An upcoming Emergent Church conference:
9:00 am
The Confession, Culture, and Mission:
Why the Westminster Confession is a message that is missionally efficient and sufficientDr. Ben Inman, RUF Campus Minister, UNC-Chapel Hill
(60 minutes)
So not only is this true, but it can be demonstrated in an hour?
Does anyone take vows in any denomination to regard the Westminster Confession as missionally efficient and sufficient?
Of course, I may well be mistaking the intent of the lecture. If Dr. Inman is simply arguing the Reformed faith is true (the system of doctrine in the Westminster Confession) and thus applicable and useful in our mission to the world, then I think that it both correct and possibly arguable within an hour.
It just seemed to mean something a great deal more specific when it first caught my eye.
Heh, I wonder myself what he’s trying to say. Can Westminster get away with preaching the Gospel without defining what the Gospel is? Is Westminster the message sufficient to preach in missions, or is the Gospel that message?
Needless to say, I’m skeptical it will pull off what it says it will. The Confession is wonderful, succinct, and … self-declaredly insufficient. So I wonder at the proposal that it is sufficient.
Well,
Ben is a friend of mine. I try not to talk theology with him too much, but I’m very pleased that he’s been getting wonderful response to his RUF ministry in Chapel Hill.
I have no idea, however, what the content of his talk might be.
Right. Even if he was saying something I disagreed with it wouldn’t detract from my confidence in his ministry. And he is probably saying stuff which I agree with very much. It just hit me oddly when I read it.
Moohahhhhhhhaahhhhhhaaaaaaaa! I’ve been lurking so long . . .
For what it’s worth, that title is a variation on the one I was asked to address. I don’t know why they changed it, though the changes are neglible. Still an interesting assignment and right down my gully.
As for my intent, that will just have to be conjured out of the scribbling I have done. I will say that I was wary at the invitation because I didn’t know which of my second hand reputations was being invoked. Was I asked as the token braid/ear-ring fellow to stand with the better dressed bashers, or as the token confessionalist to stand with the less culturally anomalous missional guys? Neither, and I am hopeful it will be a useful conference.
btw, heretofore I have resisted nearly all forays into the blog forum. I am already accustomed to having my opinions and actions grossly caricatured by some nearby. The blog opportunity just seems like redundancy, in an OCD sort of way.
I am sorry to hear that anyone might think twice about discussing human thoughts about God’s Word with me. But, then again, I wouldn’t want to waste anyone’s time.
I guess I am now part of the club: people graciously being thankful for what God may being doing with my office while also keeping in mind that I might be a fool. I take no offense at that. Many a day this is what I am thinking about when I walk on campus.
Oh great. Now I’ve sucked a productive theologian and minister into the blogosphere. That can’t be good.
Wish I could attend the conference, Ben. But St. Louis is a l o n g way away….
We await Ben’s comments with baited breath (hey Bubba Mark, couldja pass me more of them minners?).
I’ll be at the WTS forum. It all looks fascinating and I think the various sides have a lot they can learn from one antoher.
As for Ben Inman’s talk, I’m intrigued, partly because I’m not sure what the title even means!
At any rate, perhaps I’ll report back.