Quote
M Paul said:
Etc. etc. etc. You ignore completely what I said about why he is insignificant, just so you can state why you think he is. That approach is consistent with other things I said in my first post about how attention is being focused on him to make him significant for particular motives. In truth, that dog don't hunt.
So, from what I have been able to understand from what you have written about your "brand" of house church theology and the "Emerging Church" heresy of McLaren, it seems this is one of those "chicken or the egg" dilemmas. Both you and McLaren with his followers both want to claim the moniker of "Emerging Church". The dilemma here is apparently who can rightfully lay claim to it. Over many years I have never read nor heard anyone who espouses the "house church" phenomena refer to themselves or what they were espousing as "emerging".

I would guess that if you could show that this idea you hold to re: "house churches", which rejects the historic and traditional ecclesiology of the Church, came first, then you could rightfully use the term to describe what it is you believe. However, if McLaren and those that follow him and others similar to him, i.e., those who want to change the biblical teaching concerning the Gospel for another "gospel" and the methodology of both reaching the lost and edifying the saints for the philosophies of post-modernism, which you say you reject and want no relationship with can rightly lay claim to the term "emerging church", then if I were you, I would discontinue using that term. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]