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

[Biblenuggetlady]

Harley said in a previous post...."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."

You say tomOto - I say tomAto. It's still a tomato.

To prevent confusion, a distinction needs to be made between "emerging" and "Emergent." Emerging is the wider, informal, global, ecclesial (church-centered) focus of the movement, while Emergent is an official organization in the U.S. and the U.K. Emergent Village, the organization, is directed by Tony Jones, a Ph.D. student at Princeton Theological Seminary and a world traveler on behalf of all things both Emergent and emerging. Other names connected with Emergent Village include Doug Pagitt, Chris Seay, Tim Keel, Karen Ward, Ivy Beckwith, Brian McLaren, and Mark Oestreicher. Emergent U.K. is directed by Jason Clark. While Emergent is the intellectual and philosophical network of the emerging movement, it is a mistake to narrow all of emerging to the Emergent Village. Emerging catches into one term the global reshaping of how to "do church" in postmodern culture. It has no central offices, and it is as varied as evangelicalism itself. [12]

If emerging is the word used to describe “how to do church in a postmodern culture,” then the term needs to be defined with a warning label attached. In this day and age when we are being told that a “Christian can only be known for what they are for and not what they are against,” such a broad definition provides a pathway to spiritual disaster.

We are instructed in the Scriptures to be like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily “to see if these things be so.” [13] They were taught by Paul, the great apostle who was inspired by God. Today, as Christianity is “being re-invented” we are being taught by many individuals who have a very dim view of the Scriptures. If Christians refuse to check out what is being proclaimed as Christian in reference with the Scriptures, then the consequences are predictable.
http://www.understandthetimes.org/commentary/c62.shtml

Harley also mentioned a book, How to Converse with an Emergent...from that book:

Evangelism or mission for me is no longer persuading people to believe what I believe, not matter how edgy or creative I get. It is more about shared experiences and encounters. It is about walking the journey of life and faith together, each distinct to his or her own tradition and culture but with the possibility of encountering God and truth from one another. :ohno


"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths (mythology)." (2 Tim. 4:3-4) Again the notion here is of willful and intentional rejection of the truth in favor of more palatable lies. I believe John was of the opinion that those referenced here didn't just stray away, they never believed in the first place.


Exposing the Emerging Church
http://www.understandthetimes.org/ec/exposingec.shtml

[Harley]

Harley said in a previous post...."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."

You say tomOto - I say tomAto. It's still a tomato.
this is a poor analogy in the sense that you have people being accused of being heretics trying to distance themselves from those who are... yet you refuse to make any distinctions between them - tomOto - I say tomAto...

In reality it's tomOto/TomAto vs. peas. you can call emerging churches heretics if you like, but once it has been shown there is a true and real difference between them... you can't really say there is no difference.

btw - does this mean you are now against d.a. carson as well?

[Harley]

Harley also mentioned a book, How to Converse with an Emergent...from that book:

:ohno

i don't recall ever reading a book by this title; is the quote one i made from the book, or one you found yourself? whose being quoted and what's the context and source documentation?

thanks

[Warrior Prophet]

Forgive me for getting in late so this may have been said before... but there are a few issues going on when one discusses the 'emergent church.' Firstly, it is not some monolithic denomination. There are those who are sound in doctrine and then there are those who teach heresy. We should be discerning and name names so as not to airbrush someone who is identified as 'emergent' as if they were teaching the same as Brian McClaren.

The problems with this movement aren't style, that much is to be sure though. At the core is a big word called 'epistomology.' That basically means what is the nature of truth and what we can know. In postmodern philosophy, we can't know all that much and what we do know changes. Some in the EC say that this is the nature of truth and therefor they build their theological houses on this very sandy proposition. Others say that we have to make the truth relevant to those who have that notion of truth, while holding onto orthodoxy. Now... I am torn about this. I'm all for speaking the language of someone (to a logical extent) to reach them to Christ but ultimately Christian truth and postmodern truth can't coexist. So only so much 'dialogue' can happen before they accept or reject the gospel and presenting the gospel as postmodern doesn't work.

There is a third element and that is the resurgance in these churches of mystical Christianity. The thesis is that Christianity has become too much form and function or shallow motions and lacks spirituality. Their answer is a blend of new age mysticism, monastic practices and various other 'spiritual' practices from all around the world. Here is where I have a HUGE problem. There are many Emergents who have thrown the baby out with said bathwater when it comes to doctrine and saying that the Christian life is about experience. It's the same problem that wasn't dealt with when Pentecostals/Charismatics came to power and now many 'evangelical leaders' come from this view and have watered down the Evangelical movement. Bottom line is that with true Christianity you have both emotional and intellectual aspects. More could be said, but others say it better than I. We should avoid experience over intellect as much as we should avoid intellect over experience.

Lastly, why don't more people care? First off, most people Christian leaders included) don't read their Bibles or have been taught enough to refute these teachers. They may not have proper theological training but they aren't dumb and they know how to argue and manipulate scripture to make their points. Secondly, we have become very politically correct in the church. We can't call out a teacher on his/her teachings because that is divisive. And Lord knows we can't have division in the Church. Because these are all silly doctrinal squabbles after all, can't we just love Jesus and get along? That type of faulty thinking.

Well, I hope that all made sense. :laugh

[Buzzardhut]

That is what I said in the post above - "Emergent" is organized.

but "emerging" is not.
What does it matter if they are emerging, emergent, or already emerged?
The point is that it is heretical Gnostic Mysticism rejected by True Christianity.

[Harley]

What does it matter if they are emerging, emergent, or already emerged?
The point is that it is heretical Gnostic Mysticism rejected by True Christianity.

i think it relevant since "it" is being treated as a consistent whole - then judged as heretical/apostate. my point is to argue that there are considerable differences with those labeled emerging/emergent... some are false but others are orthodox.

[disclaimer: this post should not be seen as an argument on behalf of, or promotion of any particular teacher that may be considered a false teacher/prophet. the comments herein are simply designed as a response to the particular question at hand regarding distinction between teachers and their belief systems]

[funmudder]

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is named the same as a duck then it will be no surprise that it is considered a duck.

[Harley]

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, is named the same as a duck then it will be no surprise that it is considered a duck.
i agree, let's just be sure we aren't calling everything with feathers a duck...

[disclaimer: this post should not be seen as an argument on behalf of, or promotion of any particular teacher that may be considered a false teacher/prophet. the comments herein are simply designed as a response to the particular question at hand regarding distinction between teachers and their belief systems]

[Biblenuggetlady]

If it has feathers, it is part of the fowl family.

[Harley]

If it has feathers, it is part of the fowl family.

an eagle is part of the fowl family?