Acts 29 and the Emerging Church - a response to EmergentNo

This is interesting. I need to learn more about A29.

As I have witness so much false teaching and sugar-coated theology, I can only hope and pray that we have more men like yourself and Mark, leading and preaching in our churches.

Being a part of an Acts29 church for the 1st time* has opened my eyes to the fact the a church does not have to be emergent to blur the lines of solid Biblical Theology to siut their needs or culture. This is the most biblically conservative church I have been a part of, and that is including my time at Houston's First Baptist.

Driscoll can be irreverant, but sometimes it is necessary to increase the value of what is desired. Paul used the word "sh%t" (Phil 3) to convey the idea that everything is worthless compared to knowing Christ. People did think Mary was a tramp. Abraham did pimp out his wife twice, and taught his som how to do it. This strong language helps the hearer get an accurate picture of the story within the scripture.

As for the original blog in question, I have this analogy that I use to refer to these kinds of devisive people (like Falwell, Robertson, etc)

The bible says that we all make up the body of Christ. And, just like our human bodies, it has to have a anus to be healthy. That's how you get rid of loss or refuse, depending on your translation. That's the role these people play. The problem starts when the anus thinks it is the mouth, and starts spewing it's loss or refuse, depending on your translation, all over the rest of us.

How's that for irreverent?

Here's a good question? Has the work Driscoll and Keller done advanced the kingdom? Have people come to faith in Christ. Have missionaries been sent across the world? Have people heard the Good News that wouldn't have without them?
YES

New York. Seattle. It takes moxy, and a lot of faith to go boldly into those cities and preach Christ and him crucified.

These men, in their faithfulness, and despite their shortcomings, have done more to advance the kingdom then some prideful armchair theologian with internet access will ever do.

* - Technically, Ecclesia is an Acts29 church, but it was added as one, not planted as one, so the theological training and emphasis was not there.

Well, a) I never said I agreed with everything that was written there. I do tend to lean in the direction of being more in agreement with the content of that particular blog than against it, but I don't just blindly go along with everything I read _anywhere_, and b) in this particular case, I personally don't find the issues big enough to matter.

So the guys have some contrary opinions. I don't think that disqualifies them from telling their story. I'm sure that the vast majority of those who would attend one of Piper's conferences are discerning enough to know whether or not they're being fed a bunch of hooey. Again, Piper is no dummy - he knows who he's talking to and what their stance is on critical doctrinal issues.

But, this goes back to the whole "association" question - if you see someone associating themselves with something questionable, it should give one pause. If I see a particular ministry consistently affiliated with something objectionable (EC), then it gives me pause. So _why_ are so many of the Acts29 churches in the EC category? Honestly (as I posted to Carla), I haven't researched it myself, so I have no opinion, other than association. Why would Keller endorse a book that contains questionable practices? Again, I don't know - he's not a guy who I've followed. But it's like I posted in another entry on the ENo blog - if you picked up a book that was endorsed by Benny Hinn and others of his ilk, wouldn't you think twice before reading it?

The purpose behind my previous response to you was to simply make the point that you shouldn't be surprised at the opinion that was voiced. Anyone who reads a few of the entries knows how the authors on that blog feel about those issues. It would be just like reading Scot McKnight's blog on the EC or McLaren's blog - you wouldn't expect to see a bunch of EC-bashing on those, would you?

( man, you have GOT to fix that problem with ellipses - I use that a lot!! :-) )

very good post, bill. I fully share your thoughts on this matter and you make some important clarifications. I don't mind Carla et al raising these questions so long as they don't become the final word on the matter.

My hope is that the people who read critiques of A29, Driscoll and the like would do the work themselves of talking to people who are actually connected and have better working knowledge of these orgs and people before forming their own opinions.

See you in a few days, eh?

Out the park, Bill! I have nothing to add but amen.

why can't I actually comment on your blog? seriously, all I said was that I didn't agree on everything you said, what's questionable about that?

Oh, and this probably won't post anyway, but I also said that Ecclesia isn't an Acts29 church anymore. They left over doctrinal issues.

Now I'll try again with my original comment:

Sorry I missed all this action, would have loved to join in the conversation but I was indisposed. I don't agree so much though I think you make some interesting points as does Carla in the midst of her long-winded, rather confusing post.

By the way, my understanding is that Ecclesia is no longer an Acts29 church having recently removed themselves over doctrinal issues.

Interesting, very interesting.

Jessica, where did you get your news on Ecclesia? I just checked the A29 site and they're still listed on there.