# Conversing with the Emergent



## jenney (Jan 31, 2007)

I got this today:


> Jenny - She's saying that it won't matter if she argues it with you, and she's right. The reason you guys seem to hit a wall when you talk to people taht don't already see eye-to-eye with you is because you can't see that the way you read the Bible, the way of understanding the nature of truth, etc. taht you bring with you is not THE way. Historically, people have not always argued the Bible through the lense of reason. You do because you are influenced by the enlightenment and modernism. People like John, however, influenced by the next step in the culture of thought, find it difficult to understand how you can insist that the Bible has one clear meaning on a topic.
> 
> This is not a Biblical disagreement, it is a disagreement about the Bible.
> 
> Please defend why you believe what you do about the Bible. I think you will find it impossible to do so without admitting that your tradition, or CULTURE, is at the root of how you understand things. Likewise, John's tradition, or CULTURE, influences him. And so we must understand that this is inevitable. A reformed, modernist, traditional Gospel is not THE Gospel. I admire your desire to be true to the pure Gospel, but you have to understand that to a degree, it is self-deluting.



Try to overlook the spelling errors, though I'm not sure what self-deluting means. And I'm still jenn*E*y, for the record.

I'm having trouble answering that last paragraph part, at least concisely. Help me defend how we, the Reformed Community see the Bible.

I feel like all the terms are on his side. You know how it is with PoMo's: they hate definitions so when you try to use a word you think you both understand they stick you with some weird twist on it. Like if I say truth is black and white and not gray, he comes back with some fluff about it being in color.

I don't know why I'm having trouble with it, other than the lexicon issues. Maybe it is that I don't really fully get the question!

Any takers to help this bear of little brain?
It is striking some anxiety into my heart because I feel like I should know a good answer to this. Wouldn't a _real_ Christian have a quick soundbite answer? What is with me?

thank you to any who bite!


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jan 31, 2007)

It seems he has mixed deluding with refuting to bring us a fantastic new word. 

PoMo's really have no legs to stand on in any argument. Any claim to any sort of absence of absolute truth is an institution of a new absolute truth, albeit one that says that everybody is in essence wrong. I think the best way to argue with people like this is to go back to their basic presuppositions of what truth actually is. Does this person telling you that the other girl is right refute themselves? I believe so.

"Next step in the culture of thought"?!?!?! Give me a break. Postmodernism really can't say that kind of thing, as is says that _all_ thought is on the same level. 

Dealing with the final paragraph, you can say that we approach the scriptures in the same way as the prophets did, that Jesus did, and the disciples and apostles did. Also, the Bible is a book that makes claims about history. As this guy comes into the argument with the presupposition that history can only be interpreted in one way (ie. "next step of the culture of thought", "people have not always argued the Bible through the lense of reason"), then you have an in by way of the historical claims of the gospel. Jesus existed, said specific things about himself in regards to God, man and truth, and died a specific death to rise again. The Bible itself interprets itself in this way, and that is why you should do the same thing.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Jan 31, 2007)

jenney said:


> I got this today:
> 
> 
> Try to overlook the spelling errors, though I'm not sure what self-deluting means. And I'm still jenn*E*y, for the record.
> ...


If culture is what needs to be engaged as opposed to the human heart than how can he object to the sins of our culture? To be truly pragmatic shouldn't missionary dating and premarital sex be practiced, as all part of the culture of our time? 

Ask him at what point any Jesus movie he's watched or shown presented the whole gospel and that the actor portraying God incarnate did justice to the role by becoming Holy right there on the set?

Ask him why lighting atmosphere, manipulative music and roundabout discussions are necessary to engage the heart with any honesty.

Ask him when the "sound byte" answers have ever satisfied a discussion.

If the gospel of scripture is not THE truth ask him what hope he carries and how he justifies even practicing Christianity.

Ask him how absolutes are to be derived if God's word is not the standard.

Stress to him how many cultures Christ came to redeem or society's He grafted into the elect.


----------



## jenney (Feb 2, 2007)

Thanks you guys! That was encouraging. I took a long time to answer that and to answer his answer to me and he replied that 


> So ultimately, thank you for helping me think about this, and for explaining this clearly. To go to the next step though, could you tie together this understanding with praxis. How does this effect you going into a conversation with someone about a major issue like the Trinity, and, say, a more minor issue like worship music?



that was easy to explain, though I laughed at the use of the word "praxis" because you know how emergents are generally complaining that we reformed people use all these words that nobody can relate to in the modern day.

Anyway, I appreciate the quick replies. They were helpful and encouraging, both!
thank you!


----------

