CTR on the Emerging Church

The current issue of the Criswell Theological Review is making the rounds in the blogosphere (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here . . . just to name a few). As I indicated in my previous post, some of the articles are already available to download for free.

One of the interesting things about this issue is that at least two of the contributors, Mark Driscoll and John Hammett, have decided to use Ed Stetzer’s tripartite scheme for describing emerging churches: Relevants, Reconstructionists, and Revisionists.

Here’s how Driscoll breaks it down in his CTR article:

Continue reading CTR on the Emerging Church

McLaren and Driscoll in New Journal on Emerging Church

www.CriswellJournal.com

Readers of this blog are aware of the falling out between Pastor Mark Driscoll and the emerging church movement. Driscoll’s very public criticism of Brian McLaren’s stance (or non-stance) on homosexuality and Driscoll’s subsequent apology make it very clear that the theological issues at stake in the emerging conversation cause no little dissension.

That is why the latest installment of the Criswell Theological Review does a great service to the evangelical community’s discussion of this important topic. The current issue features both Mark Driscoll and Brian McLaren. Driscoll contributes an article that gives “A Pastoral Perspective on the Emergent Church.” Brian McLaren participates in the conversation by doing an interview with the editor of the journal. In addition, this issue includes other articles both pro and con on the emerging movement.

You can find out how to get a copy of the journal at the website: www.CriswellJournal.com. This is one issue you won’t want to miss.

Marvin Olasky vs. Ralph Reed

The Washington Post has picked up Marvin Olasky’s reporting on Ralph Reed’s ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Here’s the heart of it.

Olasky, a journalism professor at the University of Texas, is editor in chief of World magazine, the mission of which “is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Since Nov. 19, World has run 10 articles and essays describing the $4 million in gambling money Abramoff paid to Reed to lobby against casinos competing with Abramoff’s clients. The articles have highlighted incriminating e-mails and other disclosures that have raised doubts about Reed’s explanations of his activities.

If you are interested in reading the full article, you can find it at the following link: “From a Conservative, a Lack Of Compassion for Ralph Reed.”

Olasky has provided a list of his reasons for covering this story in a short essay titled: “Why dig into a sad situation?” Olasky saves the sting for the end when he writes:

[Ralph Reed] has damaged Christian political work by confirming for some the stereotype that evangelicals are easily manipulated and that evangelical leaders use moral issues to line their own pockets.

Inerrancy Is Not Enough

Today I presented a paper at the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The meeting was held at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, and Albert Mohler and Wayne Grudem were special guests and speakers at the plenary sessions.

I told the people who attended my session that I would make my paper available here on my blog. So here it is for anyone who is interested.

Inerrancy Is Not Enough – by Denny Burk

Thanks to all of you who attended my session.

Deconstructing The Da Vinci Code

Photo by James Yacovelli

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary recently held a symposium on Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. Panel members include Bart Ehrman, Andreas Kostenberger, Richard Hays, and Norm Geisler.

 

You can download the mp3 audio of the conversation from the SEBTS Website, or you can subscribe to the “Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary – Chapel Podcast” through iTunes. The title of the discussion is “Roundtable Discussion of The Da Vinci Code.”

 

This is a very fascinating discussion. As for the historical claims of The Da Vinci Code, when Norm Geisler and Bart Ehrman are in agreement on anything having to do with Christianity, you know that something momentous has happened. In this case, it turns out that The Da Vinci Code is momentously wrong. The book makes egregious historical errors, and panel members (liberal and conservative alike) agree on that score.