DISQUS

2e...fair enough. But here is the thing: I am unable to offer a solid defense of "ECM" since we're all from different theological traditions. I shouldn't lump you in with all the "fundamentalist reform guys," but I suspect that folks that read MacArthur have more in common with each other than folks that read Brian McLaren (by the way, I haven't read much of McLaren and I have NEVER read any other book by someone tied to Emergent). Evangelical Reformed theology is much much more monolithic and has clearly identifiable leaders, whereas ECM is de-centralized and doesn't really have any identifiable set of spokespeople. What folks at Emergent are trying to do is broker conversation, not lead a movement (at least, that is what they are mostly about). This is why I can point out major flaws in mainstream evangelicalism, yet not ECM...ECM is more a set of movements. Nevertheless, I have offered critiques of Emergent Village, Spencer Burke, and the Emerging church in general before on this blog.

2e...fair enough. But here is the thing: I am unable to offer a solid defense of "ECM" since we're all from different theological traditions. I shouldn't lump you in with all the "fundamentalist reform guys," but I suspect that folks that read MacArthur have more in common with each other than folks that read Brian McLaren (by the way, I haven't read much of McLaren and I have NEVER read any other book by someone tied to Emergent). Evangelical Reformed theology is much much more monolithic and has clearly identifiable leaders, whereas ECM is de-centralized and doesn't really have any identifiable set of spokespeople. What folks at Emergent are trying to do is broker conversation, not lead a movement (at least, that is what they are mostly about). This is why I can point out major flaws in mainstream evangelicalism, yet not ECM...ECM is more a set of movements. Nevertheless, I have offered critiques of Emergent Village, Spencer Burke, and the Emerging church in general before on this blog.

2e...fair enough. But here is the thing: I am unable to offer a solid defense of "ECM" since we're all from different theological traditions. I shouldn't lump you in with all the "fundamentalist reform guys," but I suspect that folks that read MacArthur have more in common with each other than folks that read Brian McLaren (by the way, I haven't read much of McLaren and I have NEVER read any other book by someone tied to Emergent). Evangelical Reformed theology is much much more monolithic and has clearly identifiable leaders, whereas ECM is de-centralized and doesn't really have any identifiable set of spokespeople. What folks at Emergent are trying to do is broker conversation, not lead a movement (at least, that is what they are mostly about). This is why I can point out major flaws in mainstream evangelicalism, yet not ECM...ECM is more a set of movements. Nevertheless, I have offered critiques of Emergent Village, Spencer Burke, and the Emerging church in general before on this blog.

Bob. I certainly don't think being "incarnational" (in its truest and best sense) is a fad. However, the way many people use the term is faddish.

Bob. I certainly don't think being "incarnational" (in its truest and best sense) is a fad. However, the way many people use the term is faddish.

dlw, I'm not sure I'm following you...I'm also curious about what link you see between Hauerwas and "Judaizers."

dlw, I'm not sure I'm following you...I'm also curious about what link you see between Hauerwas and "Judaizers."

Bob. I certainly don't think being "incarnational" (in its truest and best sense) is a fad. However, the way many people use the term is faddish.

dlw, I'm not sure I'm following you...I'm also curious about what link you see between Hauerwas and "Judaizers."

I think what I mean by "embodying the gospel" IS simply living like Christ...though often times that isn't very simple. The reason I use words like "embodying the Gospel" instead of "living like Jesus" is that for some reason, when people hear the latter they instantly think "being really really nice to others." That sort of understanding of Christ's way of life misses the painful, gritty, and bloody parts of Christ's ministry.

I think what I mean by "embodying the gospel" IS simply living like Christ...though often times that isn't very simple. The reason I use words like "embodying the Gospel" instead of "living like Jesus" is that for some reason, when people hear the latter they instantly think "being really really nice to others." That sort of understanding of Christ's way of life misses the painful, gritty, and bloody parts of Christ's ministry.

I think what I mean by "embodying the gospel" IS simply living like Christ...though often times that isn't very simple. The reason I use words like "embodying the Gospel" instead of "living like Jesus" is that for some reason, when people hear the latter they instantly think "being really really nice to others." That sort of understanding of Christ's way of life misses the painful, gritty, and bloody parts of Christ's ministry.

I should have also mentioned "brick" in my top five--I think it came out in 2006. I don't know how I forgot it--it was perhaps the best new movie I saw this year.

I should have also mentioned "brick" in my top five--I think it came out in 2006. I don't know how I forgot it--it was perhaps the best new movie I saw this year.

I should have also mentioned "brick" in my top five--I think it came out in 2006. I don't know how I forgot it--it was perhaps the best new movie I saw this year.

It was freakin' hilarious, but not worthy of a top-spot.

It was freakin' hilarious, but not worthy of a top-spot.

It was freakin' hilarious, but not worthy of a top-spot.

Yeah...I've got a most commented section to the right anyhow.

Yeah...I've got a most commented section to the right anyhow.

Yeah...I've got a most commented section to the right anyhow.

Bummer...I'll have to pursue a different way of keeping spammers out.

Bummer...I'll have to pursue a different way of keeping spammers out.

Bummer...I'll have to pursue a different way of keeping spammers out.

Michael,

I always describe myself as an anabaptist--and I definitely theologize from that vantage point. The reason I brought up my own muttish background is to raise the point that the way we are rooted within traditions has changed--often more to do with consumer tastes than enculturation or thought-out theological reflection.

I agree that we should anchor ourself within a tradition, otherwise I think we are left with a grocery-store approach to theology. But we can never fully encase ourselves within one particular tradition, and we will always struggle with submitting to something outside of ourselves (at least within our culture).

And so, I usually say I am solidly Anabaptist. I've been profoundly influenced by the charismatic tradition, and to a generically baptistic evangelical tradition. But I think the parts I've enjoyed most thoroughly from my charismatic and evangelical background are those parts that touch upon Anabaptist themes. Though it could be argued I "chose" to be an Anabaptist in my mid 20s, I can see Anabaptistic thoughts and influences in the earliest days of my faith in Jesus Christ.