The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum I've been reading Tim Challies' posts from . . .

...the Shepherds' Conference (which were absolutely stellar, BTW; check 'em out!), and reading some of the commentary regarding the "Emergent Movement" I began to wonder if there's a connection between that and the New Perspective thingummy.

ISTM both of them, when someone attempts to point out a problem with either "movement", insist it is being misunderstood, or else that it's too amorphous to pin down with any specificity.

Coincidence? Or not?

I do believe that it is sheer "coincidence". You will find that the objection, "we are being misunderstood" is age-old and has been used by nearly every aberrant group that has ever come along. Theonomist/Reconstructionists are infamous for using that as one of their ploys as well as many others in more recent times. The bottom line seems to be, "unless you agree with us, it will impossible for you to really understand our view(s)"! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

....but then there's the additional similarity of them both focusing upon Scripture as "narrative", while simultaneously being dismissive of "propositional truth".

Hi Anne,

I think there is a connection but it may simply come from the age in which we live and the general condition of the church and the common words that are floating around out there.

Have you read any of Doug's (at Coffee Swirls) reporting? His are really good, too, and as much as I appreciated Tim Challis, Doug's really seemed to hit home a bit more for me. Could just be personal preference.

Well, I don't know where you got the idea that the "Emerging Church Movement" advocates view Scripture as "narrative"? since within that movement which uses a post-modern approach to truth, i.e., it's all relative even if there is truth, there is a huge variety and divergence of thought.... or lack of thought or perhaps corruption of thought would be more accurate. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> But where the NPP heresy focuses more on issues of "covenant", "predestination/election" and "justification/sanctification" specifically, the ECM silliness focuses more on how to "feel good about God via doing your own thing", etc. I think you would find that those captured by the heresies of NPP, FV, etc., are far more conservative in regard to the divine inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture than most in the ECM. There are those, of course, who do give lip-service to divine inspiration but in practice they essentially deny it by ignoring what Scripture actually teaches. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

There are similarities between everything if you want to generalize enough. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> But there isn't really much essentially the same between NPP and ECM in regard to their respective views and/or uses of Scripture; ECM is exponentially worse in this particular area, IMHO.

In His grace,

Just as I surf here and there, reading both pro and con regarding both movements, I'd noticed an emphasis upon "The Bible As Story" by some of their adherents.

Which has a large degree of truth to it, ye ken. Certainly!

But it's one of those things that, taken to an extreme, leads to all sorts of theological gimcrackery, ISTM. And I thought it intriguing that two different - very different! - errors currently floating around tend to promote the "Bible as narrative" motif.

I'll need to check out Coffee Swirls. Thanks!

Actually, the emphasis on narrative is quite common from what I've seen. It's a way of "being relevant" to our postmodern culture. And Jesus taught via narratives, e.g., the parables. Etc. It's a handy way for them not to have to lay out any coherent system of thought. They can just tell stories all day.

I'm not sure exactly what FV/NPP would focus on the narrative aspect, except perhaps as a way of being more like Second Temple Judaism? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Okay, here are a pair of articles, one being the talk Phil Johnson gave on the "emerging church movement", and one by N. T. Wright:

Phil Johnson: A critical look at the emerging church movement

The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology

From Johnson's talk:

From Wright:


Of course, this bit by Johnson also resonated with me, as one who has tangled with NPP'ers on more than one occasion:


How's this as a possible explanation for the similarities: the most vocal, vociferous proponents in both "movements" tend to be young(ish) men with a university background, who have soaked up a postmodern viewpoint without even being aware of it.

Anne,

With all due respect, I do not see the alleged similarity in the use of "narrative" in the examples you have supplied. What "I" see is the word narrative used, but in two totally different ways. The "ECM'ers" use the word in such a way that it obviates "divine inspiration" and the "Grammatico-Historico" hermeneutic. Put another way, they read the Bible as if it was nothing more than a "story" (aka: narrative), which should be taken seriously, but nevertheless, it does not contain propositional and immutable truths; true truth.

Contrariwise, "NPP'ers" rely heavily upon the traditional "Grammatico-Historico" hermeneutic, albeit creating a deformed hermeneutic by elevating alleged new historical data as the "eyeglasses" through which we are to understand the actual written text. In the examples you included by N.T. Wright, he is using the word narrative as it is commonly understood as a part of literature. And from what I can see in that very short example, he wasn't doing anything different than what any conservative Pastor or Bible student would do in delving into the actual text itself and coming to a fuller understanding of what the passage is teaching. Wright's problem is in the application of the text (no doubt his exegesis suffers as well). But at least he does hold to "divine inspiration" and the reality that the Bible teaches "propositional truth".

I have no intention of trying to defend the heresies of N.T. Wright, NPP, FV, etc. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> But I do think it is important that when we criticize individuals and/or groups that we do it with verifiable facts and not criticize them for that which they are not guilty.

Methinks that this is a perfect illustration of why these two heretical movements are so dangerous.... and have been from the beginning. The language used by them is vague, subtle, etc.... but also couched in familiar language usage. Those who have had dealings with the neo-Orthodox camp are well aware of how this all works. Reading their garbage for the first time, one is often deceived into thinking that they are simply stating what historic Christianity has always taught. But when it is understood that when they use such terms as "salvation", "faith", "Word of God,", et al, they have totally redefined them and thus what they are really saying is in dire opposition to historic Christianity . . . the proverbial lights go on <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" /> and they are exposed for what they are.... HERETICS!

In His grace,

...of course.

It's been striking (to me, at any rate) how often adherents of both "movements" insist "It's the STORY, stupid!" (okay, fair's fair, they don't actually say "stupid"; that was a rhetorical flourish on my part).

Until I began running into the Emerging Church Movement and the NPP'ers, while I myself like to think of the LORD as the Divine Playwright, I'd never read this <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> on "It's the STORY!" viewpoint.

Yet now it's commonly heard by both groups' aficianados.

Apparently, however, this preoccupation with narrative is a feature of postmodern thought.

Oh well. *I* thought it was interesting. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" />

;^)

Yes, both may use the word "narrative" and speak of "The Story", but again I would suggest that these two groups are using such phraseology in two totally different ways.

What IS interesting, however, at least to me, is their respective attempts to distort biblical teaching to promote their heresies. NPP attacks the core doctrine of Sola Fide while the ECM attacks nearly everything that has been sacred to the true Church.

If there is one thing I personally find similar between these two movements is their insistence that anyone who criticizes them does so because they don't really understand their teachings, haven't read enough of their literature, etc., etc., ad nauseam. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> Sorry, but I just don't buy that ploy. I think the old adage "You don't have to jump into the sewer to know that it stinks!" works just fine. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

You're quite right...it's astonishing how similar they sound when responding to criticism (if 'responding' it can be accurately called). <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/crazyeyes.gif" alt="" />

More attempts by liberals to pragmatically reach a post-modern culture, but failing, in their abandonment of objective truth.

Tim Keller has a pretty good article that you might want to check out called "Post Everythings."



Dave.

Dave,


How else is the church to be built except by Christ as foundation and the propositional revelation of the words of Scripture in union with the Spirit as our guide?

As I see it there is no common ground between the NPP and Emergent church movement except both have used one of Satan's best tools by confusing or denying the intended interpretation of Scripture. It's and understatement to say that it would have been much better for all believers, for both heresies to have limited their church assaulting interpretive words to "yeah, yeah and nay, nay".

IMO, these heresies are very different in that the post-modern Emergents have denied the church's historic orthodox Christian Doctrine altogether, while the NPP people are simply continuing a deadly legalistic assault on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In other words, Emergents have denied the perspicuity, sufficiency and the inspiration of Scripture, and the NPP camp (while claiming to honor it) misinterpret and legalize the Scripture itself.

With the Emergents, I think about the twelve tribes complaining in the wilderness about the insufficiency of God's manna from heaven. They wanted strawberries and whipped cream on top.



With the NPP, I think about Paul's battle with the Judaizers nearly everywhere he went.

IMO, of the two heresies, the NPP camp is by far the most dangerous because of their much more subtle deceit.

Denny

Romans 3:22-24