The second reformation.

[Gregory Thompson]

what exactly is unique with this second reformation your suggesting? a resolve to split the church further IMO has a net loss to the gospel. Restorationist movement is probably a better focus at reforming the church without the need to fragment it and it's aim at restoring biblical values that have been lost.

I like the restorationist movement, but the emergent people are different.

It's kind of like in the first reformation, there was an increased interest in biblical studies. The second reformation will restore people's ability to treat people as people instead of objects defined in the text of the bible. It's more of a healing from colonialism, the crusades, the holocaust, and similar periods of history.

 

[Albion]

I just feel I'd be remiss in not saying it. .

 

[Albion]

I like the restorationist movement, but the emergent people are different.

It's kind of like in the first reformation, there was an increased interest in biblical studies. The second reformation will restore people's ability to treat people as people instead of objects defined in the text of the bible. It's more of a healing from colonialism, the crusades, the holocaust, and similar periods of history.

Right. It's closer to Unitarian Universalism.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Since we are all throwing ideas onto the table--and some pretty good ones IMHO--may it not be closer to the truth to say that the Reformation has never ceased to produce reform? Some churches have stayed close to the original beliefs, but various forces in society and in the church have produced wave after wave of new approaches. The idea that we can say there was the first Reformation but lately we've seen the second Reformation coming into view seems just too narrow to me.

Agreed except really I'd see it as a third Reformation going on even now. I've visited some of those "emerging churches".

What I've seen has been so radically different, it's a new category altogether IMO.

 

[DamianWarS]

Probably not. Restorationism does claim a return to the style of the first Christian churches, but the emergent church is going in the opposite direction.

the emergent church is contrasted by what is articulated as the "inherited church" it's a hard label to really pinpoint but I can see restorationist overlapping with the emergent church as it's focus is about biblical values rather than these "inherited" values the emergent church is contrasted with. "Style" alone I see abrituary to theological differences and I don't know much about either buzzword except that I most likely subscribe to aspects of both in philosophy.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I understand the biblical premise of the whole thing. I'm just considering the perspective of the other side. For example: since pastors need to go to a church approved seminary, isn't the modern pastor a means of scratching itching ears?

On that note, I'd say many if not most seminaries could use some reforming, for a laundry list of reasons. If the proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is by and large not suitable for eating, it is the result of man centered seminaries and the bitter fruits therein.

 

[Albion]

How do you know that it's the third Reformation rather than the sixth or tenth, Anastasia?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Right. It's closer to Unitarian Universalism.

I see parallels there too, but different.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The group I had in mind grew up in the church and some were pastors and assistant pastors who were ostracized by their congregation, I hope all is well with them now.

I call it the second reformation, because the institution representative of the first reformation seems to be the object of protest.

However, like what Albion said, the waves of progressive change throughout the denominations reflects the same attitude that the reformation isn't done yet.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How do you know that it's the third Reformation rather than the sixth or tenth, Anastasia?

Oh, I'm not being dogmatic or trying to create some great theology about it.

Simply enough (really simply!)

I see the first Reformation as seeking to reform the Catholic Church. Result being a number of denominations that were similar in ways, but tried to correct what they perceived as errors in the Church, but maintaining Church itself.

I see the second Reformation as those having mostly seem to think the first Reformation didn't go far enough, failing to correct certain errors. Coming out of it with "a Church" in the ecclesiastical, authoritative sense doesn't seem to be their goal at all. Rather it seems more focused on the individual, perhaps divorced from a church, but at any rate, when there is a church, it's existence and authority is based on the individuals who make it up. Not the other way around. But the relationship of the individual with God, their salvation, piety, etc. is a strong central focus.

The emergent churches I've been to (admittedly few) ... well ... it's much harder for me to define. There is a nod to God, Church, and Scripture, (sometimes!) but really the central thing seems to be the individual. Not the individual and his own piety or relationship with God, as the second one I mentioned above, but the individual HIMSELF. God and all things related are seen more as a means to an end, which seems to be the happiness, well-being, social relationships, health, wealth, entertainment (etc ... in a devolving series of focus) - of that individual. The Church/pastor/Bible/God are a way to help the individual achieve various kinds of happiness and well-being.

It's so very different. So yes, I see it as a third kind.

That's just my own way of looking at it though, helpful to me. I'm not suggesting as a paradigm anyone else must follow. If someone else sees finer distinctions in earlier reformations and wants to make this one the 6th, or 10th, that's fine by me.

 

[DamianWarS]

I like the restorationist movement, but the emergent people are different.

It's kind of like in the first reformation, there was an increased interest in biblical studies. The second reformation will restore people's ability to treat people as people instead of objects defined in the text of the bible. It's more of a healing from colonialism, the crusades, the holocaust, and similar periods of history.

so the "emergentist" resolve is a deconstruction of the inherited systems of church where the restorationist is a restoration back to biblical values. It seems to me they both have overlap

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Breaking the Hex (#607) | The God Journey

 

[GingerBeer]

The first reformation protested the Pope

The second reformation protests the Pastor and the institution that creates the pastor.

thoughts?

Too much protesting creates anarchy.

 

[GingerBeer]

True.

And what is "the pillar and ground of the Truth" ... according to Scripture?
<was all the space intended for dramatic effect or did you fall asleep while typing?>
The Church.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Too much protesting creates anarchy.

One thing I learned from the bible is that the kingdom of God is like leaven that fills the whole world. If it can be leavened, it is not the kingdom of God and worldly.

 

[GingerBeer]

One thing I learned from the bible is that the kingdom of God is like leaven that fills the whole world. If it can be leavened, it is not the kingdom of God and worldly.

Jesus commpared the kingdom of God to a woman putting leaven into measures of dough. You may have missed that comparison in your bible reading if you think leaven means worldly.

Mat 13:33 NASB He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

 

[~Anastasia~]

<was all the space intended for dramatic effect or did you fall asleep while typing?>

Neither.

It was meant to hopefully allow at least a half-second for thought, because for those who haven't seen it yet it would be like always.

There are MANY verses in Scripture that I read countless times, but they never sank in because they didn't fit my theology. I still discover things today that I know full well I would have read, because I read through that book many times. But if you had asked me, back then, I would have said that the Bible didn't say those things.

Sometimes we have to have our attention focused to actually see something we have skimmed over dozens of times without recognizing what it actually said.

Not a fault of persons, it's just how the human mind tends to work. So I was trying to put in a bit of a speed bump, in case someone who had never considered it yet might be able to see it.

I'm a very undramatic person. I do fall asleep while typing sometimes though.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Jesus commpared the kingdom of God to a woman putting leaven into measures of dough. You may have missed that comparison in your bible reading if you think leaven means worldly.

Mat 13:33 NASB He spoke another parable to them, "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened."

Yeah, it's usually spoken of figuratively as worldliness, but this turns that perception on its head.

 

[GingerBeer]

Neither.

It was meant to hopefully allow at least a half-second for thought, because for those who haven't seen it yet it would be like always.

There are MANY verses in Scripture that I read countless times, but they never sank in because they didn't fit my theology. I still discover things today that I know full well I would have read, because I read through that book many times. But if you had asked me, back then, I would have said that the Bible didn't say those things.

Sometimes we have to have our attention focused to actually see something we have skimmed over dozens of times without recognizing what it actually said.

Not a fault of persons, it's just how the human mind tends to work. So I was trying to put in a bit of a speed bump, in case someone who had never considered it yet might be able to see it.

I'm a very undramatic person. I do fall asleep while typing sometimes though.

I wonder if everybody who holds to a theology different from yours really does miss what the passage says or if you've read the passage according to a pattern that you've received in your church. You would not be alone in doing that. Virtually everybody takes the received view of their church and filters scripture though it.

1Ti 3:14-16 NASB I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 16 By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.​

There is some diversity of opinion among commentators about whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that "the church" is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh.

I'd say it is the church that is intended but the other possibility also exists and ought not be summarily dismissed.

 

[GingerBeer]

Yeah, it's usually spoken of figuratively as worldliness, but this turns that perception on its head.

So it does. Maybe that is because leaven is just leaven and it have no specific meaning in scripture. The context is what gives leaven a specific meaning and the word "leaven" does not decide the meaning of the context.