You are hereInterview with Phyllis Tickle

Interview with Phyllis Tickle

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 24 February 2009

Egene Cho hosted a fascinating video interview with Phyllis Tickle, author of The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why, a book which is shaping out to be one of the most important books of 2009, recognizing what Scot McKnight said, namely that "we are in the eye of a storm." Can anyone deny with a straight face the reality of a great emergence today? And can anyone deny that Preterists are a critical part of it? :)

interview with Phyllis Tickle from Eugene Cho on Vimeo.

Life14all's picture

I had the opportunity several years ago through the Wittenburg door magazine to be part of a feature interview (i did the Illustration of course :) they did with Phyllis Tickle.

I have to admit she is a fascinating woman and if anyone's interested in learning more about Mrs. tickle, here is the link to that article as well.

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/phyllis-tickle

Thanks for posting this Virgil. See you in May.

Jim

PreteristArtist

Virgil's picture

Very cool interview Jim!! Thanks for the link. One section that really caught my eye:

Clearly there's a new sensibility. Nobody made "emergent." In fact, if you listen to Brian McLaren, about the last thing he wants to be credited with is inventing "emergent." He didn't. This is not crypto-evangelicalism we are looking at. But the sensibilities that have formed it clearly, I think, can be dated back to the Committee on Biblical Fundamentals and the years from 1910 to 1915, or even farther back to the last decades of the nineteenth century when those first "fundamentalists" were meeting in Niagara Falls. There was strong recognition on their part that something was afoot that they were going to oppose with all the energy and force they could muster.
At about the same time, we get that importation of what the Pew Foundation is now calling the renewalists—the Pentecostals and Charismatics—whose spiritual and religious authority was experiential. As a result of these and several other factors, we had an aggressive evangelicalism in the mid-century and then, over the last thirty years, its politicalization.
Evangelicalism has lost much of its credibility and much of its spiritual energy of late, in much the same way that mainline Protestantism has. There's going to be—is, in fact—a whole upheaval; and then the landscape is going to settle back down again as it always does. We have to remember that it's not as if Protestantism came forth in one perfect or cohesive package out of Luther. Almost from the beginning, it had variants like the Confessing and Reformed movements that followed along quickly.
There is no question that part of this emergent swirl consists of those evangelicals, who are looking for liturgy and a connectedness to Church history, but who are not finding those things in their denominational churches of origin. A lot of the honest-to-God, emerging churches are using the Book of Common Prayer. They are also more open, perhaps, to charismatic experiences than some of their forbearers were, and they are deeply involved in incarnational theology. None of those things has typically been the evangelical pattern. I'm very conscious, as well, of groups like Shared Table and Common Purse, who are returning to Fixed Hour prayer, because I see the sales figures and receive the letters generated by The Divine Hours, which is only one among many manuals currently available for observing the hours.

mazuur's picture

Virgil,

That was excellent. Thanks for posting that. She is very articulate, and a pleasure to listen to. I really liked the way she conveyed the though of what happens to the old construct as the new one comes into being. The way it retracts back and regroups, while changing itself at the same time.

Concerning Preterists being a critical part of it, I would say, yes! I only wish it was a bigger part of it.

-Rich

-Rich

Virgil's picture

Why do you think that it's not a big part? :) Remember Jesus' example of the yeast, which changes the whole.

Along that same line, we need to change too...and Preterism is not very likely to do that, so as the rest of "religion" it will experience its own emergence. Everything is dynamic, and it's very likely that a few hundred years from now Christianity will be a fusion of fulfilled eschatology, emergent theology and Christ-centered community-oriented social justice.

tom-g's picture

It seems to me that I am looking at the idea of re-popularizing the anti-Christian social gospel using the tactics of Hegelian dialectics. with the anti-Christ social gospel being the desired synthesis of the great emergence of the beloved secular community.

It seems obvious to me that her title is defined as the beloved secular community on a global scale and has nothing to do with Christ.

Tom

mazuur's picture

uh??

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

Just out of curiosity sake I tested Tom’s two sentences below in MS Word 2007 for the Flesh Reading ease test. Tom’s two sentences scored a 29 percent out of a 100 test. The higher the number relates to the greater ease of understanding. The recommendation is between 60 and 70 percent.

"It seems to me that I am looking at the idea of re-popularizing the anti-Christian social gospel using the tactics of Hegelian dialectics. with the anti-Christ social gospel being the desired synthesis of the great emergence of the beloved secular community."

Flesch Reading Ease test
"This test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard files, you want the score to be between 60 and 70."

Norm

mazuur's picture

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I am also sure Tom didn't have anything good to say in that post. I just don't understand where he gets half the crap he states.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Thanks Rich for graphically pointing what I have always known. I am not a writer and your cursory level of understanding.

You do greatly err to your own peril if you underestimate or ignore what Virgil is saying and accomplishing. Virgil said: "it's very likely that a few hundred years from now Christianity will be a fusion of fulfilled eschatology, emergent theology and Christ-centered community-oriented social justice."

This becomes quite obvious in this thread and his comments.
The thesis: Historic biblical Christianity's gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
The antithesis: Its negation or collapse, atheistic socialism.
The synthesis: The blending of the two into the emergence of the post modernist social gospel. Or as PT calls it the "Beloved Community.

Tom

Virgil's picture

Tom, how do you get "a negation of salvation by grace through faith in Christ" out of what I said? Better yet, where did I or anyone else here deny salvation through Christ anywhere...here on this website or somewhere else?

And I expect an answer...I am tired of your constant ad-hominem attacks on everyone here.

Starlight's picture

Virgil,

You said to Tom … “And I expect an answer...”

Now you have done it!

You just opened the door for about a week’s worth of who knows what coming forth from Tom. He just spent the better part of two weeks trying to explain something supposedly about someone or persons being raptured at AD70. Who really knows when it was all said and done.

Just watch and regret your request. ;-) LOL

Norm

tom-g's picture

Virgil,

I have always and still do acknowledge publicly your great talent, intelligence and achievements in accomplishing your personal goals. You personally, are not and have never been in question by me.

That being said, the philosophy you are working to accomplish is my concern. There is no question of your commitment to the philosophy of "emergence".

In your interview with Brian McLaren you acknowledge this is a post modernist philosophy.
In prior articles the concept has been expressed (I cannot positively say by you) that the "emergent journey is to determine what the future will be after the collapse of the church.
I have continually asked, without a direct answer, whether "Emergence" is a Christian movement. Whether the requirement to be "Emergent" is to be a person who believes in Christ according to the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.
I have personally seen (as you also personally know) that an atheist is a member of "Emergent discussion and journey"
In this article, when asked "What is the great emergence" PT answered "It is a construct, it is a social, economic, environmental, intellectual, political thing, every 500 hundred years that part of the world...whatever you want to call it, goes through one of these huge upheavals in which everything changes and we start over, and because religion is part of society" She concludes her explanation of these 500 year upheavals with "the shift from before the common era to the common era and why it happened nobody seems to know" It is obvious with her own explanation her subject is not Christianity but the world as defined by society. Her confession of not knowing why the shift from BC (before Christ) to AD (after the Lord) occurred just confirms her subject is not Christianity as the definition of "The Great Emergence".

Since the "Emergent" discussion is the state of the economic; social; environmental; political; religious; social world; after the collapse of the church: It is my understanding that that emergent conversation is being conducted by persons of every combination of people and religious beliefs, not just Christians. It is also my understanding that you, Virgil, are an active member of that discussion and journey.

The scripture never authorizes the collapse of the church, conversely even the gates of hell shall not prevail over it. The scripture also declares the believers have nothing in common with unbelievers; light has nothing to do with darkness and Christ has nothing in concord with Belial.

You, Virgil, are in the positive position to prove that my understanding is founded upon a false understanding of what emergence is. And to declare positively that all of the folks engaged in the emergent discussion and journey are all professing Christians. Persons who acknowledge their salvation by grace through faith in the name of the Lord Christ Jesus, which is the only name given under heaven whereby we may be saved.

Tom

Virgil's picture

Tom, you did not answer my question. Where did anyone say anything that even resembles an "anti-Christ" spirit. Nobody in the interview said such a thing, nobody in the comments here said such a thing. I have no idea what "atheist" you are talking about...I am not aware of any atheist who is a emergent Christian...that's an oxymoron.

If your beef with "emergent" is progressive theology, then say so. Driscoll has a decent introduction on the various streams of emergent Christianity out there. Please watch it before you continue criticism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fgkfS6E-0

The problem you are having when you are criticizing emergent Christianity is that you know next to nothing about it (you even admit the fact that you little about it), and you still make these outrageous attacks, perhaps out of ignorance? What makes the problem worse is that you are not even willing to learn, instead you attack, attack, attack and criticize. How in the world can I even teach you or explain to you what emergent is when you already staked out the position that it's "anti-Crist?"

Emergent is not a "movement, a state, a philosophy." It's simply a conversation for Christians with different background who want to find common ground to worship, fellowship and commune together. We want to use what we have in COMMON to build bridges. You seem to think that this is somewhat "anti-Christ." You seem to be willing to use our differences to highlight the lines of divion, and it is your generation and this mindset which is dying at the hands of this "great emergence." This is not the "collapse of the Church" - it's the collapse of a corporation built on fear, division and dogmatism, the collapse of divisive rhetoric which has split the church since the 1700s.

Your resistance is of course to be expected and honestly I can hardly blame you for it. I am trying to get accustomed to it but your tone and approach does not make it easy.

tom-g's picture

Virgil,

I have never said anything about an "Anti-Christ spirit" My charge was of the anti-Christ social gospel. If you will not acknowledge an emergent personal friend who has publicly declared he is now an atheist, so be it.

My beef is not with "emergent" is progressive theology. My opposition is that "emergence is not Christian. You are correct that an atheist emergent Christian is an oxymoron, however, an atheist emergent is not if "emergence" is not Christian.

How you could send me to the video by Mark Driscoll and still say what you do in response to my comments, I can not understand. Have you watched that video. My comments are mild in comparison to what he says and how he describes the emergent village and McLaren, Pagit, and Bell, the men you are constantly featuring and pushing down the throats on this site. Watch the video again and then give a response. He claims the same thing I do, he constantly asks them questions to clarify their doctrines and they continually evade and refuse to answer, just as you do when I continually ask you. And this man is the pastor of an emergent church. My comments are mild compared to his.

In this video he describes 4 streams of emergence. Some time ago I read a long article presented at an annual seminar by an emergent leader (I don't recall his name) in which he claimed the right to define emergence rather than what someone who is not an emergent would say. In his presentation he described 5 streams, not 4, that empty into the emergent lake. you will probably say you have no idea what I am talking about, which is your usual avoidance technique.

You ask where I get my information to make my charges? Watch the video you suggest. Read what PT is actually saying and you will know. Driscol says that McLaren et al. have done away with Jesus and the whole bible with their doctrines. Now that is a tone and approach that really makes it hard for you, not my mild criticism.

Oh, BTW, watch his video sermon about why he hates religion and you will see demonstrated exactly what I have been saying is true about your emergence.

Tom

Virgil's picture

No Tom, you are not getting off that easy. What you are saying in essence is that "liberal Christians are not Christians" and that is a big load of garbage.

I don't care what Driscoll says; the reason for encouraging you to watch the video was to show you that even Driscoll with all the garbage coming out of his mouth sees a wide variety of emergent Christian, that there are many kind of emergent people joined in this conversation. If you don't like what McLaren has to say, don't listen to him. But don't call "emergent Christians" atheists. That's just stupid.

By the way, it IS your tone and know-it-all attitude which is really getting on people. Rich, Davo, John Evans...all these guys who have nothing to do with emergent have a real hard time interacting with you because of your tone. Please reconsider how you interact with people Tom. Last I checked you are still a human like the rest of us - you don't know it all despite what you may think about yourself. You are not Paul and you are not Jesus. Try to consider how you come across.

If you don't like something you read, don't read it...nobody is forcing you to read anything here. There are many people on this site, some who agree with you, some who don't, and nobody is asking you to agree. It is the disagreements and interaction which makes this website great, but you are crossing the line and going beyond disagreeing graciously.

tom-g's picture

Virgil,

As the Bard wrote: "Methinks thou dost protest too loudly" since you take exception to what I say, I also take exception to what you say. I have never said that "emergent Christians are atheists", that I have agreed would be an oxymoron. What I have said is the exact opposite, I have said that there are atheists who are emergent. And since it is a contradiction to be both an atheist and a Christian, if "emergence" includes atheists then "emergence" is not Christian. And I strongly affirm that proposition.

I seem to recognize a fact that you either ignore or deny, that there are many wolves in sheep's clothing walking around seeking those they can destroy. That it is not only possible but very prevalent for false non-Christian preachers to claim Christian for themselves and preach their anti-Christ gospel as the gospel of Christ to hide the fact that they, themselves are preaching their own gospel of evil.

I stand ready to deny any person is a Christian who denies the virgin birth and denies that Jesus was the divine second person of the triune God. As did the "emergent preacher" to whom you referred me. Now, when he is seen to affirm what I affirm, according to you there is "all the garbage coming out of his mouth". I deny anyone the authority to be engaged in creating a "Jesus centered world who is not himself a christian.

You won't commit yourself to any absolute truth on this subject. You won't even admit that a personal friend of yours is an example that proves my claim.

Let me be perfectly clear and end this dispute.
1) That there are Christians engaged in "emergent conversations", I agree.
2) That it is certainly acceptable and even encouraged for Christians to be engaged in this conversation, I agree.
3) That there are non-Christians and even atheists who are also engaged in these "emergent conversations", I affirm.
4) That Christians and non-Christians are together equally engaging in the "emergent conversations". I agree and even admire.
5) That Christians engaged in "emergent conversations" remain Christians, I agree.
6) That atheists and non-Christians engaged in these "emergent conversations" remain atheists and non-Christians, I affirm.
7) That "emergent conversations" which equally yoke together Christians with atheists and non-Christians has the right or authority to be identified with the name of Christ or Christian, I adamantly deny with everything that within me is.

Tom

davo's picture

tom-g: 7) That "emergent conversations" which equally yoke together Christians with atheists and non-Christians has the right or authority to be identified with the name of Christ or Christian, I adamantly deny with everything that within me is.

Tom, brother… your "everything that within me" rigidity is strangling the very life out of these conversations; consider this:

Mt 10:42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward.”

Mk 9:41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.

These folks, who at the very least would be agnostics, who blessed Christ by virtue of blessing Christ's servants [Christians], would be duly blessed, even to the degree that such actions on their part secured these "non-Christians" rewards. "Absolute truth" when held to be nothing but law/s is a poor cousin to the reality of grace to which it pointed [Jn 1:17].

Tom have you considered this – as unpalatable as you find them, some of these emergent atheists, agnostics, non-Christians may just emerge into Christ-followers IF they can make it past the facade of religiosity that in some/many parts parades itself as "Christianity".

davo

tom-g's picture

Thank you Davo,

I couldn't have identified "emergents" any clearer than you have. And your positive description that identifies this group, infers that you also agree with me that this is the group along with Christians that comprise "emergents"

That group I adamantly deny has any right or authority to have the name of Jesus, or Christ, or Christian, applied to it. Have I considered your suggestion, YES, and rejected it ABSOLUTELY!

Have I recognized the fact that groups, of social activist individuals composed of individuals from every walk of the religious and non-religious sectors of society, are gathering together attempting to plan the future political, economic, and environmental course of a Jesus centered society? Of course I do! That is what they, themselves claim.

But, do I think it is possible that atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians are gathered together planning how to bring about a post modernist Jesus centered world? Absolutely not! If there is ever a violation of the law of non-contradiction, that certainly is it. Who could possibly think or advocate the idea that Atheists, agnostics and non-Christians are working together to plan a future Jesus centered society, a world centered upon the name of Jesus, when it is that same Jesus that they personally reject and deny? Does anyone think that these people are gathered together to plan for a society that they, themselves, do not even want and have rejected?

Do individual Christians constantly involve themselves in groups and activities with non-Christians? Certainly! Because Christians are involved does that mean these groups and activities are Christian? Absolutely not! What it does mean is that these groups and activities ARE NOT Christian!

This question would be a perfect description of the corporate body fallacy I have described for you in another post. The common essential nature of all individuals of the corporate body of "Emergence" is not Jesus, or Christ, or Christian, therefore the corporate body of "Emergence" is not Jesus, or Christ, or Christian.

Tom

amie's picture

I think that I understand what Tom is saying in that if one looks at the "conversation" objectively, then the conversation itself isn't wholly Christian if it does not consist wholly of Christians. If one looks at the "conversation" subjectively, then it is defined by who they see themselves as, for example, "I am a Christian, therefore the conversation that I am having is of Christianity." Imo, you are all correct.

I do not know that God can be as limited as Jesus has been. If God is love, then even atheists can have God centered conversations. Maybe this "emergence" is into a wider circle.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

tom-g's picture

Thanks Amie,

Yes, you are expressing what I have been saying, except for the conclusion you have given.

You say: "If one looks at the "conversation" subjectively, then it is defined by who they see themselves as, for example, "I am a Christian, therefore the conversation that I am having is of Christianity." Imo, you are all correct."

If subjectively the truth of "emergence" is defined as who each individual sees himself as, and one sees himself as an atheist or non-Christian, then the truth is that "emergence" is not Christian. This would result in the contradiction of "emergence" being both Christian and non-Christian at the same time.

Obviously the commonality of the persons engaged in the "emergent conversation" is not a religious commonality, and thus definitely not Christian conversation. Participants engaged in the "Emergent conversation" have a commonality based upon something other than Christ, and that being the case the "emergent conversation" is not a Christian conversation. thus, I would submit that all are not and cannot be correct by definition of contradiction. The contradiction is not created by the atheist and non-Christian, but by the Christian that attempts to define the "emergent conversation" as Christian.

Tom

amie's picture

Tom,

I would say that emergence is not only Christian, but includes Christians. I would also say that there is an "emergent Christianity" as well as there is an "emergent Judaism", etc. I just see this as a both/and rather than an either/or.

Since that is my own perspective, you certainly are free to see it differently, lol!

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

tom-g's picture

Thanks Amie,

I could also see it as you do. My objection is to include "emergent Judaism in the concept with "emergent Christianity" and identifying both as "emergent Christian". Or the concept of what the "Church" will be like in a post modern society. Or how the "Church" will be viable or relevant in a post modern society. Or any other such expression.

If this is a valid object of conversation, then I maintain that only Christians have the right and authority as the body of Christ, to be engaged in that conversation. And This has always been my only criticism of "Emergence" as I have repeatedly pointed out. It is Virgil's obfuscation of this that is the point of contention. He neither agrees nor disagrees or even addresses this point. My objection is not subjective, but by reason of definition of Christian and the law of non-contradiction.

Tom

JL's picture

Tom,

There are strict determinist Christians, who typically go by the moniker Calvinists.

There are strict determinist Atheists.

Do you have a similar objection to those Christians who share that philosophy with Atheists?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Jl,

If you were to create a syllogism to express your concepts so that it would be apparent what you are saying, the error of your reasoning would become immediately obvious.

Are you arguing that there are strict determinist Atheists that go by the moniker of Calvinists?

Sorry about that error of yours, JL.
Tom

JL's picture

To use your own logic,

I could also see it as you do. My objection is to include "determinist Atheist in the concept with "determinist Christianity"

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Jl,

You are in error again Jl, as is usual for you.

You said: "I could also see it as you do. My objection is to include "determinist Atheist in the concept with "determinist Christianity"

You have deliberately distorted what i have repeatedly said: My objection is including atheists, agnostics and non-Christians together in a group under the name and authority of Jesus, or Christ, or Christian.

I would have no doubt that you see no difference in any of those groups and would therefore have no difficulty labeling each of them as Christian. After all, haven't they all equally been covenantly created and are part of your same evolved billions of years old covenantal body?

And as is typical of those advocating error, you evade, avoid and ignore any direct questions that would expose your error.

Tom

JL's picture

Well Tom,

Since writing appears to only be about 6000 years old, and I have said elsewhere, along with numerous young-earth creationists, that Adam wrote Gen. 5:1 (that is the plain meaning of that verse). It seems to me the covenant can be no more than about 6000 years old.

So once again, you demonstrate that you to are in error, as is likewise usual for you.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Well JL,

Again as is your usual, you are in error. What you have said elsewhere, "that Adam wrote Gen. 5:1", is in error.

The author of Gen. 5:1 is the same author that wrote Gen. 5:2-32 which could not have been Adam. You have said many things as you developed your false thesis that: Silence demands an OEC.

The same truth that applies to others, applies to you also, "Silence" demands just that: "Silence".

Tom

JL's picture

Tom,

My sources, and the sources that all the young-earth creationist authors use to determine that Adam wrote Gen. 5:1 all claim that Gen. 5:1 is the end, not the beginning of the section.

You'd know that if you'd carefully read what I've written in the past. But you haven't.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Jl,

Because I have not brought to your attention every error in your false system does not mean that they are not there.

By isolating this error you made it possible to expose the error.

I repeat the same rule I referred to before. A rule that still applies to you and everyone else: Silence demands just that! Silence!

I certainly do not object, nor do I have the right or authority to object, to anything that you want to speculate about. I do however, as I have throughout this thread, object and deny to anyone the right to claim the name and authority of Christ or the word of God for their own human speculations. And that includes your own Covenant Creation speculative concoction.

Tom

davo's picture

tom-g: Thank you Davo,

I couldn't have identified "emergents" any clearer than you have. And your positive description that identifies this group, infers that you also agree with me that this is the group along with Christians that comprise "emergents"

Sorry Tom, but this statement above is totally your own subjective and errant interpretation, completely misconstruing what I was saying – you are not communicating objectively Tom.

My describing of "atheists" and the like as possible "Emergents" was based solely on your post alone Tom to which I was replying, where YOU openly declared "What I have said is the exact opposite, I have said that there are atheists who are Emergent." I have no personal knowledge myself Tom that such is the case and so can only take your words as being factual and true, as you know it.

What I WAS saying Tom, but of which you totally missed, was that perhaps IF there are "atheists" and the like present in Emergent then perhaps some of these, assuming they are smart enough to know that "Emergent" has a Christian emphasis, are possibly searching for the truth – and perhaps, just maybe perhaps, IF they aren't confronted with the typical double-speak religiosity that in many quarters passes for "Christianity" these said "non-Christians" might just find Christ… and thus being doubly blessed for it. I'm talking about them being positively influenced to find Christ NOT "churchianity", becoming believers NOT "biblicans" i.e., those who worship the Bible, or more poignantly their understanding of it.

davo

tom-g's picture

Thanks again Davo,

That's a lot of "perhaps, just maybe perhaps" for someone reading your response to presuppose as the meaning.

Your supposition is that in these groups planning and working toward a post modern economic, political, social, environmental world, as PT describes in her interview, these atheists and non-Christians will "perhaps, just maybe perhaps" be hearing the gospel of the salvation of the grace of God through faith in Christ, NOT OF WORKS.

That's a lot of "perhaps, just maybe perhaps" for someone reading your response to presuppose as the meaning.

Did you ever wonder why these folks would want to voluntarily attend meetings to have the gospel preached to them? That of course is "perhaps, just maybe perhaps" it will be preached.

Tom

davo's picture

Tom… many an atheist has a heart of gold, at least that's what I've found in my experience; they just need to edged to find the Refiner's fire – and yet God in His sovereignty certainly has a unique way of doing things beyond the rules and expectations we set.

davo

tom-g's picture

Davo,

What you have found in your experience I have also found in my experience. And you may have just accurately described, the humane heart of gold of natural unsaved men, that is the reason why the Lord will say to them; "depart from me you that work iniquity, I never knew you".

I thank Christ constantly that it is not, as you have pointed out, what unsaved natural men falsely believe, that it is their heart of gold that is constantly being refined that is the reason for, or in any way a consideration for, why our Lord went to the cross to save them.

By pointing out that the false rules and expectations that natural men set down as a definition for their own unique acceptance by God, is false and in fact the reason why they are rejected by God. That they must ultimately realize and accept that the only way, the only truth and the only light was once and for all absolutely and uniquely accomplished by Christ at the cross for all that believe.

Thanks Davo for pointing out the error of what natural unsaved men believe. It certainly offers us, as preachers of the true gospel, the opportunity to demonstrate the error of what they believe.

Tom

davo's picture

hmm Tom… maybe it's a north/south hemisphere thing – but I think you're being affected by inversion when you read my posts, well never mind…

davo

tom-g's picture

Davo,

The opposite understanding would create so many contradictions that I knew you, with your in depth understanding of scripture, must be saying what I understood it to be saying.

If not, I'm sorry. If you in fact desired it to be saying the opposite of my understanding, then I'll rephrase my comments.

Tom

Starlight's picture

Virgil,

I told you so.:) LOL

Norm

mazuur's picture

Tom,

and you seem to continue to show me you smoke crack. I am at a total loss how you come up with "salvation by grace through Christ" being denied in any way shape or form. Not a single person has introduced anything to the contrary. In fact, I seem to see virgil's statment say, "...Christ-centered".

You argument is like trying to argue that if one were to move from futurism to Preterism he would be abandoning salvation by grace through Christ.

-Rich

-Rich

Virgil's picture

Rich...telling him he smokes crack doesn't help either dude!

mazuur's picture

Virgil,

I know. I just can't figure out where he comes up with the stuff. It's mind boggling.

Sorry Tom.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Thanks Rich

tom-g's picture

Thanks Virgil

tom-g's picture

Rich,

No. My argument is not as you claim.

My argument is that there will be many who will come in that day and say....And the Lord will say depart from me you who work iniquity, I NEVER knew you.

I do not want to be one of those who are rejected by the Lord. Therefore I test every spirit, not all who say they are of Christ are of Christ.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Virgil,

I'm not saying Preterism is not a part or a big part (although I haven't seen it as a big part, actually, I have seen very little Preterism in what little exposure I have had to the Emergent movement), I just wish it was much bigger.

I love this assessment you made, "Christianity will be a fusion of fulfilled eschatology, emergent theology and Christ-centered community-oriented social justice."

-Rich

-Rich

Virgil's picture

I have seen very little Preterism in what little exposure I have had to the Emergent movement

Ohhhh...if it quacks like one, you know what it is...and just wait for McLaren's next book. :)

Virtually everything you hear in emergent circles is an outcome of preteristic theology. I don't care what it's called; all I am interested in are the results: a present and real Kingdom of God/Heaven here on earth...NOW; a real presence of Christ...NOW, a need to direct involvement of believers in the affairs of the world, a never-ending world, an eschatological fulfillment in the first century but a prophetic voice of Christians today, etc.

This is exciting stuff Rich :)

mazuur's picture

"Virtually everything you hear in emergent circles is an outcome of preteristic theology."

I hear what you are saying and see it as the ramifications of Preterism, but the problem is they don't see it. They don't understand that if they are going to hold to certain positions, then Christ has returned and the Kingdom is here now. I am waiting for the day when they finally connect the dots and see the logical end to what they believe.

-Rich

-Rich

Virgil's picture

Everything happens at the right time Rich :) Grace and patience my friend...

Islamaphobe's picture

This interview reinforces my conviction that we have entered into one of the most remarkable periods in history, and I am not talking about the future as seen by dispensationalists! But the world--and I literally mean the WORLD--is now changing at a breathtaking pace for reasons that Tickle makes clear. This is going to be a very tough time for many of those with a strong vested interest in keeping the prevailing religious establishments on top, and it is going to be a time when many millions of people can be brought to the biblical Christ if we can find how best to reach them. Despite the world economic and spiritual malaise that we are in, it is a time for optimism.

JSE

JSE

Virgil's picture

John, that is why I am excited as well. We are living in a remarkable period of time and I am thankful to God for allowing us to experience this. He could have well placed me smack in the middle of a period of regress and lack of relevance for the Church. Instead he graced me with life today! :)

Those who have transformed the Christian faith into a business, especially here in the West are going to hang on...because their lives depend on it...literally.

Life14all's picture

Last night I was in a bargin book store and in the bin marked $1.00 I found this book by Phyllis Tickle. For a book to be described as, "a book which is shaping out to be one of the most important books of 2009" I think I made a very good purchase.

One funny sidenote. The only other books in the bin were all Brian McLaren's. So I upgraded my personal library with all their material for under $5.00.

The Emergent Shopaholic

PreteristArtist

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43