Compare these statments of faith - which one is emergent?

[HSmomto4]

I'm aware of what the emergent church is. I've been speaking against it for years now. Maybe it is just the way it is worded here is made it sound like evangelism was wrong. I however am NOT a Calvinist so I fully believe in spreading the true word of God and the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

[JoelH]

The C&MA church used to be pretty sound but I think they have been following the NEA line in softening premillennialism lately, which is a sign that it is not good.

Their method of evangelism as hinted by the statement of beliefs also worries me - I have witnessed many evangelical-in-name churches use things like providing a partying space for youths, building a shelter for the homeless, etc, hoping to plant the seeds of the gospel in a "non-confrontational" way. At the end, they forgot to really share the Bible, and repeating the mistakes of the Salvation Army or the YMCA/YWCA of the 19th century. (providing community service and forgetting the most important thing as Christians - preaching the gospel).

[Sing4Him]

(There is evangelism in Calvinist churches!:nod just not the hyper ones.)

[medbiller777]

HS-- of course we are to witness (spread the gospel) of Jesus Christ who died on the cross for sinners.

It is the promotion of man's methodologies in bringing people in "numbers" into churches that is spoken of with neglect of the cross.

Please see if you can get Roger Oakland's new book, Faith Undone.

Sing,
I'm going to half to contact Roger Oakland...I really think you need to be collecting a fee for reffering that book so much!:thumb You'd be wealthy by now..:aha

[Sing4Him]

I think he knows who I am by name, at least! LOL!!

(I could be the lady with the big glasses and fluffy white cardigan in the hoop skirt who sits behind his book sales table!!)

[Pleye]

OK folks, still working but getting to catch up now.

I had been mailing a friend about dangers of Warren because his church seemed steeped in it (church #1 above). He replied they weren't but emailed the pastor to ask their position on end times. Here is a bit of his email response:


Ok, I haven't done much teaching on the end times but that's not because it's not important, it's just that other things seem to have been more strategic in accomplishing our mission (at the time anyhow).

On my desk right now I have a book called foundations ... by Tom Holladay and Kay Warren.

...

I have skimmed the chapter on the second coming and have found nothing unorthodox or unbiblical.

I have heard Roger Oakland on many topics and enjoyed what he has to say, but I often think that he pulls others quotes out of their greater context of teaching (something he often get on others for doing with the Bible).

... we have not spent much time on end times teaching in the last few years. ... Just like we went the better part of 100 years (I'm guessing) before having one sermon specifically on the subject of homosexuality. I am not personally opposed to preaching specific sermons on the last days (though they will not be dogmatic "pre-trib is the only way" diatribes) because the second coming of Christ is a major perspective-bringer for our present mission. But I see in Christ's teaching, that he used teaching about and the context of the second coming as a springboard to address all sorts of here and now issues. I am not content with teaching about the end times that doesn't bring us back to "how now then ought we to live".


Bring on the *gulp* replies .... I need to mail my friend back with why this is wrong :(

[JoelH]

... we have not spent much time on end times teaching in the last few years. ... Just like we went the better part of 100 years (I'm guessing) before having one sermon specifically on the subject of homosexuality. I am not personally opposed to preaching specific sermons on the last days (though they will not be dogmatic "pre-trib is the only way" diatribes) because the second coming of Christ is a major perspective-bringer for our present mission. But I see in Christ's teaching, that he used teaching about and the context of the second coming as a springboard to address all sorts of here and now issues. I am not content with teaching about the end times that doesn't bring us back to "how now then ought we to live".


Playe,

The problem I have with this pastor is his foundation of faith. It seems to me it is an a priori belief of what Christianity's doctrinal basis is. The Bible is the basis of the basis of our doctrine, and thus we must NOT use any a priori assumption about the believer's position on this earth to read into what the Bible passages we emphasise.

The pastor's downplaying of the Bible prophecy message has no doctrinal warranty because as believers, we are supposed to study each and every Bible passages. Can the poor pastor quote scriptural evidence that the Bible contexts indicate "Christ's teaching, that he used teaching about and the context of the second coming as a springboard to address all sorts of here and now issues" is true? I bet he can't.

We are to learn the dots and parts of the Bible and apply them to our lives, and form out theology around it, not reading it through some unfounded theology.

YBIC,

Joel

[Pleye]

Thanks for the replies everyone. This is really helping me get through understanding this.

First, I swore off church #1 about 10 years ago when I attended there for about a year. When I was there they had no community outreach, were enslaved to debt, and despite seeing the hands in the air for 45 minute music sessions, the messages were always flat. I'll never forget the time I showed up for a Sunday night service only to see a "closed for football game" sign on the door. They claimed they were Spirit filled, but after seeing the pastor allow a man come to the front (scheduled) to speak in tongues and then interpret for himself I knew this wasn't my church. Combine that with the infiltration of Steven Covey among some members and some of the staff being hooked on Oprah and the signs were all there. The problem is that they were all family to me, and they had a pretty good family atmosphere.

Looking at the pastor's response as I posted above, reminds me of what others are saying about Warren. Looking at the church website and they changed their title from "mission" to "purpose". Then there are links to Warren's church blog and the purpose driven site. This pastor seems to discount what the Bible says in favor of "their mission." He likes Oakland but says Oakland sometimes uses verses for his own purpose - but then seems to ignore when Warren does that. Where is the common yard stick? Throw it out the window right? Because Oakland contradicts what Warren taught so I can find fault with his methods. Warren supports what I believe so I can find no fault with his methods - that is what it seems like to me.

And one thing really bothered me. When I was there I never heard one end times message. I was unable to get a Bible study going on Revelation because some people weren't interested or didn't think it was relevant. My friend who is there now says he never heard an end times of prophecy sermon. The senior pastor when asked said he doesn't know what they teach about end times, to consult the foundation website, and the new pastor who just moved in sums it up in Warren-esque. But what REALLY frustrates me is that it sounds like they have recently had a sermon on homosexuality! How is that more important? Because it is here and now?

I don't know enough about this stuff yet as mentioned, but I would say this sounds like social gospel.