BrimstonePreacha said:
Joe, you know, I really couldn't decide if I wanted to respond to you or to Pilgrim to maybe Kyle (CovenantInBlood) who seems to have been a bit rude to my friend Kalled,
It amazes me that my "rudeness" should be troublesome to you such that you post a long and caustic rant on your own accord.
There are likewise numerous people claiming to be emergent who do not represent the entire movement. That is one thing that must be acknowledge and I would hope is admired. These people don't claim to be bound by any other member of the movement and it gives them incredible flexibility which is lacking in certain groups.
Why should we admire willy-nilly, make-your-own-way, post-modern relativistic fluff? What's to admire about a claimed total lack of group cohesion? There is no ultimately no standard to which to appeal to make a judgement, because for "emerging" people, we can't
really know objective truth.
What is it that draws so many people to emergent? The Post-Modernism? I don't think so, it's as hard as the movement is to define.
That's because the central idea of post-modernism is that there is no objective truth. Post-modernism can't be defined because
nothing is ultimately definable. As a result, judgement is impossible, and truth is really relegated to subjective and mystical experiences. This lack of judgement and consequent subjectivity and mysticism makes the "emerging church" very appealing.
What does draw people and what the average joe on the street is looking for is a faith that shows itself out in actions as our dear brother and epistle writing James once put forth, "Faith apart from works is dead." The thing we can say about emergent is that their faith is not dead, can that always be said of us (You and me, us)?
I can certainly say their faith is dead, because their faith is not the faith once for all delivered to the saints! Their
actions are nothing more than what any "virtuous" non-Christian might do, but those works are not motivated by the pure Gospel, but by socio-philosophical ideas similar to those that motivated the Social Gospel movement of the late 1800's, in addition to the demonic "growth" philosophy of the megachurch movement, i.e., "be relevant to the culture." "Emerging churches" may not be as concerned with bare numbers, but they are just as concerned with "relevance."
You know that I love good preaching and I love good doctrinal reading and quotes from great Christians of the past, but what good has simply stating an argument or using complex thoughts done for us? Has preserving the church in a timeless bubble from the first century or from the 16th really won us the world? No, few people are won over to the gospel simply because of a mental component of being unable to argue past it. People are won when they see the benefit and the change of the gospel in the lives of those who have already received that free gift of grace.
Luke, no one is won over to the Gospel either by complex argumentation OR by being cared for materially. The Spirit wins people over to the Gospel by convicting their hearts and speaking peace to them through
the Word of God!
We have failed to engage culture and so we are seen as snobby.
Is it because of a failure
to engage, or rather a failure
to adopt the unbiblical values of the surrounding culture?
many of us (thanks Mr. Finney) require people to only make a response to the gospel at a certain time, it's usually after we've bashed the pharisee's throughout the sermon who added to the law.
Is this a legitimate criticism of orthodox Reformed Christianity??
Emergents aren't looking for great doctrine, you're never going to convince emergents they're wrong by just shouting over the internet "EMERGENTS ARE GOING TO HELL!" All that accomplishes is to create quarrels and fighting and division and to further our (Christiandom in its entirety) image of lacking the very grace we proclaim.
The ones dividing the church are not orthodox believers, but those who proclaim a different gospel. "Emerging" folks aren't looking for great doctrine because they fundamentally don't believe it exists. We don't really understand anything at all, they say.
Finally, Denny, Kalled wasn't making backhanded accusations but speaking the truth, it is unchristian to make fun of people, or have we all forgotten Paul's words to the Corinthians? "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. . . We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry" (II Corinthians 5:16a and 6:3).
I was the one who said Jeremy was making "backhanded accusations." Why? Because he was accusing "people" of "unchristian behavior" for
possibly "making fun of" a blind or mentally handicapped peron, instead of naming names and actually proving his case. Really, I didn't notice anyone making fun of the dog's owner. But frankly, I don't see any biblical principle as flatly prohibiting "making fun of people" (check out "The Lighter Side" forum and see if you think none of that is "making fun of people"), but especially not mocking and deriding the stupid actions of people who think they are worshipping God "in spirit and in truth." You need only examine the instances of God's laughter in Scripture to see that is most frequently derisive of unbelievers.
