I saw the "Emergent Church" mentioned in a thread in the prayer request forum and just wanted to bring out a discussion on it. From what I have read of it, it doesn't seem to be such a "horrible" thing. Granted, most of the people doing it are off theologically, but isn't the idea a good one? What is wrong with creating an atmosphere of theological discussion and fellowship among the people? I was under the impression that this was a part of what the church was for. Maybe I am missing something though.
Could someone shed some light on this issue for me? Why is particularily the Reformed community against this "movement"...for that matter, why is the Reformed community so against any change in the way that church is done?
If, for instance, the "emerging" house church movement in China is an example of it, Would to God we be blessed with the same "emergence" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
A valid definition of the Emergent Church is "Vintage Christianity connects with emerging post-seeker generations who are very open spiritually but are not interested in church." As if that was not enough, the Emergent Church movement has among its defenders Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo, etc. As James White says, McLaren speaks of the "apologetic of good lives and good works" being more "costly" than "asserting the message of absolute objective truth or proclaiming a version of Christianity as the true metanarrative." Why is there such an aversion on the part of postmodernists to use biblical language to express biblical truths? Why do we have to adopt the skeptical, confused, disjointed language and beliefs of the world? Why can't we trust the Spirit to change the hearts and minds of His elect people through the proclamation of the Gospel has He has done for two millennia? Postmodernism does not flow from the imago Dei, it flows from a sinful culture and educational system.
A good book here is The Church in Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives, by Andy Crouch (Re:Generation Quarterly editor-in-chief, A columnist for Christianity Today), Michael S. Horton (WTS professor and reformed theologian), Frederica Mathewes-Green (author, commentator, and Orthodox Christian, contributor to Christianity Today, Focus on the Family-Citizen, and Touchstone), Brian D. McLaren (postmodernist, author, pastor, and Emergent senior fellow), and Erwin Raphael McManus (author and pastor of the innovative and interethnic L.A.-based church, Mosaic). One must use a lot of discernment in reading this book.
PS: The idea of the Reformed faith reforming is valid, however we do not wish to reform to be more like the world, but more like Jesus. Those of the Reformed faith desire to grow in grace and truth and not further the cause(s) of heresy.
From what I have read of it, it doesn't seem to be such a "horrible" thing. Granted, most of the people doing it are off theologically, but isn't the idea a good one? What is wrong with creating an atmosphere of theological discussion and fellowship among the people?
If the people involved are off theologically, then how will there be a proper understanding of God's objective and unchanging truth? There's nothing wrong with being a warm, caring church (didn't Jesus tell us to bear one another's bvurdens and so fulfill the law of Christ?) But the problem is when you do this at the expense of watering down truth, dismissing the regulative principle, doing away with proper church discipline, and rearranging the structure of the church.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
I know somebody who has gotten ensnared in the "Emergent Church" movement, a la Brian MacLaren. Yes, I said ensnared. He's one of the countless 20-somethings dissatisfied by the fluff the evangelical church had been selling its soul to peddle for the past several decades, yet who himself has capitulated thoroughly to the mindset of postmodernism (which the evangelical church has ironically been trying to accomodate), and has found exactly what he's looking for in this movement.
The thing is, his "emergent church," isn't one. If it doesn't walk like a duck or talk like a duck, it isn't a duck. They don't have any leaderhsip- just a group of "mature" folks who spearhead things. They don't have any defined services. Sometimes they'll just get together at someone's house and have spiritual discussions, on topics like how evolution must be right because it reflects in the universe itself the creative energies of God. Othertimes they'll just sing. I think they've even had times of corporate art (i.e. painting). Basically, what ever floats their postmodern boats. There's no preaching, no anything that would remotely bear the resemblance of a New Testement church. Basically, it's evangelical culture-accomodation taken to its full logical conclusion, in the process becoming "Christian" in name only. If that.
I think I'm the one to orginally bring up the discussion on the emergent church because unfortunately my pastors/church are attracted to this. I say unfortunately because I have done quite a bit of reading in the last year or so and I discern the errors of this movement myself. What you bring up is a good question - What's wrong with encouraging community and discussion and such? And you brought up what's a major wrong in the emergent movement - theological error. Do you see the deception right there?? There's something that sounds good, but when you really read between the lines there is something else going on. After reading 3 + of Brian McLaren's books (who is a "leader" in the emergent church movement) and others I feel I have a pretty good "feel" for this movement and also spending time on some popular emergent sites. I see some strange things like confusion about homosexuality, abortion and such. The push for an ecumenical mindset and that "liberals are really fundamentalists too" - that is a quote from McLaren by the way. And I see a watering down of the authority of the Word and the basic gospel. McLaren is really big on Jesus and having authority in Jesus but he says nothing about the Word of God. Basically it's just another Jesus. I don't think Paul is a favorite amonst the post-moderns. McLaren does have some good things to say BUT then there's some very bad error and a lot of it is presented in a "sneaky" way - through strawman stories and ficticious characters, and this is where you start seeing his real bad theology coming through. There is no gospel presented in any of the emergent church stuff I ever look at. It's like sin and repentence hardly exist and are redefined. And the major error is the diminished authority of the Word of God. I'm waiting for someone like James White to jump on the band wagon more with this. He has had a little on some of his blog from earlier January. There are 3 web sites with a lot of information of the dangers of the emergent church:
They've done a better job than an me to explain the errors of this movement.
I've been a Christian for a while and have done more reading than the average Christian woman out there in general and I am very disturbed with reading the emergent church stuff. It's hard to put the emergent movement (and they don't call themselves a movement - it's conversation)in a nice tidely box. There seem to be different emergent churches out there. VintageFaith is Dan Kimball's site. I also read his book - 'The Emerging Church' . He seems to have a bit more of an orthodoxy than McLaren, but big red flags come up for me when he is quoting McLaren and other emergent leaders and he talks about stuff like contemplative prayer and the Taize movement (an ecumenical community in Europe) in a positive light. All said, everything I keep seeing just doesn't jive with Scripture.
The idea of the Reformed faith reforming is valid, however we do not wish to reform to be more like the world, but more like Jesus. Those of the Reformed faith desire to grow in grace and truth and not further the cause(s) of heresy.
I once saw a pro-emergent church thing that suggested reorganizing worship space to a setting like a coffeeshop! If that is in any way indicative of the emergent church "conversation," forget it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
I though you'd be interested in reading some of the confusion and questionable things that come from McLaren himself:
These are a couple of comments directly from a dialogue area on McLaren's site - anewkindofchristian.com where he answers questions:
Quote
Theory of Atonement
Could you elaborate on your personal theory of atonement? If God wanted to forgive us, why didn't he just forgive us? Why did torturing Jesus make things better?
This is such an important and difficult question. I'd recommend, for starters, you read 'Recovering the Scandal of the Cross' (by Baker and Green). There will be a sequel to this book in the next year or so, and I've contributed a chapter to it.
Short answer: I think the gospel is a many faceted diamond, and atonement is only one facet, and legal models of atonement (which predominate in western Christianity) are only one small portion of that one facet.
Dallas Willard also addresses this issue in 'The Divine Conspiracy.' Atonement-centered understandings of the gospel, he says, create vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood and little else. He calls us to move beyond a gospel of sin management, to the gospel of the kingdom of God. So, rather than focusing on an alternative theory of atonement, I'd suggest we ponder the meaning and mission of the kingdom of God.
Rumors
I heard a rumor that you are a universalist. I thought I'd check out the rumor before I passed it on.
Thanks for checking! The last thing we need is more rumors flying, whether about me or someone else. About universalism ...
In a few of my books, I describe three responses to the question, "Who benefits from the grace of God in Christ?" Exclusivists say that only confessing, believing, committed Christians benefit. Universalists say that everyone benefits, regardless of their current faith or lack thereof. Inclusivists say the grace of God may extend beyond those who are identified as Christians, but do not wish to define how far.
I find it hard to choose any of these options because I don't like how this question is framed, because it seems to assume that the primary focus or benefit of the gospel is saving individuals from hell after death. As I read the gospels, the focus of Jesus' message was not on getting your soul into heaven after death, but rather it focused on the kingdom of God, which is about God's will being done on earth as in heaven in history, in this life. For Jesus then, the gospel is good news not just for a few individuals beyond history, but it is good news for all creation in history, and beyond. I plan to grapple with this subject in more depth.
Also he was just listed as one of the top 25 most influencial evangelicals in America in Time Magazine and was on Larry King's CNN show the other night. Read both and listen to what Brian McLaren is NOT saying when asked about gay marriage.
Asked at a conference last spring what he thought about gay marriage, Brian McLaren replied, "You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is that there's no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side."
It is even more amazing to me that a professing Christian can read this stuff and then turn around and think that McLaren's teachings are acceptable! The man is sooooooo "new-age" and so obviously so, that I have to conclude that anyone who reads this guy and believes that what he writes is what the Bible teaches and thus embraces it needs to get on their knees and pray fervently that God will take mercy on them and save them from their sins.
I noticed that McLaren makes mention of Dallas Willard. Well, I was not surprised that he did for he is in the same league as himself. Below is a quote from Willard's website and you will immediately see the similarities between these two non-Christian writers:
The church has always sought to control who’s "in" and who’s "out." It has tried to hold a monopoly on salvation. But in my view that judgment does not belong to the church at all.
I personally believe there are going to be people outside the mainstream church in heaven, but they won’t be there for that reason. There are going to be a lot of Baptists not in heaven, and they won’t not be there because they are Baptists. It will be because they have learned to love and honor and trust Jesus Christ. It’s possible to learn to do that in a very misguided organization, and it’s possible to not do that in a very correct organization. God looks on the heart.
Acts 4:12 says, "There is no other name given among men by which we must be saved." If somebody says to me, "What name would you give by which I might be saved?" I’m not going to say, "Buddha." I’ll say Jesus. Someone may say to me, "I know a Buddhist who is going to heaven." I will say, "Good luck."
I’m not willing to be in a position of saying that one who has not heard of the historical Jesus cannot go to heaven. I’m not willing to say that Christ is not present as the Logos beyond Christian culture, because after all, John says, "This is the light that lights every man who comes into the world." That doesn’t mean they’re saved; it just means that nobody is beyond the reach of Christ. I am willing to say that no one will be saved without Christ. But Christ’s ways in reaching them are often beyond anything I understand.
So, if someone asks my advice, it is always the same: Trust Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t trust the Buddha for a bushel of oranges. Often when people talk about the Buddha they don’t realize that from a Buddhist point of view, the best thing that could happen to you would be for you to stop existing. The best thing. That’s not much of a gospel.
I always say, if you’ve got someone who honestly is better than Jesus, trust them. And if you don’t, trust him. By all means, don’t trust yourself, because you’re the one who’s got the problem.
Part of our approach must be to take the serious questions of life, such as "What kind of person ought I to be? How can I become that kind of person?" We should line up the responses to that from any religion or non-religion and put them next to those of Jesus Christ. Put them to the real test of life, and take the one that’s best.
For instance, in our culture everyone acknowledges that each of us ought to be a loving, good person. Well, consider how Jesus was that, and how he helps others be that, and then compare that honestly with the others. That is how we will see, not by trying to manipulate. This would mean looking at Hindus at their best, and Christians at their best, etc. If you look at Christians at their worst and Hindus at their worst, there’s probably nothing to choose between. But looking at them at their best, we ask, "How does Christ make that difference?" Then I think we have a basis for a good choice.
As I read the gospels, the focus of Jesus' message was not on getting your soul into heaven after death, but rather it focused on the kingdom of God, which is about God's will being done on earth as in heaven in history, in this life.
One step closer to works righteousness . . .
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
It reminds me in a way of the following article, which appeared in the Salvation Army's magazine, Horizons.
Quote
Horizons – Sep-Oct 2002 Perspectives Page 9
Who’s Afraid of Pluralism? The Bible wasn’t intended to construct a moral box for humanity. Rather, it offers the tools to make moral decisions for ourselves
Aimee Patterson is in her fourth year of a B.A. degree at William and Catherine Booth College. She is currently devoting much of her energy to a thesis on H. Richard Niebuhr, but she still finds time to watch Star Trek.
Pull quote: Biblical principles are not hard-and-fast rules but goals to be reached in our quest for moral discernment
Last March I attended a conference examining the role of higher education in moral formation. Held at the Centre for Applied Christian Ethics (CACE) at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, the three-day event featured speakers from a variety of disciplines, including human development, history, theology and philosophy. The seminars sought to illuminate the ways in which post-secondary schools can facilitate moral development without encouraging mindless conformity. A colourful palette of guests made the event of interest for anyone concerned with moral growth.
The theme that caught my attention immediately was the cultivation of a “moral imagination.” Biblical scholar Dr Joel Green of Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, argued that Christians are wrong to use Scripture to construct a moral box for humanity. While it cannot be denied that the Bible does contain blatant “Thou shalt not” statements, and while it can offer moral direction, its intention is not to supply step-by-step instruction for every situation. We cannot determine how to proceed in a moral predicament simply by quoting one or two choice verses of Scripture. Instead of a better concordance we need a biblically-shaped imagination.
The Bible offers the tools to make moral decisions for ourselves. We uncover these tools by examining the entire biblical narrative, rather than idolizing select lists of virtues and vices. When we read this narrative and observe the sometimes contradictory actions taken by its various “heroes,” we can conclude that what we might call biblical principles are not hard-and-fast rules, but goals to be reached in our quest for moral discernment. We ask: “What is the good that both Old Testament patriarchs and New Testament apostles search after? What is the firm foundation underlying what appear to be malleable concepts of what is right? ” The “What would Jesus do?” question is useless unless we also ask where he lived, what he ate, whom he associated with, what his socio-political circumstances were. Thus, the Word of God engages us in disciplined study of Scripture, but it also demands the use of our imagination. We end up finding ourselves in the story.
Cultivating the moral imagination leads to the recognition of the call to freedom. Freedom is not a blanket term justifying everything under the sun. It is always attached to responsibility. Dr Julie Reuben, a historian from Harvard University, commented that the original meaning of freedom is a method of making judgements that can be defended in certain ways. Life in this world dictates that laws are necessary components of the human experience; however, these laws must be the outpouring of internal conviction, rather than demands to conform imposed upon us. The law is a crown, not a barrier, to freedom. Freedom, then, is associated with responsibility and law, but also with community. Making decisions is not an individual activity. It is executed within the context of society. Not only are individuals to consider others when taking consequences into account, they are also to be informed by the examples of others. Each Sunday the congregation stares at the clergy member in the pulpit, waiting for inspired words. Similarly, we should “stare” at those around us, anticipating a moral example to evaluate and appropriate.
A question much argued throughout the conference was whether the moral life can be developed apart from Christianity or from any religious affiliation. Here arose such dirty words as pluralism, inclusiveness and tolerance. What about those who choose not to find themselves in the biblical narrative? Are they morally bankrupt? The answer is no. And yes. And maybe. Scholars disagreed as to how closely faith and morality are related. One problem is that a close alliance carries with it the danger of placing grace under human control—a salvation by works. Another problem of linking morality to religion is that it begs the question: Which religion offers the best moral footing? I think we can learn a lesson from multi-cultural studies. The goal of reaching harmony between cultures is not achieved by homogenizing them all in a melting pot but by learning to understand their particularities. Discussions among different religious groups offer a richness of insight and moral perspective. Consensus does not involve compromise and conformity so much as dialogue and understanding. Without holding on to a particular route, it is unlikely that one will remain committed to a moral position; thus we should not abandon the Christian moral imagination. Nevertheless, when Christians come to the table we must recognize that we haven’t cornered the market on morality. Imperialistic attitudes must be discarded as we prepare both to contribute to and benefit from the conversation. Moral truth can bubble up only in free dialogue between the varieties of people that exist on this planet, just as it did between the disciplines represented at the CACE conference.
From reading the article with knowing zilch about McLaren (sp?) and the Emergent church movement, it appears to me that doctrine always puts a distinctive to any overall church movement. I haven't the foggiest if the emergent movement will become popular as a church trend, but the way the Reformed, and all other distinctives implement it will be vastly different in application. It will be influence by a system of doctrine.
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
The man is sooooooo "new-age" and so obviously so, that I have to conclude that anyone who reads this guy and believes that what he writes is what the Bible teaches and thus embraces it needs to get on their knees and pray fervently that God will take mercy on them and save them from their sins.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
