i think it's sad that Driscoll is about the only 'Emergent' Piper will interact with.

Driscoll himself is an unabashed 5-pointer (i don't know if he's converted to 7-point Piperism or not yet), and he's even more polemical than Piper, if such a thing is conceivable.

The two are bedfellows.  I see a world of difference between Driscoll and guys like McManus, Bell and McLaren.

Piper only embraces people who already think like he does.  I'm glad Jesus didn't do the same.

point taken. i shouldn't have used the phrase to describe them. i promise to be careful as well. iron sharpening iron...

i would encourage you to read more of SoL's stuff. the general attitude on the blogosphere about them is what we are sometimes guilty of: polemecy. i shudder when people cite them. i guess that is why i reacted the way i did and i am sorry. i've just been hearing about them for some time now and though i shouldn't use the term, the term i used is how they are on the whole, perceived.

additionally, i would differentiate between piper and mcarthur on their views on the emerging church. at piper's annual desiring god conference last year, he had driscoll there. his beef has been with the Emergent folks. i think he embraces the reformed, for lack of better term, emerging church like a mars hill.

d.a. carson was accused of many of the same things mcarthur was - incomplete analyis - but mcarthur's analysis of the movement was, imo, extremely slanted and incomplete. carson did single out mclaren and chalke and even though that was somewhat of a generalization, his views on them i think are spot on. i'm hoping for a follow-up from carson with a broader expositon, filling in the blanks.

there is a book coming out that i am looking forward to that is supposed to be, by all accounts, are more complete and well-balanced look and critique of the movement by some baptist authors. you can read about here.

thx for the conversation cheapham...

Brad, I must admit that I'm surprised by your reaction...I think you are misunderstanding me and in you ultimately do even worse than you what you blame me for. Even so, I'm sorry you are offended, by no means did I intend to cause such feelings.

Obviously, this was my first interaction in any way with SoL. Whoever wrote the article in question seemed to be self-identifying with Lutheranism, even referencing the Book of Concord. While not "reformed" by the technical Presbyterian/Calvinist meaning of the term, the article itself positively harkens back to the Reformation multiple times. Thus, I don't see how the identification as "reformed" is all that uncalled for.

Also, I purposefully used that "/" to seperate the terms, I wasn't saying the author was necessarily a "reformed evangelical." I was equating the hostility of the article with that which I encounter regularly from reformed and/or evangelical (which often are only steps away from the "fundamentalists" you mention) Christians. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the writer was part of those "camp"s, yet judging from the article I see no reason to think otherwise.

Even going with the "reformed evangelical" label, people like John Piper or John MacArthur would be essentially the epitome of such a label (being both reformed and evangelical)...and they are some of the most outspoken Christians against the "emerging church" whom I know of. Their responses are unfortunately quite analogous to the response I read on SoL.

And I find it somewhat ironic that you get upset with my use of labels, which were simply meant as descriptive, yet you have no hesitation of using the "pharisaical fundamentalist" label, which is purely polemical. You make a big deal about being offended and being sensitive with labels, yet don't seem to take such things into account yourself when speaking of others. Don't allow my apparent error cause you to make the same mistake. I certainly promise to be more careful in my use of terms and indentifiers from now on, as I hope you do as well.

i read Challie's article. the thing that i find most disturbing is his preconception that the definition of woman is as wife. he never deals with the implication for woman as an independant entity. am i to understand that single women are less womanly? or unable to fulfill their obedience to God in that they have no head to defer to?

i'm sorry to be so bold here but to lump the sol people in with my 'camp' is a disgraceful generalization. they aren't reformed evangelicals. they are pharisaical fundamentalists. cheapham, why would you categorize them in this way? it seems so short-sighted...i'm offended on some levels.

i would encourage you to be more sensitive to this type of categorization unless you know the categorization to be completely true.

Though I am impressed with Challie's thoroughness, I think all 10 of his points can be challenged at some level - namely, the assumption level. There is no reason to assume a prefall hierarchy. I found none of those reasons compelling.

If anyone would like me to take him point by point, I will...but it's midnight and I have to go to bed. Let me know, I'll put something brief together.

Another note, I skimmed the Source of Submission article, and I found number 10 quite shocking. That Trinity comparison likely would have made him a heretic 1500 years ago...interesting.

Why must you do this to me? I just read that entire tirade by Ingrid...holy crap. I feel physically ill right now. I really am quite puzzled by the reformed/evangelical HATRED for the "emerging church." It's like they never even stop to consider whether their actions and words are Christlike at all. There's not dialogue allowed, only vitriolic lambasting. Heck, the site doesn't even allow talk-back.

Though, looking at the name of her site, there is some definite irony to the whole thing. That site is indeed a slice of Laodicea, I'll go spit my mouth out now.