PDA

View Full Version : The Emerging/Emergent Church


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Sing4Him
June 28th, 2007, 04:00 PM
The Emerging/Emergent Church
and their use of "diaprax"
by Sandy Simpson, 11/28/05


The concept of the Emerging Church, as advertised worldwide in books, the web and on TV by the likes of Brian Mclaren, Leonard Sweet, Richard Foster, Dan Kimball, Rick Warren, Ken Blanchard and a whole host of others, seeks to cater to the postmodern mindset while using diaprax to achieve its goals. The Hegelian Dialectic is used in concert with praxis (known as “diaprax”) to brainwash an entire generation into creating a new hybrid Christianity. This new religion is full of Eastern mysticism and Gnosticism, while systematically redefining the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles and Prophets within a subjectivist, existentialist worldview.
To achieve this end, any teaching and practices of biblical churches must first be vilified and exorcised. This is done through the process of Thesis/Antithesis (the Hegelian Dialectic). Orthodox biblical Christianity and its doctrines, the Thesis, are presented as being stodgy, boring, misspent energy, misapplied methodology, and frankly, evil. The new Antithesis is then presented, excesses pulled randomly out of the hat of modern culture while being careful to sound “balanced” in presenting those antithetical excesses as if nothing is written in stone and things are in a constant state of flux. The intended audience of 20/30somethings is then led to a middle point or to a point which Leonard Sweet mistakenly calls "oxymoronic". The ideas of the leaderhip of this movement can now present themselves as those who hold a “balanced” view, when in actuality it is often nowhere near ANY kind of balance. This is when the process of “praxis” or consensus kicks in. The audience is then allowed to express their opinion, to come to consensus or praxis, as long as it does not stray too far away from the center “balance” which belongs to the leadership. Sadly, many have observed in this process, as in other cults, that if too many questions are asked, the person is then suppressed and an attempt is made to “reprogram” them. If they are unwilling to come to praxis with everyone else, they are then told to leave or ostracized and demonized. This process is EXACTLY what cults do, what the Third Wave and Word-Faith churches do, what YWAM does, and is also what forms the basis for this "new" Emerging Church. The whole structure of the Emerging Church, as defined by the Eastern mystical teachings of it's leaderhip elite, is geared around a diaprax model. Those who buy into it assume they are hearing the truth, when in fact they are signing off on the half truths and outright lies of heretics and false teachers in the movement. By signing off, I mean that literally in many cases, as many of these churches, following the advice of Rick Warren and others, are having their adherents sign their discernment rights away in “convenants”.

The dumbing down of America and the world is nowhere quite as evident as in the Emerging Church. Emergers are not taught to think for themselves, but to come to praxis. This is all done in a non-judgmental atmosphere (as long as you don’t fundamentally disagree!). Since we already live in a generation that has learned to discern on the basis of feelings rather than the intellect used to study the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, the false teachers of this movement are free to “put one over” on the Christian public. But many Emergent teachers are simply parroting the thinking of their leadership who apparently ARE allowed to use their brains to come up with schemes to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of stupefied Christian masses that follow them. Though this movement is built on an evolutionary model of Christianity, with the notion that we as Christians have somehow evolved to a higher spiritual plane, the fact is this movement is the tail end of a devolution of the Faith, the falling away spoken of by Paul, the Apostasy.

The Emerging Church is an idea which appeals to many youth of today. In a modern society where fast food and blazing fast Internet is the norm, young people also want a Christian menu as large and as fast as the Internet. They want to be able to shop and compare religious practices, and combine them into a religion they will feel comfortable with. Gone are the days of hard truths and the ugly matter of the Gospel message. Now Christian consumers can have their cake and eat it too. They can believe in a God of love without believing in a God of judgment. They can mix together practices and teachings from every religion, while redefining Biblical teachings in the image of their new sycretized religion of self-indulgence. They can comfort themselves that they have always been worshipping God in their cultures, as Don Richardson erroneously claims, and now they are just growing closer to Him. They can combine Eastern mystical practices dedicated to false gods with worship of YHWH. They no longer have to witness the Gospel to people, they just invite them to church and “God” will take care of the rest (or the pastor, whichever comes first). They get to do their Yoga, martial arts, and contemplative prayer, and still call themselves followers of Christ. They can continue to do anything they want in life, as long as they have convinced themselves that what they are doing can be sanitized for their new Emergent lifestyles, and they no longer need be convicted of sin. They don't have to stick out like a sore thumb at work because they are being light and salt to the world, but can fit right in and disappear in the world. They can do all this and still claim they are the most anointed, evolved Christian generation that ever hit this planet without having to admit (as they must know down deep inside) that they are wretched, pitiful, poor blind and naked spiritually.
http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/emergingdiaprax.html

Harley
June 28th, 2007, 04:56 PM
:revdoor

extreme4jesus
June 28th, 2007, 08:08 PM
it is a very real threat and most christians today have zero discernment to see that it is false.

Sing4Him
June 28th, 2007, 08:57 PM
The only thing circular about this topic is the unfettered and amorphous nature of emergent doctrine.

Sing4Him
June 28th, 2007, 09:03 PM
most christians today have zero discernment

Yes, Extreme.. they CALL themselves Christians and yet are not saved. "Christ-follower"

Harley
June 29th, 2007, 11:23 AM
Yes, Extreme.. they CALL themselves Christians and yet are not saved. "Christ-follower"

It would be helpful if you would provide us a list of those who are and are not saved...

Sing4Him
June 30th, 2007, 12:53 AM
It would be helpful if you would provide us a list of those who are and are not saved...

It would be helpful if you would provide the Emergent plan of salvation...

kenod
June 30th, 2007, 03:53 AM
http://www.emergingchurch.info/reflection/michaeledward/index.htm

Now that is a pretty dam-ning article from the perspective of an evangelical Christian, such as myself.

EG

Would it not be a wonderfully inviting proposition to suggest that God is love and the rest is mystery? Would that not bring together the atheists, agnostics, deists and theists into a creative dialogue?

And what of Jesus? Does Jesus really stand or fall on whether he was born of a virgin, appeared in a vision with Moses and Elijah, or physically rose on the third day? Or were these stories a creative attempt to help convey the incredible impression that Jesus made on his followers.

More than anything, we today are not first-century people. Can we not separate the man from the myth and allow the greatness of the words and deeds to be our inspiration? Can there be no greater ‘cred’ than being executed for who you are, not for the myths that follow you?

Christy
June 30th, 2007, 06:31 AM
The only thing circular about this topic is the unfettered and amorphous nature of emergent doctrine

This fits in very well with New Age doctrines which are also amorphous, meaning that it rejects clearly defined doctrines, so in effect it can be seen as the proverbial "slipper eel", but it has 3 consistent points that do define it:

---------------------------------------------------------------

What Defines the Emerging Church?
To understand the importance of the emerging church movement it helps to understand what the emerging church is, but that remains somewhat undefined. The emerging church movement is diffuse and amorphous, and by its very nature rejects clearly defined doctrines. Many emergent Christians hold radically different views, making it difficult to identify what exactly it means to belong to the emerging church. In the first chapter of his book, Carson examines the beliefs of prominent self-identified emergent Christians, and finds that despite their differences, three shared beliefs unite and characterize the emerging church.

First, protest against the current state of evangelical Christianity drives many in the emergent church. They deplore what they see as a form of spiritual McCarthyism in the church today, where in some congregations pastors hold enormous influence over opinions in the church, and anyone who questions church traditions is depicted as a "liberal." Similarly, Carson finds that emergent Christians reject the spiritual isolation of many churches, which have moved from the cities to the suburbs, and are seen as ignoring the tough problems. Rather than engaging society, they see that churches have often withdrawn from it, and they find this deplorable.
The second and most defining aspect of the emerging church is its absolute rejection of modernism. Modernism is, roughly speaking, the philosophic idea that humans can search for and know the truth with certainty. Even if they do not always find truth, it is possible. The emerging church believes that our culture is rejecting modernism and thus the church must adapt to witness to a new generation.
Instead, the emerging church embraces postmodernism; a philosophy that they believe explains how people now view the world. In part, postmodernism holds that truth cannot be known perfectly, that everyone has a different perspective, and no one person's take on the truth is any better or worse than anyone else's take. This view can quickly lead to moral relativism, where right and wrong are only different points of view, so emerging church leaders strongly emphasize the fact that they oppose moral relativism. They do not, however, see objective or absolute truth as something individuals can ever learn, and they see no point in trying.
Third, the emerging church tends to reject the worship styles of modern churches, especially that of so-called "seeker sensitive mega churches." Instead, emergent Christians tend to believe that services should focus less on the preacher and more on God. They should be multi-sensory, often with more visual elements, such as candles, or incense burning in a corner. In short, the emerging church rejects the approach to worship taken by many modern churches.
Contributions of the Emerging Church
Having identified what defines the emerging church, Carson finds that it has many important strengths. Most obviously, our culture is changing rapidly, and it takes more than a superficial understanding of a culture to effectively witness to individuals in it. Premised as it is on the notion that a new church is emerging because of cultural changes, the emerging church is driven to deeply understand why our culture is changing, and how that affects our Christian witness. Leaders of the emerging church spend a lot of time thinking through and responding to cultural changes that many other Christians are oblivious to.

Additionally, an admirable hunger for authenticity drives many members of the emerging church. They are concerned that in many traditional churches worship often feels inauthentic. Carson writes that emergent Christians object to going to services where "we do not come out saying, in effect, 'Surely we have met with the living God!'"1 Too often today the Church is complacent and driven by habit, not a passionate desire to serve the Lord. The emerging church deserves a lot of credit for working to change this.

Similarly, members of the emerging church exhibit an urgent desire to evangelize to outsiders who have traditionally been overlooked by the Church. This applies especially to people, such as artists, who live in postmodern environments and are shaped by postmodern assumptions. These traits are not unique to the emerging church, but they demonstrate the good that this movement can do.

The Emerging Church Loses Sight of the Shortcomings of Postmodernism
Members of the emerging church firmly believe that we live in a new era, and that the church must change to witness to a new, postmodern generation. However, Carson argues that in their eagerness to reject modernism and embrace the emerging postmodern worldview, the emerging church glosses over several troubling facets of postmodern philosophy.
Postmodernism, Carson explains, is founded on a false premise. Certainly fallen humans cannot know the truth perfectly, since we lack omniscience. That does not mean that all truth is unknowable, or that one perspective is just as valid as any other. Humans can truly know knowledge, even if they cannot know it perfectly. People can move beyond their assumptions and cultural background to better understand the truth, and even if they don't know the truth perfectly, they can still have better or worse understandings of it.

Similarly, despite the fact that most emergent church members are not moral relativists, postmodern philosophy inexorably leads to moral relativism. If truth is entirely a matter of individual perspective, then morality has no objective basis, and quickly becomes an individual judgment call. This worldview is profoundly un-Christian, as sin and death do exist. Emergent Christians should be more hesitant to embrace a philosophy that implies such an anti-Christian outlook, even if they do not share those conclusions.

Please read further at:
http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/carson-emergent-church-review.html

Buzzardhut
June 30th, 2007, 06:54 AM
http://www.emergingchurch.info/reflection/michaeledward/index.htm

Now that is a pretty dam-ning article from the perspective of an evangelical Christian, such as myself.


It's not dam-ning
It's one sided.

EG

Would it not be a wonderfully inviting proposition to suggest that God is love and the rest is mystery? Would that not bring together the atheists, agnostics, deists and theists into a creative dialogue?

God is Love, but also, God is Holy and Just, and the "God is Love" utopia does accomplish any gathering of those who refuse to believe God even exists.

And what of Jesus? Does Jesus really stand or fall on whether he was born of a virgin, appeared in a vision with Moses and Elijah, or physically rose on the third day? Or were these stories a creative attempt to help convey the incredible impression that Jesus made on his followers.

The virgin birth and Resurrection is very important in Jesus' redemption for mankind.
Jesus did not come to make an impression, though He did that, Jesus came to make dead men living souls.

More than anything, we today are not first-century people. Can we not separate the man from the myth and allow the greatness of the words and deeds to be our inspiration? Can there be no greater ‘cred’ than being executed for who you are, not for the myths that follow you?[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]
The Life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is not myth but historical fact.
He lived, breathed, walked, ate, and slept on this planet.
Even in His new body He walked and ate.

True salvation is more important than just 'following an example' as this neo churchianity wants to stress upon society.