//
Emerging

>Doctrinal Prophylactic!

> In our ongoing effort to protect the doctrinal chastity of web-savvy Christians, we are pleased to introduce the internet’s first DOCTRINAL PROPHYLACTIC.

Now you can feel confident that visits to an emerging church website or blog will not harm your sound thinking, and embarrass you during Sunday School discussions.

You can now gaze upon differing theological viewpoints with impunity. Never again will you be tempted to question what you already believe. Using state-of-the-art propriety technology, our patented (patent applied for) theological condom blocks offensive doctrines.

FACT:
Emerging church discussion boards and blogs are rife with STD’s (Startling Theological Digressions). Emerging church heresies are extremely contagious. Your perfect doctrine can be contaminated by viewing as few as 14 words from emerging church writers.

Available in assorted neon colors, or classic non-ribbed silver (shown)

Advertisements

Discussion

9 thoughts on “>Doctrinal Prophylactic!

  1. >Good point. I have no problem with the sentiment expressed in that quote. I don’t want anyone to misunderstand some of the comments I’ve made about the Godblog wars. I don’t believe that we need to stop “disputations” and healthy debates but I do believe that we cross the line when we resort to insults, name calling, picking fights, and mockery. Going around from blog to blog challenging people to fights over any and every point of doctrine is not helpful. But we’re certainly all big boys and girls here. Several of us have had the privilege of receiving theological training and advanced degrees in other subjects that many people don’t have the opportunity to earn. So, yes, we can discuss and debate. The question is how should we go about it?

    Posted by Jeff Wright | August 11, 2007, 7:24 pm
  2. >I love that picture! I just read this in my Martin Luther bio this morning. To Johann Eck he said:”Disputations have been allowed from ancient times, even concerning the Holy Trinity. What good is a soldier if he is not allowed to fight, a sheep dog if he may not bark, and a theologian if he may not debate? Better spend money to support old women who can knit than theologians who cannot discuss.”

    Posted by QueenKnitter | August 11, 2007, 3:15 pm
  3. >This is totally something I would have expected on the CC blog! Hilarious!

    Posted by Tim | August 9, 2007, 3:21 am
  4. >Well, I never have to worry about visiting any sites because I know that I’m pretty grounded in my theology and can’t be tossed around by the winds of various doctrines. So, I can enjoy different perspectives and maybe benefit from insight they bring to Scripture.And you are welcome for the link šŸ™‚ BTW, the name of your blog is brilliant, very catchy.

    Posted by michele | August 9, 2007, 2:26 am
  5. >LOL… you guys are great.I like the white background for posts. The CRM are such web gurus.

    Posted by Gina | August 8, 2007, 3:55 pm
  6. >mshalcomb (from theooze)and I put together this post last year for something else. In reality, we were simply trying to caption the pic. In a larger sense though, I think it does contain an element of sardonic truth. When we are afraid to engage (or even befriend) those of differing beliefs or doctrine, then we should check our own spiritual barometer. The fear we experience is most often a lack of confidence in understanding our own beliefs! Why must we only associate with those with whom we agree? If we cannot bridge the denominational gap to find points of convergence or even unity, what are we?Since our denomination does not qualify us for entrance into the kingdom, why must we use it to vet our friendships?

    Posted by Mike | August 8, 2007, 3:40 pm
  7. >Thanks for the link, by the way.

    Posted by Jeff Wright | August 8, 2007, 2:07 pm
  8. >”Oh. My. Heck! That is too funny. I think I’ll stick to getting my protection from knowing the word of God :-)”Good morning, Michele! Nice to see a fellow New Jerseyan online (is that what we call ourselves?!). I am a Jerseyan in exile though. I agree with you 100% on getting our protection from the word of God. This is what enables me to “question what I already believe” and have disucssions with those who believe what I perceive to be “offensive doctrines,” as Mike said. You would think that someone (I’m not directing all this at you, Michele, by the way. Just jumping off your comments to get some discussion going) who loves the word of God and is grounded in it would not need a doctrinal prophylactic. However, some people do carry on as if their “perfect doctrine will be contaminated by viewing as few as 14 words from emerging church writers.” Which is what makes this post funny too me. Prophylcatic. Just wanted to say that one more time. Its not a word that ends up in theological discussions very much. šŸ˜‰

    Posted by Jeff Wright | August 8, 2007, 12:53 pm
  9. >Oh. My. Heck! That is too funny. I think I’ll stick to getting my protection from knowing the word of God šŸ™‚

    Posted by michele | August 8, 2007, 5:39 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

From the Vault

Friend of Grace

Photobucket
All articles Ā© 2007-2011 by the respective authors of the Conservative Reformed Mafia. All Rights Reserved.
%d bloggers like this: