understanding is that he came to rescue his sheep, and do so completely and perfectly. But for other aspects and peoples of creation, the Cross signals the wrath of God stored up for the day when those who have not submitted to Christ will be judged according to their own deeds as opposed to his. Certainly the redemption of the whole world in a general sense is an orthodox and specifically reformed position (as opposed to the pseudo-gnosticism of fundamentalist arminians); it frees people of faith from the bondage of Levitical law and looses God's common grace on the righteous and the wicked. And of course, there is the eschatological sense that you outlined above. But due to your definitions lack of clarity, it defaults by exclusion to sounding Universalist. It is not the "whole" Gospel- it is a part. Sorry if I am picking nits, but that is the way I see it.

With Generous Orthodoxy, I can't tell whether that is a serious definition or satire itself. I've heard of both/and and either/or, but never both/neither. Maybe I am just missing something.

As for what Phil Johnson disagrees or agrees with... I happen to be inclined towards amillenialism and paedobaptism, and I'm pretty sure he thinks of me as some pomo-emergent hippie cuz I think tattoos are a non-issue, I think beer is God's gift, and I wear flip flops to church. I'm not a Phil Johnson wannabe. BUT, I thought his posters were a FAIR satire, based on what is truly happening within the ECM "conversation". Which I have witnessed first hand, btw.

I too have been sickened and disappointed by the shallow, legalistic, watered down nonsense of American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Actually, I was emergent before there was emergent. In the mid-nineties I met with Erwin McManus for breakfast and took part in several of his seminars about communicating the Gospel in the pomo context. It was clear to me then that the Seeker friendly churches and the old mainline denoms, cared little for those who had never darkened a church door, or would be turned off by the kitschy personality driven productions. The problem was, along the way, a majority driving the movement started capitulating on the Gospel. From MaClaren, to Seay, to Bell, etc., the buzz words bandied about point back to Derrida, Sarte, and Marx. Not to mention, under the guise of "transparency" and "incarnational living", emerged rationalizations for licentious living of all stripes. The "conversation" crossed the line at some point, simple as that.

I read your post on who is emergent and where you get to the part of rethinking theology is where the wheels come of the cart. The Reformers didn't rethink doctrine, they labored to expunge that which was false and retain that was which was true. Luther appeals to Augustine and Paul, why would he or other Reformers waste time writing books if they didn't want future generations to benefit from their work? Emergent "theology" tends to mystify as opposed to clarify, and nine times out of ten emerges as the social gospel blended with antinomianism, liberation theology, or plain early 2oth century liberal theology. My appeal to emergents is that the "conversation" is NOT the answer. Learn the Gospel "aright" and quit using degenerate French philosophers when developing a hermeneutic.

I think Driscoll has it nailed pretty good, and he has done a good thing by distancing himself from the ECM. Reformission is a good way to put it. Recognize what is doctrinally true, and cast off the cultural baggage that distracts from the mission of the church and from Christ. Nothing wrong with that.

[Jon]

For the record Garet, when I read the "both/neither" line I took that to be based on quote from McLaren in which he responded to the question, "Is it better to be correct or nice?" His answer was that if you're not nice, you're not correct. (I.e. if you're not both, you're neither). -- seems to be the sum of "generous orhodoxy.

Is that right Bob, is that the reference you had in mind with that poster?

[Jon]

To be clear though, I think that McLaren was wrong when he said that. There are plenty of times when Jesus was not nice, but was clearly right.

[Garet Pahl]

Thanks for the help Jon. I recall that now, it's been a while since I read McClaren. And I would have to go with correct. Niceness doesn't seem to be a Christian virtue. Love is, but then, love isn't always nice either.

[bob]

Garet- thanks for the reply- I appreciate both the tone and content. I'm sorry if sounded defensive. I was :)
Too many people telling me I preach a different Gospel, misunderstanding what many of us in this emerging church are saying and attacking those misunderstandings, and just plain not enough sleep tend to do that...

Did Christ come to rescue and renew all of creation? Well, He Himself said (in Revelation (and in Mel Gibson's version of the Crucifixion)) "Behold, I make all things new!"
And "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

All means all, right? :)

(Just yanking the ol' calvinist chain there- not looking to actually get into THAT)

The point in summarizing the Gospel that way (and remember- word for word from Reformed (and MY!) hero Tim Keller) is that the Gospel is about everything- good news for all creation, not just the human heart.

Whether Jesus died just for the elect or for all of humanity is one of those theological details I think needs to be covered by the "Generous" in "Generous Orthodoxy." In other words, it's possible to hold either opinion and be orthodox (and saved!), yes??
More on that in a sec...

Jon- Sure, sure.. and Jesus is Jesus, yeah? Our command is to let our "gentleness be evident to all" and to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

I believe and even occasionally strive to be nice- to treat others with gentleness and respect. I honestly think this is a COMMAND that the Doctrine Police seem to want to forget or ignore. I see little of either gentleness or respect coming from them. Especially in those damn posters on TeamPyro.

And while I think gentleness and respect (maybe summarized as "nice") is the natural outcome of Generous Orthodoxy, I don't think it's at the heart of it. What's at the heart is what Paul talks about in Romans 14:1-10.
Maybe if McLaren had used the phrase "humble orthodoxy" (which seems more in vogue in Reformed circles) he could have been invited to a Resurgence conference???

I kid, I kid...

Actually, I trace the whole idea back (at least!) to Aquinas- to me this is what Generous/Humble Orthodoxy is all about:
"In questions of this sort there are two things to be observed. First, that the truth of the Scriptures be inviolably maintained. Secondly, since Scripture doth admit of diverse interpretations, that no one cling to any particular exposition with such pertinacity that, if what he supposed to be the teaching of Scripture should afterward turn out to be clearly false, he should nevertheless still presume to put it forward, lest thereby the sacred Scriptures should be exposed to the derision of unbelievers and the way of salvation should be closed to them."- Saint Thomas Aquinas

[Garet Pahl]

Ya, no need to yank that chain, it really will get this mongrel barking. :-) I'm pretty sure you know what I think "all" means anyhow. But I don't know if I would go anywhere near the distance on agreeing that universalism can be viewed as orthodox(if that is what you are suggesting), but since sins of the intellect are as richly covered by God's Grace as any other sin, I would never make the judgment that means that person is unsaved. Just confused.

The Gospel IS about everything. The modern reduction to "accepting Jesus into your heart" is unorthodox to the core. I like that Acquinas excerpt.

[bob]

sorry- i don't think universalism is orthodox... (though i'm not sure one needs to believe in hell to get to heaven... So that may be a
contradiction in my views)...

I was referring to the Calvinist/Arminian distinction between some and all in terms of the limited or unlimited nature of the atonement, a cluster of issues just begging for a sense of generous orthodoxy (from both sides) and a taste of what Aquinas was talking about.

[curtis]

I know that someone already said it, but I thought it would be appropriate to bring it up again...

I really liked the Peacemakers one!!!

;)