Shaw: Theology & Outcomes Matter; Methods Don't

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by n david

I thought Charismatic = not holding to UPC standards?

Apparently according to the UPC, Emergent = the new Charismatic.

Charismatic is a 70's term.

[Jeffrey]

In our District, many of us have been called to the carpet for such terminology. Thankfully, the "carpet callers" are just far removed and generally ignorant. This is why I can appreciate someone like RS.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Why don't they just call them progressive instead of emergents?

There is a "progressive" element within the UPC that employs a bit of a different usage for the term than the way it's used in the broader culture. WH often opens his meetings with an "I'm a 'Progressive Apostolic' ..." intro. He then goes into detail to describe how he's willing to "put up" with folks that don't adopt the standards right away as long as there is "progress" in their development, otherwise.

The "Progressives" in the UPC strike me as the type that don't want to be hassled by UC's if they have people show up at camp with cut hair and/or long hair on the wrong types of people. It's a way of saying "me too!" when it comes to outward standards without having to harp on the subject everytime you're in a pulpit. IMHO.

Of course, all of this begs the question, "Why not just preach what's in the Bible?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

In our District, many of us have been called to the carpet for such terminology. Thankfully, the "carpet callers" are just far removed and generally ignorant. This is why I can appreciate someone like RS.

He's a good dude.

*Disclaimer to protect RS from ever being identified with my own opinions: RS has closely cropped hair and no facial hair whatsoever. I have never seen RS in short sleeves or short pants. RS does not have season tickets to sports venues. ** RS is an ardent and crazed "Three Stepper" who thinks I'm lost and on my way to a devil's hell.

** Just in case. Don't know who his new DS will be yet.

[Jeffrey]

Perhaps RJ or JK will put their hat in the ring as DS!

RIGHT!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

If you read between the lines, he's saying that those changing methods to more casual, conversational (read "emergent") style of churches, aren't having the outcomes where people are receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Pentecostal worship. At least that's what I read. He says it much more eloquently of course.

He has a point. To him, the UPCI and the affirmation statement reflects 3-step doctrine, which most of the UPCI agrees. How many churches that no longer preach HG Baptism as essentiality still have a high percentage of believers receiving the HG with tongues? Valid point and concern from his perspective.

It's not the method, though. It's what the outcome he's seeing. I think it takes some line-reading to see this.

what is dumb is that is not what "emergent" is

[Jeffrey]

Anyone see the blog post? Interested because there are 3 camps regarding methods:

1) Keep Doing What We've Always Done & Hold the Fort

2) Do it all. Pump it up. Lights, Camera, Action.

3) Simplify the Gospel. Clothe it with humility. No more mega-churches. House-church, small-group style. Serving, Gospel in action.

Anyone else notice that? Do you consider yourself a hybrid?