Why settle for an emerging church argument when you can have an emerging church argument 2.0?
Adam Abu-Nab emailed me this morning to throw me a bone. Adam is helping to launch a new 2.0 app called aMap. It's "designed to promote the art of arguing by mapping out complex arguments in a simple visual way across social media."
I thought i would test it out with an argument on the emerging church since there is lots of juicy fodder out there to find disagreement on. Heres a good one to start:
I read on the blogs this week that Rutledge Etheridge will deliver three seminar lectures, entitled "The Church's Identity Crisis: Sola Scriptura and The Emerging Church". "While we should applaud and apply much of its content, we must also confront that it is moved along by an old philosophical wind which ever threatens to wrest Christ's church from the foundation of her faith – the written Word of God," says Etheridge, whose lectures next Saturday at RPTS are sponsored by the Reformation Society of Pittsburgh.
Etheridge claims the written Word of God is the foundation of the church's faith. OK. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Thats a lot better than some cooked up propositions by old bearded men with robes.
And apparently the emerging church believes something different. Fair enough. Lets take the prototypical emerging church claim [let me make a general sweeping statement here] that . . say . . the foundation for our faith is actually the Person of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, the living eternal Word of God.
Again, just road-testing this software, not trying to start World War Three. I have typed in one or two supporting arguments on the emerging church side. If you want to help me, pick a side, any side, jump in, shoot me down, quote the Anabaptists, back me up, whatever, and lets see if we can successfully have a 2.0 discussion.