MacArthur says emerging church dangers go far beyond 'style issues'

[Harley]

"To change doctrines to keep up with the times" is a very ancient heresy, one that which even the Catholic church has officially condemned. Today's pundits of "the emergents are not wrong in the sense that they recognize the need to engage..." types sound eerily like the proponents of social gospel like Walter Rauschenbusch 100 years ago. Social gospel was first touted as "the need to make church staying relevant in the modern age" and look at where it had led to the like of the UCC or ECUSA?

JoelH

This is a very good example of allowing the culture to shape the church. We could name more than just these two who have basically abandoned the Gospel. We should be socially concerned and involved not to be relevant, but to be biblical - "...love your neighbor..." "...seek justic..." and all that.

Many of the liberal denominations took this to an extreme and the result is what you pointed out. Evangelicals are starting to come around though and see that it's not really an "either/or" proposition. You can be socially active/concerned and still be fundamentally sound in your doctrine.

Same is true of Emergents and emerging: many have abandoned the Gospel in an attempt to be relevant, and they will go the way of the UCC and ECUSA. On the other hand, others are remaining true to the Gospel yet presenting it in a culturally different manner.

There is a difference.

Problem is, some folks just see certain words or catch-phrases or styles and lump everyone into the same silo... ignoring the differences that make some heretics and others orthodox

[Harley]

This says it all:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God 1 Cor. 1:18

Yes it does!

[Rondaben]

About Salvation We believe that all people are created with dignity and great value in the image of God.

This is a humanistic view of the state of man. Man IS created in the image of God and God does love us for who we are. This doesn't mean that man has dignity and inherent value--those qualities were destroyed by the sin that dwells in all of us. While fallen, we are worthless to the Lord, and are fit for nothing but judgement and destruction. This is where the concept of Christ as the Redeemer of man arises. Redemption is the act of restoring worth or value to something that is worthless or without value. By elevating man and deeming him to be inherently dignified and of great value it is impossible to fall at the foot of the cross. One must be broken of spirit to see his utter worthlessness due to his sin before his heart can understand the true Grace of Jesus who shed his sinless blood that we as worthless and undeserving slaves of sin are unworthy to receive by any justification of our own.

That people were created to live in a thriving relationship with God.

Agreed.

However, through our sin (failing to live by God’s moral standards),

Sin isn't a failing to live by God's standards, it is a rebellion against the will and directives of God. This statement waters down the concept of sin--it makes it appear as "we try really hard but come up a bit short" instead of painting the truth that we are enemies of God in our sin. We have declared open warfare against him and proclaimed ourselves to be God--just as Satan did--that we might live by our own laws and our own rule and not be subject to God.

we break our intended relationship with God and we experience the sad consequences of that broken relationship, both spiritually and socially.

You said later on that they mention a belief in a literal Hell. Why then is that not listed as the ultimate justice that will be placed upon those who sin and are in open rebellion against God? The focus here is on "sad consequences both spiritually and socially". This places the focus of your life on the here and now--focused on the inconveniences you are experiencing instead of upon the eternal nature of your soul. Christ was unconcerned about this life--his focus and ministry was on the salvation of your eternal soul. In light of eternity the 70 or 80 years most will live is but a fleeting moment. The issue is one of eternity and understanding who we are with relation to the Living God. This doctrine of the here and now is why word of faith and many emergent churches focus thier whole message upon getting wealthy, improving your sex lives and fleshly condition instead of focusing on Jesus Christ and why we as sinners need him always and must daily crucify our flesh and follow him.

However, because of God’s love for us, He sent His Son, Jesus, to rescue us from those consequences and to restore our broken relationship with God,

Once again, this is a humanist perspective. Here is a shocking statement--God doesn't need us. He doesn't need a relationship with us. He sent his Son that we may know who he is and what we are. We are his creation, and he is Our God. Jesus came to Glorify the Father, to demonstrate his unending Grace and Love for an underserving rebellious,fallen, man. Jesus' life, crucifixion, death and resurrection was about doing the will of the Father that he might proclaim HIS glory, not that we might "restore a broken relationship" or improve our social or spiritual experience.

through Jesus´ death on the cross, a perfect act of redemption for each of us.

See my comments above on redemption.

We receive the free gift of forgiveness and are spiritually reborn through repenting (changing our mind and heart) of our sin and placing faith in Jesus alone.

This statement has the orthodox words of Christianity, but do they have the same meaning? What most of the Christianity--and the emergent church--believes is that repentance means saying "I'm sorry" and that faith is only a belief that Christ lived, died, and is risen. These words, repentance and faith have much deeper meanings that we tend to gloss over because it is not expedient and doesn't appeal to the masses.

What is repentance? In Hebrew, the word is a combination of the two verbs "to return" and "to feel sorrow". How can you repent--that is, return to God and feel sorrow about your rebellion if you do not see yourself as more than an oppressed person who tries to follow God but comes up short? By seeing yourself as this, the blame lies not on the sinner, but upon the creator who has failed to provide the means for the sinner to overcome. If we do not accept sole responsibility for our offenses agains a perfect and Holy God, we can never feel appropriate sorrow. We should be at a point that we feel sorrow for our sin that makes us feel unable to even approach God because of our filth. This then brings us to faith--not believing, but knowing that Jesus is the Son of the Living God who bore the punishment for our rebellion and still loved us enough to purify us by his blood. Christ is the lamb of God--his blood was poured upon us so that the wrath of God might pass-over us (note the direct similarity with Passover). Would you dare to step outside when the Angel of Death passed in the night in Egypt? The Jews had faith that the Blood of the Lamb had made them accepable in the eyes of a Judging and Wrath filled God. In the Temple, if you were ceremonially unclean and approached the Holy of Holies you would be stricken dead. Do you dare approach the Judgement throne of God without haven received the clensing and atonement for our sins on the Cross? Faith is what gives us the ability "to return". I'm sorry if I don't see how this message of who we are as sinners and who Jesus is in his Holiness and Grace is being taught here.

[Harley]

This is a humanistic view of the state of man. Man IS created in the image of God and God does love us for who we are. This doesn't mean that man has dignity and inherent value--those qualities were destroyed by the sin that dwells in all of us. While fallen, we are worthless to the Lord, and are fit for nothing but judgement and destruction. This is where the concept of Christ as the Redeemer of man arises. Redemption is the act of restoring worth or value to something that is worthless or without value. By elevating man and deeming him to be inherently dignified and of great value it is impossible to fall at the foot of the cross. One must be broken of spirit to see his utter worthlessness due to his sin before his heart can understand the true Grace of Jesus who shed his sinless blood that we as worthless and undeserving slaves of sin are unworthy to receive by any justification of our own.
I agree that this is humanistic - but it is also biblical. It is a biblical-humanistic view. That it, it is a biblical view of humans.

I also agree that man does not have dignity and value inherently. But we do have dignity and value as creatures given the image of God. The doctrinal statement did not say we have "inherent" dignity and value - they state that our dignity and value are a result of our being created in God's image.

If humans have no dignity or value, even in our fallen state, why oppose abortion, injustices, or even slavery?

Sin isn't a failing to live by God's standards, it is a rebellion against the will and directives of God. This statement waters down the concept of sin--it makes it appear as "we try really hard but come up a bit short" instead of painting the truth that we are enemies of God in our sin. We have declared open warfare against him and proclaimed ourselves to be God--just as Satan did--that we might live by our own laws and our own rule and not be subject to God. The accusation often leveled is that emerging churches do not preach sin. You may not like the wording, but the point is they say that they preach a universal sin. If I were writing it I'd focus on being born in sin, not sinning - but the point remains, they proclaim that God has set up a standard and we all fail to attain it.



You said later on that they mention a belief in a literal Hell. Why then is that not listed as the ultimate justice that will be placed upon those who sin and are in open rebellion against God? The focus here is on "sad consequences both spiritually and socially". This places the focus of your life on the here and now--focused on the inconveniences you are experiencing instead of upon the eternal nature of your soul. Christ was unconcerned about this life--his focus and ministry was on the salvation of your eternal soul. In light of eternity the 70 or 80 years most will live is but a fleeting moment. The issue is one of eternity and understanding who we are with relation to the Living God. This doctrine of the here and now is why word of faith and many emergent churches focus their whole message upon getting wealthy, improving your sex lives and fleshly condition instead of focusing on Jesus Christ and why we as sinners need him always and must daily crucify our flesh and follow him.
I mentioned Hell in the footnote to show that they do believe in a literal Hell and that they mention it in their doctrinal statement - saying they mention it in the wrong paragraph is rather petty... it's there nonetheless.

As for being wealthy, improving sex lives, and fleshly conditions; if anything the emerging church is reacting against the American Evangelical propensity toward being wealthy and comfortable... that's the whole emphasis on being missional - so this is an accusation better leveled at TBN. As for sex, since God created it for our pleasure, if someone wants to talk about making it "better" so be it.

But now that you mention Hell, much of the classic revivalists preaching bugged me for the similar reason - they preached salvation as simply an escape from Hell, Christ was often reduced to the provider of an eternal insurance policy. There was little depth. If you track the history of the Billy Graham association you see how he came to this realization, that getting people to just walk an isle tended to create shallow people who may call themselves saved. I guess it's all a matter of emphasis. But the bottom line is, this statement says there is a Hell and repentance and faith in Jesus alone are necessary.

Once again, this is a humanist perspective. Here is a shocking statement--God doesn't need us. He doesn't need a relationship with us. He sent his Son that we may know who he is and what we are. We are his creation, and he is Our God. Jesus came to Glorify the Father, to demonstrate his unending Grace and Love for an underserving rebellious,fallen, man. Jesus' life, crucifixion, death and resurrection was about doing the will of the Father that he might proclaim HIS glory, not that we might "restore a broken relationship" or improve our social or spiritual experience. You are right, God does not need a relationship with us. Then again, no one said he did. He does, however desire a relationship with us. I think the biblical concept of reconciliation shows that he does indeed want to restore a broken relationship.

This statement has the orthodox words of Christianity, but do they have the same meaning? What most of the Christianity--and the emergent church--believes is that repentance means saying "I'm sorry" and that faith is only a belief that Christ lived, died, and is risen. These words, repentance and faith have much deeper meanings that we tend to gloss over because it is not expedient and doesn't appeal to the masses.

What is repentance? In Hebrew, the word is a combination of the two verbs "to return" and "to feel sorrow". How can you repent--that is, return to God and feel sorrow about your rebellion if you do not see yourself as more than an oppressed person who tries to follow God but comes up short? By seeing yourself as this, the blame lies not on the sinner, but upon the creator who has failed to provide the means for the sinner to overcome. If we do not accept sole responsibility for our offenses agains a perfect and Holy God, we can never feel appropriate sorrow. We should be at a point that we feel sorrow for our sin that makes us feel unable to even approach God because of our filth. This then brings us to faith--not believing, but knowing that Jesus is the Son of the Living God who bore the punishment for our rebellion and still loved us enough to purify us by his blood. Christ is the lamb of God--his blood was poured upon us so that the wrath of God might pass-over us (note the direct similarity with Passover). Would you dare to step outside when the Angel of Death passed in the night in Egypt? The Jews had faith that the Blood of the Lamb had made them accepable in the eyes of a Judging and Wrath filled God. In the Temple, if you were ceremonially unclean and approached the Holy of Holies you would be stricken dead. Do you dare approach the Judgement throne of God without haven received the clensing and atonement for our sins on the Cross? Faith is what gives us the ability "to return". I'm sorry if I don't see how this message of who we are as sinners and who Jesus is in his Holiness and Grace is being taught here.

This is an emerging church, not an Emergent church. So when you say "and the emergent church--believes is that repentance means saying "I'm sorry" and that faith is only a belief that Christ lived, died, and is risen..." it may be true, but not relevant. This statement does not mention saying "I'm sorry" and does not reduce the Gospel to a belief that Christ lived, died, and is risen...

You say the Hebrew thought for repentance included "return" and "sorrow"- they do not mention sorrow, but this doesn't mean it absent either... just not stated. They do however reference "change" - which coupled with their previous statements about the lostness of people in their sin implies a return... or as I stated, the basis of reconciliation.

So - while I agree there are things in this statement I would have worded differently, I think you your objections fail due to the fact that you inserted meanings that are not there (e.g. "inherent), confused the authors (e.g. Emergent vs. emerging), and objected that they didn't include "Hell" in the right paragraph.

This statement shows this emerging church believes people are lost in their sin, that they need Jesus alone for salvation, that it was his death on the cross that provided reconciliation, atonement, and redemption, and apart from Jesus alone people are going to a literal Hell.

Thanks Rondaben, it's so much better to address specifics...

[Harley]

:idunno

pro-emergent.. so what else is new.

No substance to salvation in Emergent-postmodern doctrine. none-- :popcorn

Did you read it or see the site and assume guilt by association? If you read it I invite comments on the content.

Thanks in advance.

[Rondaben]

Your welcome :) It is better better to discuss points rather than feelings.

I agree that this is humanistic - but it is also biblical. It is a biblical-humanistic view. That it, it is a biblical view of humans.

I also agree that man does not have dignity and value inherently. But we do have dignity and value as creatures given the image of God. The doctrinal statement did not say we have "inherent" dignity and value - they state that our dignity and value are a result of our being created in God's image.

If humans have no dignity or value, even in our fallen state, why oppose abortion, injustices, or even slavery?

We may have to agree to disagree on this point but I would dare say that the biblical view of fallen humanity as without value is pretty solid. I perhaps didn't state myself clearly on this. Our value and dignity are non-existant without the cleansing salvation provided by Christ. Where you and I might differer is that I know that there is only 2 states that man can be in--submission or rebellion. When in submission to the Lordship of Christ you are beneficial--you conform to his will and carry out his purposes (actually attaining worth as his "image"). In Rebellion you are his enemy--opossing his will and trying to thwart his purposes. Perhaps another analogy may be in the task of printing money. You have the proof plate (Christ) and you have cash that is created in his image. What is the true value, the plate that creates the money or the money itself? If the money isn't conformed to the plate, is it real or is it counterfeit? Does counterfiet money have any true value?

The accusation often leveled is that emerging churches do not preach sin. You may not like the wording, but the point is they say that they preach a universal sin. If I were writing it I'd focus on being born in sin, not sinning - but the point remains, they proclaim that God has set up a standard and we all fail to attain it.

I can appreciate that my argument may seem as though it is simply semantics. I don't believe that emergent churches don't preach sin but I do believe that many of them (as well as traditional churches, unfortunately) do not understand what sin is. That we are all flawed is a universal concept that I believe you are alluding to when you talk about universal sin is to me a given. But the definition of sin has a profound influence on the meaning and value of the Gospel. Is it merely failing to attain God's standard or is it more? In this definition sin is a failure or lack of success in achieving God's Standard.

Please bear with me for a minute. In my understanding it is much more--open rebellion against the One True God. The scriptures set up the law as the standard of God that we should strive towards attaining. Sin, in it's simplest form is a violation of these laws. Scripture also says that if we break one of the laws we have broken them all. Lets focus on how sin is seen from the eyes of God, and not from the eyes of man. When we defy Gods standard (laws) we are setting ourselves up as being superior to him in judgement and in authority. We are making ourselves a "god". This is idoloatry in its purest sense--and we worship our own wants and desires above his--putting us as "god" before him. We blaspheme his name when we say that our decisions take precendence over his--that we as the fallen creation are better "gods" than he is. In this sense sin falls far beyond the scope of just failing short of his standards. It shows us not as a helpless failure at the feet of the Cross but as a hateful enemy of God seeking to pluck the cross from the ground and cast it aside that we may stand in its stead.

As for being wealthy, improving sex lives, and fleshly conditions; if anything the emerging church is reacting against the American Evangelical propensity toward being wealthy and comfortable... that's the whole emphasis on being missional - so this is an accusation better leveled at TBN. As for sex, since God created it for our pleasure, if someone wants to talk about making it "better" so be it.

:aha at least we can agree on TBN! I agree with you that the bulk of those who proclaim Christianity--including evangelicals--are of the world and about fleshly pursuits much to the same degree as those who are unsaved. Those concerns were not the concerns of Christ. This is why those who's ministries are only focused on worldly gain are not teaching the Gospel of Jesus. This is a problem rampant in the conservative wing of Christianity. The liberal wing--to which most of the emergent church movement belong--are focused on the worldly beliefs and, to be blunt, the diefication of man. Man should be encouraged to see his self worth, man should be built up and venerated, we should all be brothers regardless of any difference--accepting of all in the name of diversity. This too is not the teachings of Christ.

I know that he is a lighting rod for the emergent movment and may not represent rank and file emergent churches, but Brian Mclaren summarized this in a video I saw (I believe that it is on his web site--I will look for a link to post) where he discusses the kindgom of God. He believes that the kingdom is here and now--that we bring it about by social awareness and engagement and that the way to attain this is by meeting the culture where it is. This is the start of the seeker sensitive movement, where engagement is measured by the number of bodies in the pew. This view is completely contrary to the teachings of Christ.

John 18:36--"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence"

Our focus in this life is not about obtaining wealth, comforts or a better sex life. Those things are fleshly concerns and not those of the Spirit. Pandering to those fleshly desires is a hallmark of an apostate church--see 2 Peter and Jude for clearer characteristics.

But now that you mention Hell, much of the classic revivalists preaching bugged me for the similar reason - they preached salvation as simply an escape from Hell, Christ was often reduced to the provider of an eternal insurance policy. There was little depth. If you track the history of the Billy Graham association you see how he came to this realization, that getting people to just walk an isle tended to create shallow people who may call themselves saved. I guess it's all a matter of emphasis. But the bottom line is, this statement says there is a Hell and repentance and faith in Jesus alone are necessary.

I hear you--this is the same reason that I have a problem with the use of Pascal's wager arguments in evangelism. Hell should not be the FOCUS of the message, but it is a component of it. The focus is that we are lost in sin, that God provided Jesus as the payment for that sin, and that we are able to attain forgiveness through repentance and faith in the payment of that sin by the Son of God. Hell is, however, the only other consequence. I also agree with you that obtaining a "profession of faith" is worthless. I also believe that a full church without the full teaching of Christ is likewise worthless. Should Hell be the focus of evangelism? No--preaching hell as the focus only creates fear filled converts who are not truly saved and will fall away from Christ as Satan whispers "you shall surely not die, for God knows that YOU shall become as gods..." Their end will be worse than there beginning for they will have received the Gospel, but in the end will reject it. Should love be preached? likewise, no. Love is meaningless if the lost don't understand their need for it. "God loves me? So what. i'm doing ok." becomes the anesthetic of choice. The only way to bring us to the cross is by conviction of our sins and realization that we simply must have a savior or we are lost--and then turning to the Cross to embrace it.

ou are right, God does not need a relationship with us. Then again, no one said he did. He does, however desire a relationship with us. I think the biblical concept of reconciliation shows that he does indeed want to restore a broken relationship.

Agreed--i may have not been clear here as well. God does want, but doesn't need, a relationship with us. Jesus did not die and rise again for the purpose of restoring this relationship, but to display the Grace and Love of a God who could by all righteousness destroy us.

I think that the reason reason that fundamentalist evangelicals are very uneasy with the emerging chuch is that there is a perceived difference in the mission. We tend to see the ermerging church as focused on growth and outreach--both admirable goals--but at the expense of the central tenants of Christianity. Orthodoxy is seemingly tossed asside for the sake of relevance. Words and ideas are attenuated to make them more acceptable to those that the church seeks out. Therein lies the problem--can evangelicals learn techniques about reaching modern culture? Yes, I think they can. But not at the expense of the Gospel--not even a single word should be lost.

Evenagelicals can be mired in a fortress mentality. This is true...we have the Gospel and must protect it at all cost, so we won't reach out to a lost world because they may "taint" us. This is unbiblical. But emerging churches seem to be willing to sacrifice those tenents which are painful. The Gospel is sheer beauty, but it is also full of pain. We cannot separate that pain from the beauty--which is what emerging churches all to often do. We are to be born again. Just as we are born in the flesh, birth in the spirit involves enourmous suffering and pain, we are racked with the guilt of our offense to a Holy God and that his perfect Son Jesus was crushed for our willfull disobedience. That is the pain that you must endure to be born of the spirit.

Also, would you mind posting a bit more about the terminology of the emerging/emergent church so that we can all be on the same page? i don't want to lump everyone together unjustly or use the wrong terminology when discussing it. Thanks!

[lisa]

Hell should not be the FOCUS of the message, but it is a component of it. The focus is that we are lost in sin, that God provided Jesus as the payment for that sin, and that we are able to attain forgiveness through repentance and faith in the payment of that sin by the Son of God. Hell is, however, the only other consequence. I also agree with you that obtaining a "profession of faith" is worthless. I also believe that a full church without the full teaching of Christ is likewise worthless. Should Hell be the focus of evangelism? No--preaching hell as the focus only creates fear filled converts who are not truly saved and will fall away from Christ as Satan whispers "you shall surely not die, for God knows that YOU shall become as gods..." Their end will be worse than there beginning for they will have received the Gospel, but in the end will reject it. Should love be preached? likewise, no. Love is meaningless if the lost don't understand their need for it. "God loves me? So what. i'm doing ok." becomes the anesthetic of choice. The only way to bring us to the cross is by conviction of our sins and realization that we simply must have a savior or we are lost--and then turning to the Cross to embrace it.



God does want, but doesn't need, a relationship with us. Jesus did not die and rise again for the purpose of restoring this relationship, but to display the Grace and Love of a God who could by all righteousness destroy us.

I think that the reason reason that fundamentalist evangelicals are very uneasy with the emerging chuch is that there is a perceived difference in the mission. We tend to see the ermerging church as focused on growth and outreach--both admirable goals--but at the expense of the central tenants of Christianity. Orthodoxy is seemingly tossed asside for the sake of relevance. Words and ideas are attenuated to make them more acceptable to those that the church seeks out. Therein lies the problem--can evangelicals learn techniques about reaching modern culture? Yes, I think they can. But not at the expense of the Gospel--not even a single word should be lost.

Evenagelicals can be mired in a fortress mentality. This is true...we have the Gospel and must protect it at all cost, so we won't reach out to a lost world because they may "taint" us. This is unbiblical. But emerging churches seem to be willing to sacrifice those tenents which are painful. The Gospel is sheer beauty, but it is also full of pain. We cannot separate that pain from the beauty--which is what emerging churches all to often do. We are to be born again. Just as we are born in the flesh, birth in the spirit involves enourmous suffering and pain, we are racked with the guilt of our offense to a Holy God and that his perfect Son Jesus was crushed for our willfull disobedience. That is the pain that you must endure to be born of the spirit.

Well said. :nod

[Harley]

Your welcome :) It is better better to discuss points rather than feelings.



We may have to agree to disagree on this point but I would dare say that the biblical view of fallen humanity as without value is pretty solid. I perhaps didn't state myself clearly on this. Our value and dignity are non-existant without the cleansing salvation provided by Christ. Where you and I might differer is that I know that there is only 2 states that man can be in--submission or rebellion. When in submission to the Lordship of Christ you are beneficial--you conform to his will and carry out his purposes (actually attaining worth as his "image"). In Rebellion you are his enemy--opossing his will and trying to thwart his purposes. Perhaps another analogy may be in the task of printing money. You have the proof plate (Christ) and you have cash that is created in his image. What is the true value, the plate that creates the money or the money itself? If the money isn't conformed to the plate, is it real or is it counterfeit? Does counterfiet money have any true value?
I agree with your point that there are two states. But I do not think that our fallen nature erases or counterfeits our dignity and value. The logical conclusion of this position is that only believers have dignity and value as humans and I don;t think that is what the Bible teaches. All humans, based on being created in the image of God, have value and dignity.



I can appreciate that my argument may seem as though it is simply semantics. I don't believe that emergent churches don't preach sin but I do believe that many of them (as well as traditional churches, unfortunately) do not understand what sin is. That we are all flawed is a universal concept that I believe you are alluding to when you talk about universal sin is to me a given. But the definition of sin has a profound influence on the meaning and value of the Gospel. Is it merely failing to attain God's standard or is it more? In this definition sin is a failure or lack of success in achieving God's Standard.

Please bear with me for a minute. In my understanding it is much more--open rebellion against the One True God. The scriptures set up the law as the standard of God that we should strive towards attaining. Sin, in it's simplest form is a violation of these laws. Scripture also says that if we break one of the laws we have broken them all. Lets focus on how sin is seen from the eyes of God, and not from the eyes of man. When we defy Gods standard (laws) we are setting ourselves up as being superior to him in judgement and in authority. We are making ourselves a "god". This is idoloatry in its purest sense--and we worship our own wants and desires above his--putting us as "god" before him. We blaspheme his name when we say that our decisions take precendence over his--that we as the fallen creation are better "gods" than he is. In this sense sin falls far beyond the scope of just failing short of his standards. It shows us not as a helpless failure at the feet of the Cross but as a hateful enemy of God seeking to pluck the cross from the ground and cast it aside that we may stand in its stead.
I agree - nothing in the statement of Vintage Church agrees or disagrees with this.



:aha at least we can agree on TBN! I agree with you that the bulk of those who proclaim Christianity--including evangelicals--are of the world and about fleshly pursuits much to the same degree as those who are unsaved. Those concerns were not the concerns of Christ. This is why those who's ministries are only focused on worldly gain are not teaching the Gospel of Jesus. This is a problem rampant in the conservative wing of Christianity. The liberal wing--to which most of the emergent church movement belong--are focused on the worldly beliefs and, to be blunt, the diefication of man. Man should be encouraged to see his self worth, man should be built up and venerated, we should all be brothers regardless of any difference--accepting of all in the name of diversity. This too is not the teachings of Christ.

I know that he is a lighting rod for the emergent movment and may not represent rank and file emergent churches, but Brian Mclaren summarized this in a video I saw (I believe that it is on his web site--I will look for a link to post) where he discusses the kindgom of God. He believes that the kingdom is here and now--that we bring it about by social awareness and engagement and that the way to attain this is by meeting the culture where it is. This is the start of the seeker sensitive movement, where engagement is measured by the number of bodies in the pew. This view is completely contrary to the teachings of Christ.

John 18:36--"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence"

Our focus in this life is not about obtaining wealth, comforts or a better sex life. Those things are fleshly concerns and not those of the Spirit. Pandering to those fleshly desires is a hallmark of an apostate church--see 2 Peter and Jude for clearer characteristics.



I hear you--this is the same reason that I have a problem with the use of Pascal's wager arguments in evangelism. Hell should not be the FOCUS of the message, but it is a component of it. The focus is that we are lost in sin, that God provided Jesus as the payment for that sin, and that we are able to attain forgiveness through repentance and faith in the payment of that sin by the Son of God. Hell is, however, the only other consequence. I also agree with you that obtaining a "profession of faith" is worthless. I also believe that a full church without the full teaching of Christ is likewise worthless. Should Hell be the focus of evangelism? No--preaching hell as the focus only creates fear filled converts who are not truly saved and will fall away from Christ as Satan whispers "you shall surely not die, for God knows that YOU shall become as gods..." Their end will be worse than there beginning for they will have received the Gospel, but in the end will reject it. Should love be preached? likewise, no. Love is meaningless if the lost don't understand their need for it. "God loves me? So what. i'm doing ok." becomes the anesthetic of choice. The only way to bring us to the cross is by conviction of our sins and realization that we simply must have a savior or we are lost--and then turning to the Cross to embrace it.



Agreed--i may have not been clear here as well. God does want, but doesn't need, a relationship with us. Jesus did not die and rise again for the purpose of restoring this relationship, but to display the Grace and Love of a God who could by all righteousness destroy us.

We agree on more than we disagree. Well said.

I think that the reason reason that fundamentalist evangelicals are very uneasy with the emerging chuch is that there is a perceived difference in the mission. We tend to see the ermerging church as focused on growth and outreach--both admirable goals--but at the expense of the central tenants of Christianity. Orthodoxy is seemingly tossed asside for the sake of relevance. Words and ideas are attenuated to make them more acceptable to those that the church seeks out. Therein lies the problem--can evangelicals learn techniques about reaching modern culture? Yes, I think they can. But not at the expense of the Gospel--not even a single word should be lost.

Evenagelicals can be mired in a fortress mentality. This is true...we have the Gospel and must protect it at all cost, so we won't reach out to a lost world because they may "taint" us. This is unbiblical. But emerging churches seem to be willing to sacrifice those tenents which are painful. The Gospel is sheer beauty, but it is also full of pain. We cannot separate that pain from the beauty--which is what emerging churches all to often do. We are to be born again. Just as we are born in the flesh, birth in the spirit involves enourmous suffering and pain, we are racked with the guilt of our offense to a Holy God and that his perfect Son Jesus was crushed for our willfull disobedience. That is the pain that you must endure to be born of the spirit.

Also, would you mind posting a bit more about the terminology of the emerging/emergent church so that we can all be on the same page? i don't want to lump everyone together unjustly or use the wrong terminology when discussing it. Thanks!

Good thoughts - you are willing to differentiate the baby from the bathwater.

[Harley]

...Also, would you mind posting a bit more about the terminology of the emerging/emergent church so that we can all be on the same page? i don't want to lump everyone together unjustly or use the wrong terminology when discussing it. Thanks!

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html
More than you asked for, but the introduction sets some of the distinctions

from wiki:
"Emerging" versus "Emergent"
Although some emergent thinkers such as Brian McLaren and many Evangelical scholars such as D. A. Carson use "emerging" and "emergent" as synonyms, a large number of participants in the emerging church movement maintain a distinction between them. "Emergent" is sometimes more closely associated with Emergent Village. Those participants in the movement who assert this distinction believe "emergents" and "emergent village" to be a part of the emerging church movement but prefer to use the term "emerging church" to refer to the movement as a whole while using the term "emergent" in a more limited way, referring to Brian McLaren and emergentvillage. Many of those within the emerging church movement who do not closely identify with emergentvillage tend to avoid that organization's interest in radical theological reformulation and focus more on new ways of "doing church" and expressing their spirituality. Mark Driscoll, an early leader associated with the emerging church conversation, now distances himself from the "emergent thread." In a short video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI), he summarizes some of his concerns. Some observers consider the "emergent stream" to be one major part within the larger emerging church movement. This may be attributed to the stronger voice of the 'emergent' stream found in the US which contrasts the more subtle and diverse development of the movement in the UK, Australia and New Zealand over a longer period of time. As a result of the above factors, the use of correct vocabulary to describe a given participant in this movement can occasionally be awkward, confusing, or controversial.
The link to the Driscoll video is particularly helpful. He distances himself from the likes of McClaren and Paggitt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI - Here is the direct link to Driscoll commenting on the various streams.

Anyone who reads Listen to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310271355/104-9331329-3586314?ie=UTF8&tag=marshillchu01-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0310271355) will see that some are very defensive of the truth, while others are not. Notice also the title, "Emerging Churches" is plural, because it is impossible or dishonest or naive to try and speak of a singular "Emerging Church" - as if it had a unified thought.

The fact is; Emergent and Emerging are different. And under these umbrellas are a host of divergent churches and personalities. To treat them as unified, to say "Emergents believe..." is either naive (since the difference is not know) or dishonest (since the difference is known, but ignored).

[Harley]

When I read Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, by D. A. Carson he said from the outset he was using the terms interchangeably. In fact, although the title says "Emerging" he mostly focused on the epistemology of McClaren - who is the poster-child for "Emergent."

Several months later I attended a lecture series and heard Carson in person, during the Q & A he said he is now differentiating the two, and no longer uses the terms interchangeably.