LTTBOEC Clarification of the intent

The longest book title ever book - Listening To The Beliefs Of Emerging Churches - is getting some interest in the bog world (that is certain to give some a few sleepless nights).
But one of the misconceptions of the book is that is was only suppose to focus on each of our beliefs on a set list of issues. The book was not an answer form on only three topics, or any number of topics. We were given a broad list to address and at the same time wanted to address some issues in common. But the book was not meant to be about three or things.
The book was meant to be much broader than that. It was to be about not only what we believed about certain issues, but how we believe, how those beliefs had changes, and how beliefs function for us.
Here is a section from the invitation letter to the project from Robert Webber. I think this will allow the book to make more sense.

Content: Zondervan has given me a list of questions which I have included below.  I have also added my own list.  You do not need to address all the questions.  Theological disagreement is welcome, and courtesy toward each other is, of course, expected.

ZONDERVAN QUESTIONS:
*  How did you come to beinvolved in church ministry?  (Brief summary of your calling/story).
*  What is unique about how you do church?  What do you believe about the nature and purpose of the church?
*  What is your view of worship including the nature and purpose of preaching?
*  What is your view of Scripture?
*  Are there basic doctrinal affirmations that you think are essential to authentic Christianity?
*  What is your view of the person and work of Christ including the atonement?
*  What is your view of the relation of Christianity to other religions and the doctrine of eternal punishment?
*  How have your views changed over the past decade?

WEBBER QUESTIONS:
*  How do you regard “the story of God” as a place to start theological thinking?
*  What is your attitude toward “communal reflection” as opposed to individualized theology?
*  Do you subscribe to “post systems theology?”
*  How does truth get embodied?
*  How do sign and symbol communicate truth?
*  How do you view the ancient creeds, especially the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedon Creed?
*  How should we approach the issue of unity and diversity?
*  What role will tradition play in the Emerging church?
*  What cultural revolutions of recent years shape your way of thinking?  i.e. scientific; philosophical; globalism; communication theory; historical analysis; sociological shifts; relativism.

There may be other questions that interest you, so feel free to touch on the areas of particular interest.

Comments

[nate]

Doug,

I picked up LTTBOEC recently and really enjoyed it. Thanks for entering into that kind of dialog. I did notice in the "For Further Reading" appendix there were not any suggestions from you. Any chance you can provide an addendum with some suggested readings?

Nate

[el mol]

where's my link on this blog?

[Timothy Thompson]

Quick question: the phrase "post systems theology" caught my eye. I wanted to know what was meant by that so I Googled it and your page is the only hit for it. (Also for "Post-systems theology" and "postsystems theology." Do you get an award or something for being the only hit on the whole web for a paricular idea? )

Anyway - can someone fill me in on that or point me to a resource where I can lean more?

Thanks!

Tim

[Matthew]

Doug,
How did Mark Driscoll and Scot McKnight get so confused as to the scope of the book? That seems kind of weird. Is someone deliberately misrepresenting what was asked of the contributors?

[ted]

Jason my point still stands. There is a huge difference between believing certain doctrines are essential, and if others do not ascribe to them then they are wrong; and "the world is going to hell." I think Muslims are off in the Christology, just like I do Mormons. We all draw lines with our doctrine and theology, but doing so does not mean we have somehow done something wrong. And to imply that Driscoll is ready to cast all those to hell who do not line up with Calvinism is just a bad reading of what he wrote.

[jason smith]

I would suggest that Mark does think that deviating from the big three is equivalent from leaving what is essential. You might not think that, but by defining other theology as aberrant....

aberrant = 1. Deviating from the proper or expected course. 2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.

I'm sorry, but when you open the chapter by describing others in this way, you play your cards.

[Dan Wilt]

I'm just finishing writing for a book with Broadman Holman called Perspectives: Five Views On Worship. I

t's an interesting journey advocating your own ideas, then seeking to elevate their strength without setting up straw men representing other, or opposing, ideas.

I've found it to be challenging to contribute, but a labor that synthesizes the ideas in my own heart and mind.

Bless you as you scribe, Doug. Embrace the process... again.

[ted]

The funny thing is Doug, That Kimball affirmed both what Scot and Mark said the intent of the book was supposed to be over at Andrew Jones' blog.

Also Jason no where in Mark's chapter does he imply that people need to subscribe to reformed theology or they are going to hell. This is just plain wrong to say. Just like the other contributers to the book is he is passionate, but this should not be held against, as we would not hold it against any of the other writers.

[jason smith]

Hmm...yeah, I would say that I get from Mark's chapter and the reformed movement (that is, the younger reformed advocates) that WE BETTER FOCUS ON THESE THREE ISSUES! If we don't all come over to the calvinistic view on those three issues, the world is going to hell. And, I got from the rest of the book, that maybe its okay that there are a bunch of people that don't think that's true.