The Emerging/Emergent Church

[Tamara224]

I can't help but notice that "Emergent Church" has become a generic term for everything in the modern church that we don't like. Please learn about the movement (through listening to people on both sides of the divide)before you pass judgment and criticize it. The emergent church has some problems, but every church does. And for the record, megachurches are the very opposite of what the emergent church is about. Wal-mart Christianity is what they are trying to move away from.

I think the emergent church today is like "Christian rock" a generation ago. It was new and different, and unfairly demonized by the older generation when it did have some positive elements to bring. I havnt been keeping up on the emergent movement lately, but some of the the books have been quite good, with a small disagreement here and there.


I agree, Grey. I've done a bit of looking into Emergent/Emerging (two different things) and I think a lot of people are participating in knee-jerk reactions rather than sound responses to real problems.

Yes, there are those in Emergent who are heretical in their doctrine.

But, there are also many aspects of Emergent that should be given due consideration, imo. There are also many who are labeled "Emergent" who are not perverting God's word, who are preaching the Gospel. I think we should be more careful not to unwittingly slander our true brothers and sisters by lumping them all into "cult" status.

IMO, a lot of the hostility against Emergents is based in fear - Emergents are rocking the "church" boat. They're challenging the status quo. That scares people - so they react to preserve the status quo.

But, I think that if we would look at it a little more objectively we might actually learn something about what the "Church" is supposed to look like. (Hint, it's not a building or a business).

[lisa]

One needs to be very careful of any organization that waters down the Gospel, deemphasizes our need to be saved from our wretched sinful condition, and uses mystical, un-biblical means of "praying" to our Lord. The first century church explained in detail in the book of Acts should be the model for a Christ-centered church.

A good article on the subject: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/emergingchurch.htm

[JoelH]

I agree, Grey. I've done a bit of looking into Emergent/Emerging (two different things) and I think a lot of people are participating in knee-jerk reactions rather than sound responses to real problems.

Yes, there are those in Emergent who are heretical in their doctrine.

But, there are also many aspects of Emergent that should be given due consideration, imo. There are also many who are labeled "Emergent" who are not perverting God's word, who are preaching the Gospel. I think we should be more careful not to unwittingly slander our true brothers and sisters by lumping them all into "cult" status.

IMO, a lot of the hostility against Emergents is based in fear - Emergents are rocking the "church" boat. They're challenging the status quo. That scares people - so they react to preserve the status quo.

But, I think that if we would look at it a little more objectively we might actually learn something about what the "Church" is supposed to look like. (Hint, it's not a building or a business).

But "changing the presentation of the gospel to accommodate with the times" is in fact a very ancient heresy in the Christendom history. Even the Catholic church has issued condemnations with regqards to Emerging church-like movements within the Catholic chruch to its theology by various dissident Catholic priests etc. I think pope Piux X has condemned it in his 1907 Encyclical Pascendi, and so has the current pope Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Joseph Razinger.

[Mitsy]

I don't mind new formats for Church services. After all when I was a young girl we had to put on our Sunday best to go to Church. I had to wear some horrible dress with frills or a skirt with the pretty knitted top. Ahhhh :panic

Today I enjoy going to a Church that has a casual dress code, jeans and joggers (but my good ones of course). :yeah

Also in the old days there was a strict liturgy that had to be adhered to. These days the format is a little more flexible. I love it when the kids groups do a special service for Mother's or Father's day with songs and prayers and we get to hear the Youth Pastor give the sermon.:yay

However, if a Church is modernising the Word of God to make it more palatable to today's audience then I can't agree with that. That is preaching another gospel and they will be held accountable to God for that. I figure since Paul wrote about this in his days it really isn't a new thing they are doing but an old heresy with a modern day facade. :ohno

That is why we need to be discerning in whatever Church we attend to read the Bible for ourselves and check of they are teaching is according to the scriptures. :scripture

[Tamara224]

But "changing the presentation of the gospel to accommodate with the times" is in fact a very ancient heresy in the Christendom history. Even the Catholic church has issued condemnations with regqards to Emerging church-like movements within the Catholic chruch to its theology by various dissident Catholic priests etc. I think pope Piux X has condemned it in his 1907 Encyclical Pascendi, and so has the current pope Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Joseph Razinger.

Well, now, I don't know if I would call changing the presentation of the Gospel a heresy.

Changing the substance of the Gospel would be wrong, but the format in which it is presented? No, I can't agree with that. Paul said he became all things to all people so that he could preach the Gospel to them all. Paul quoted Greek philosophers in order to present the Gospel to the Greeks. He recognized that the Gospel could be presented in a language his hearers would understand. He didn't change the essentials of the Gospel - he changed the presentation.

Anyway, we don't "do" church the way they did in the first century - that's a historical fact. So, how can we say that the way we do it now is the only acceptable way?

The problem I see is not that the Emergents are changing so much... but that the Church has already changed to keep up with the times. We've already been influenced by the world around us. We've already adapted our message to be more palatable to the World. And, imo, the Catholic church is the biggest cause of this adaptation - you should check out their methods of gaining converts, especially those that they used in South America.

As far as being afraid of post-modernism in the church... The only reason, imo, that it is so feared is because the church has already embraced the world's "modernism". Modernism is equally as worldly as post-modernism. At least post-modernism allows for spiritual experiences and doesn't dismiss them as superstition. This is at least a bit closer to the culture of the early church that we read about in the NT.

IMO, the church should pay heed to the Emergents in some things. Neither reject it out of hand, nor accept it out of hand. But the Emergent movement is raising a lot of questions that each Christian should be asking. Mostly: what about the way we do church is man-made tradition, and what is the heart of the Gospel? We have allowed a LOT of traditions to creep in. We have all been influenced to a great extent by the modes of worldly thinking around us. We need to ask ourselves what things can we lose and what things should we hold on to for dear life.

For example, is it really necessary to have a building to go to church? Why do we have sermons and is there another way we could learn (besides the lecture format)? Is the modern-day "church" really equipping the saints to preach the gospel? Is leading a person through the "sinner's prayer" really the best evangelism technique?

These are some of the things I've seen Emergents asking... I think they are valid questions and in many instances are evidence of spiritual maturing.

In short, I think people are jumping the gun with labelling Emergent as heretical. Some of the people in it have surely expressed heretical ideas, I am not disputing that. But many haven't. And if people in the movement love Jesus, then we shouldn't be so quick to marginalize them into "heretic" status and thus stop our ears from hearing them.

JMHO.

[grape on the vine]

Well, now, I don't know if I would call changing the presentation of the Gospel a heresy.

Changing the substance of the Gospel would be wrong, but the format in which it is presented? No, I can't agree with that. Paul said he became all things to all people so that he could preach the Gospel to them all. Paul quoted Greek philosophers in order to present the Gospel to the Greeks. He recognized that the Gospel could be presented in a language his hearers would understand. He didn't change the essentials of the Gospel - he changed the presentation.

Anyway, we don't "do" church the way they did in the first century - that's a historical fact. So, how can we say that the way we do it now is the only acceptable way?

The problem I see is not that the Emergents are changing so much... but that the Church has already changed to keep up with the times. We've already been influenced by the world around us. We've already adapted our message to be more palatable to the World. And, imo, the Catholic church is the biggest cause of this adaptation - you should check out their methods of gaining converts, especially those that they used in South America.

As far as being afraid of post-modernism in the church... The only reason, imo, that it is so feared is because the church has already embraced the world's "modernism". Modernism is equally as worldly as post-modernism. At least post-modernism allows for spiritual experiences and doesn't dismiss them as superstition. This is at least a bit closer to the culture of the early church that we read about in the NT.

IMO, the church should pay heed to the Emergents in some things. Neither reject it out of hand, nor accept it out of hand. But the Emergent movement is raising a lot of questions that each Christian should be asking. Mostly: what about the way we do church is man-made tradition, and what is the heart of the Gospel? We have allowed a LOT of traditions to creep in. We have all been influenced to a great extent by the modes of worldly thinking around us. We need to ask ourselves what things can we lose and what things should we hold on to for dear life.

For example, is it really necessary to have a building to go to church? Why do we have sermons and is there another way we could learn (besides the lecture format)? Is the modern-day "church" really equipping the saints to preach the gospel? Is leading a person through the "sinner's prayer" really the best evangelism technique?

These are some of the things I've seen Emergents asking... I think they are valid questions and in many instances are evidence of spiritual maturing.

In short, I think people are jumping the gun with labelling Emergent as heretical. Some of the people in it have surely expressed heretical ideas, I am not disputing that. But many haven't. And if people in the movement love Jesus, then we shouldn't be so quick to marginalize them into "heretic" status and thus stop our ears from hearing them.

JMHO.
Everyone should read this post.

[Judah]

Anyway, we don't "do" church the way they did in the first century - that's a historical fact. So, how can we say that the way we do it now is the only acceptable way?

As far as being afraid of post-modernism in the church... The only reason, imo, that it is so feared is because the church has already embraced the world's "modernism". Modernism is equally as worldly as post-modernism. At least post-modernism allows for spiritual experiences and doesn't dismiss them as superstition. This is at least a bit closer to the culture of the early church that we read about in the NT.

These broad terms used in this way can easily leave the reader thinking the wrong things. It is the "components" of both modernism and post modernism that must be examined as to their rightness or wrongness from a Biblical prespective. Generalizations like this are dangerous.

IMO, the church should pay heed to the Emergents in some things. Neither reject it out of hand, nor accept it out of hand. But the Emergent movement is raising a lot of questions that each Christian should be asking. Mostly: what about the way we do church is man-made tradition, and what is the heart of the Gospel? We have allowed a LOT of traditions to creep in. We have all been influenced to a great extent by the modes of worldly thinking around us. We need to ask ourselves what things can we lose and what things should we hold on to for dear life.

Very good comment. Only we shouldn't be asking ourselves anything. We should be asking God and seeking answers in and through the written Word.

For example, is it really necessary to have a building to go to church? Why do we have sermons and is there another way we could learn (besides the lecture format)? Is the modern-day "church" really equipping the saints to preach the gospel? Is leading a person through the "sinner's prayer" really the best evangelism technique?

Some of these issues are more cultural and practical than anything else. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of them. And since the Scripture speaks of preaching as a valid way of communicating, how would you suggest we learn from gifted teachers? Any other way is not efficient.
*

[WhitemoonG]

OK grape


I read Tamara 224's post. And, I don't agree with much of any of it.


Granted, that the term "emergent/emerging" is kind of a grouping of a somewhat amorphous batch of recent schools of thought, with many common threads and some pockets of individual differences,


the post seems to contend that the hangup that people like me, and many others on this board and elsewhere have with it, is outdated or overobsessed concepts about STYLE, and how to "do" church.


WRONG!



The issue isn't some insecurity over fresh approaches, creativity, the importance of healthy introspection at times, etc.



The issue is what these individuals or groups are TEACHING.



As one example, I couldn't care less how challenging, inspiring, refreshing, creative, and uplifting (or whatever) Rob Bell is;



The problem is what he TEACHES.




The problem is what he SAYS and WRITES in his own book.




When a Rob Bell TEACHES that Christ died for all, and everyone will be saved, whether acknowledging Christ or not, it is UNSCRIPTURAL and WRONG. (Disregarding for the moment that for him "Salvation" means just about anything you want it to mean)


When he says it doesn't matter if some dead guy named Larry MIGHT be Jesus's father via provable DNA, I say it is WRONG and DOES MATTER!


When he refers to dopey constructs like the BELIEFS that DEFINE Christianity (as something distinct from any other belief system) as being nothing more than spokes on a trampoline, and that it really doesn't matter that any of the spokes might be wrong or suspect, (which is another way of saying that ANY of the beliefs of Christianity might be wrong), but that what only matters is how high we JUMP, (spare me please!) it isn't just about defending "traditions!"


Can you not see that there is something here FAR DIFFERENT than questioning styles, or how to "do" church?

When a Rob Bell TEACHES that we are free to interpret and change scripture anyway we please, so that the aggregate "church" "throws better parties,"


are we supposed to say GOODY, what a refreshing new approach!?!

Heck with it all, it means anything WE WANT IT TO, and millions of "Christians" define millions of separate individual Christianities! How inspiring! How quaint!

HOW WRONG!!




Sure, emergents make some good points. So did Karl Marx. So did Nietzche.

So did Anton Lavay of the First Church of Satan. So did Satan when challenging Christ.


Making "good points" wins all!?


Wake up.

[grape on the vine]

When a Rob Bell TEACHES that Christ died for all, and everyone will be saved, whether acknowledging Christ or not, it is UNSCRIPTURAL and WRONG. (Disregarding for the moment that for him "Salvation" means just about anything you want it to mean)
If this is truly what he says, why is Bell devoting his life to leading people to follow and trust Jesus? Doesn't make much sense if Jesus died for all (which is Scriptural) and everyone just gets saved anyway.


When he says it doesn't matter if some dead guy named Larry MIGHT be Jesus's father via provable DNA, I say it is WRONG and DOES MATTER!
Not what he's saying. He's setting up a hypothetical to challenge us to see if we've got the guts to follow truth wherever it leads. He fully affirms the Nicean Creed roughly two paragraphs later.


When he refers to dopey constructs like the BELIEFS that DEFINE Christianity (as something distinct from any other belief system) as being nothing more than spokes on a trampoline, and that it really doesn't matter that any of the spokes might be wrong or suspect, (which is another way of saying that ANY of the beliefs of Christianity might be wrong), but that what only matters is how high we JUMP, (spare me please!) it isn't just about defending "traditions!"
And many of the doctrines of Christianity could be wrong, especially if God is as big, and probably bigger, than we make Him out to be. Doctrines don't mean anything. We should follow Truth. We should examine everything in the pursuit of Truth- again, illustrated by Bell's "Larry" example. He claims that Jesus helps us see and experience Truth to the fullest, therefore it does matter "how high we jump".


When a Rob Bell TEACHES that we are free to interpret and change scripture anyway we please, so that the aggregate "church" "throws better parties,"
This is an inaccurate interpretation of what Bell is saying. You're hearing what you want to hear.



Making "good points" wins all!?
That's a stretch of an interpretation on my position.


Wake up.
Easy dude. I know you're passionate, as am I, but this is not personal. It can't be. You don't know me, and I don't know you. Let's be civil.

[WhitemoonG]

No, I'm not hearing what I want to hear.

I read his book, Velvet Elvis, which is what he spends an entire chapter claiming.

As to why Bell encourages people to "follow Jesus," and why does it matter if he really teaches that Christ died to save us, whether we affirm it or not, is exactly what HE SAYS in HIS OWN BOOK. Ask him, not me, why his stuff his hopelessly contradictory, at least to those who ponder it carefully!

Furthermore, his entire book and everything else is hopelessly vague nice sounding syrup that never really says what salvation really is, other than comments about salvation being the culmination of the Creator unifying itself with it's creation, and hopelessly vauge flowery type of concepts that can mean or not mean just about anything.


Doctine, is bad, what matters is "THE TRUTH?" Are you kidding? Since they don't seem able to even begin to discus what "the Truth" is, other than in the vaguest possible terms, what good is an assertion like that?

Show me from Bell, Mclaren or others how "The truth" means anything even remotely specific, other than the usual Jesus being a good example, teaches us a "better way" stuff that sounds nice, but can also verify Buddha as a "Christ follower," (McCLaren) as much as you or I or anyone else.


This "new" emergent stuff, isn't new. It's just different nicely packaged versions of the same misleading stuff that's been around for centuries.