In the past have written both nasty and kind posts/comments trying to engage TeamPyro but they not only do not reply in a way that opens conversation, they cite this as erratic and not worthy to be engaged.
Johnson writes that "those who talk the most about "conversation" are really interested in having a serious one with anyone who is more certain about eternal truths than they are". As I've noted before, the man's eyes are so heavily fogged over he cannot even begin to see another viewpoint let alone agree with it. He fails to accept that arguing theology is perhaps not the most important thing we Christians might engage in. He also misses that some do find value in that but not with closed minded hypocrites such as himself.
He then proves my point by saying "I think it's a bad idea in the first place to think serious heresy should ever be answered by collegial dialogue." So which is it for Johnson? He says Emergents are closed because they fail to seriously engage in conversation with him but then he belies himself by saying he thinks they are heretics and not worthy of dialogue.
And here's where I agree with Johnson and why I've stopped commenting at their site. To quote him again, "I see absolutely no warrant and no apostolic example for engaging in friendly conversation with heretical teachers. ... it seems to me that there are lots of explicit commands forbidding us to cultivate partnerships, friendly relationships, or even academic comradeships with the purveyors of rank heresy." This is where I see TeamPyro. There is some good there but to engage them in some of the heresy they teach is fruitless. I'll pick what good I can and from time to time I'll address some of the nonsense (such as this) for the benefit of my readership, but for TeamPyro I'll await the final separation when all will be clear.
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, judging
5 comments:
I'm currently reading A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKight. It's the first in a series called "Living Theology", edited by Tony Jones.
It would appear that this is the Emergent Village's first foray into a real definition of some theological ideas. And I would add, that this will be helpful as it will finally bring some clarity to the Atonement issue (which I believe Phil and Friends have mischaracterized from day one; even though i don't completely agree with the EC).
I wonder if this might provide a platform for some serious exchange of ideas... I'm not too hopeful, though!
We'll see.
Thanks David - we'll see.
My energy however isn't pro or con emerging anything. My bigger concern is with large segment of Christianity trapped under a weight imposed by folks like Johnson. Those guys have some great stuff to offer if they would just throw off the deception they have allowed to envelope them.
Rick,
I'm not going to defend the Pyros, but I think they may be referring to times such as the interview with Doug Pagitt that was going around a while back. He was asked some simple theological question (I think it was 'Do you believe in a literal hell?') and he refused to answer.
I think we are even in that I am not going to defend emergents. So focusing on your point, if it were true, then doesn't that make their position weaker?
They write of emergents in general not dealing with specific individuals or points - a tactic adopted from John MacArthur. Then one wouldn't have to read them (and especially the comments) long to grasp the spirit they are promoting. This is the same against Charismatics or anyone else not fitting their form of religion.
I might agree with some of the specifics you might point out but that is not what the Pyro's are doing ... note Johnson's reference is 1.5 years old and this is the thing he is proud of, i.e., he has been saying the same thing for a long time. What he sees as discernment I see as disdain.
I suppose. It's like I always say...Once you decide you hate your wife, everything she does is wrong.
Post a Comment