McKnight Paper for WTS

Published
by
aly hawkins
on 30 October 2006
in asides, emerging church and faith and theology
. Tags: , , .

“What is the Emerging Church?” (.pdf), a paper presented by Scot McKnight at WTS. Good read from a more-than-good theologian.

5 Responses to “McKnight Paper for WTS”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  1. 1 michael lee
    30 October 2006 at 10:15 am

    mmmmmm … brain candy. I can’t wait to read it.

    -ml

  2. 2 aly hawkins
    30 October 2006 at 9:16 pm

    Just finished. Not to be effing missed. That guy blinds me with theology-nerd brilliance.

  3. 3 michael lee
    30 October 2006 at 10:12 pm

    I just read it, then immediately reread it again. This is amazingly good stuff. It’s heartening to hear somebody speak with some objectivity about the political baggage of the ECM, among his other confessions and exhortations.

    I think Scotty is the theological heavyweight that the movement has been needing, to translate foreign languages between parties that seem intent on misunderstanding each other. I’m glad he’s putting down some ink on this.

  4. 4 Sharolyn
    26 November 2006 at 2:50 pm

    I had never heard of the emerging church before Addison Road. (I’m a little behind.)

    Only recently have I heard criticisms of the emerging church movement, and from people whose opinions I value. My mind is open. So I just read the first half of this, and need to digest it before reading the rest.

    The person whose opinion I value most on the other side of this coin (anti-emerging church) actually changed churches because he felt his pastor becoming too related with the movement. The fact that this friend is seminary-educated and made this major change in his family life causes me to listen to his concerns, since he is not (for example) just repeating what he thinks he once heard someone say.

    I have many thoughts, and unfortunately don’t feel as articulate as you guys or Brian McLaren. Let me just respond briefly to one concept and you can likewise respond to me if you like (even you, Phil!).

    Page 13: “Nothing we know can be grasped absolutely.” My first reaction to this statement is uneasiness. I like absolute truth. Not because I am arrogant and think I can pin God down, but because in times of crisis I would like to have predetermined truths to center my course.

    Page 14: “Language is inept to talk absolutely about God.” I agree. Yet, can’t we rely upon some consistencies about God, based on Biblical ideas/examples and experience of God working in our lives?

    Talk to me, people. Or shall I fly down and bring a fire pit?

  5. 5 aly hawkins
    26 November 2006 at 3:23 pm

    Hey, Sharolyn. I think it’s great that you’re taking both the ideas and criticisms of the emerging church seriously. I can try to answer your questions, but please bear in mind that I’m just me, not an expert or anything…

    Page 13: “Nothing we know can be grasped absolutely.” This is not a statement about the non-existence of absolute truth, but about our ability to absolutely comprehend it in its entirety. A phrase that is gaining popularity in the EC is “chastened epistemology,” which basically just means that we acknowledge our limitations when it comes to knowledge about God. It doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything, but it does mean we acknowledge that we don’t have the ability to know everything. (Otherwise, we’d be God.) I like absolute truth, too. I’m confident that it exists. I’m also confident I don’t know it All. This does not excuse me from living according to the parts I do know, through God’s own Self-revelation (Jesus, the Bible, His creation), my experiences and the faith community.

    Page 14: “Language is inept to talk absolutely about God.” Here again, the important word is “absolutely.” It’s important to realize that when we speak of God, our language does not capture Him. Our words about God are not God. When I write something like “I love my husband,” I communicate a truth to you about my feelings and actions toward him, but the words themselves neither communicate the fullness of those feelings and actions, nor can they substitute for my actually loving him. The words are true, but they are not The Truth of my love for my husband. Sometimes it can be tempting, especially when talking of something as Other as God, to believe that what we say is actually The Truth, instead of just true. We can speak truly of the God of the Bible and our experiences of Him, but our words cannot contain The Truth of Who God is.

    Does that help at all, or just muddy the waters?

Leave a Reply