The Emerging Church

No, we are not all brothers and sisters in Christ. Based on what I have read from some, I have absolutley no confidence in their salvation. Their doctrine is too abberant.

Then it's wrong, because the Bible is about changing people, not the conversation.

I wouldn't. I see no command from God to explore the wider church. I see the command to study Scripture, love God with all you have, and get involved in ministry through the local church.

New Testament, and no.

 

In the last 40 years hundreds of books have been written about church renewal. I have watched countless people move from mainline to charismatic to mega-church to prayer-based to power-centered to cell church to seeker-sensitive to renewal to purpose-driven to house church to emerging church and the list just keeps getting longer. Some have even gone back to liturgical services, finding solace in its aesthetic beauty and safety. As one man confessed, “I just wanted to meet with Christians where I didn’t have to worry about someone flopping on the floor like a beached fish.”

These movements last only briefly spearheaded by a gifted speaker who draws a large following and then claims he has at last found the Biblical way to do church. After the euphoria of the alleged ‘new wineskin’ wears off in 3 to 5 years, people find themselves frustrated with the results and have to look again for another expression of church that fulfills the cry of their heart.

I understand the hunger. The Scriptures paint a compelling picture of God’s church—brothers and sisters growing in their relationship with Jesus and each other in a way that transformed them. They loved each other, grew together in God’s wisdom, shared their possessions together freely, and saw him reveal himself in extraordinary ways to them and their culture.

Was it perfect? Of course not and Scripture graciously made that clear as well. They struggled through failures and sin. They had to deal with those who tried to exercise control over others and brothers and sisters who preferred the comfort of false teaching to the challenge of the true. But throughout God kept making his way and truth known. They were filled with awe and God’s grace multiplied among them in demonstrable ways.

Who wouldn’t want that? But those expressions of church life have been rare and brief in our day. What passes for church today makes us spectators rather than participants, manipulates people’s shame rather than setting them free from it, prefers the rigidity of obligation to the power of love, is more contemptuous of the world than more relevant in it, and rewards cooperative pawns in someone else’s program rather than growing disciples of Jesus himself. No wonder so many people are disillusioned with it. Yet the search goes on, like birds drawn on an inexplicable migration, to a land they’ve never seen.

Source: The Church that Jesus Builds By Wayne Jacobsen

 

[/QUOTE]No, we are not all brothers and sisters in Christ. Based on what I have read from some, I have absolutley no confidence in their salvation. Their doctrine is too abberant.

[/qb]Then it's wrong, because the Bible is about changing people, not the conversation.

 

The Bible tells us what true salvation looks like and on that basis we can have confidence in their salvation. One of the defining marks is doctrine, and based on the doctrine of the emerging church we can have no confidence.

God does change people, but he does so in conjunction with his word. We must converse with people ot be sure, but what the emerging church typically means by that is something entirely different than the Bible means by that.

As for the Baptists, yes, I hold to the English Separatist descent, but the principles and practices of the Baptist church are from the NT and their split from English Separatists was a repudiation of much of their doctrine in favor of a return to the Bible standard.

The approach of the emerging church is troubling in many ways. Doctrine takes a back seat to other things. Experience becomes more important than reality. Exploring other churches becomes more important than exploring God's word. These things should not be.

 

Too often training and study take a back seat to everything else. Let’s face it most people go to college or high school to get a job signifying the end of their study. Studying is work. A few years ago I started a Bible study for people in the church and some complained that I made them work too hard. In that group was a man and wife who both worked outside the home. They drove 80 min. each day to work and he never worked an eight hour day. He would start work at 4:30 AM and get back home usually around 5:30 PM. Every week he had his study done because he saw that as an opportunity to know the Bible better. We became good friends. Later he came to me and asked to be baptized. At that time he told me he was ready to follow Jesus. It was through that study that he came to Christ. Today he is on staff at a church.

We must not just study to get filled up with knowledge but so God can use us to disciple others and live out a Christlike life.

Too often discipleship has been portrayed as a 12 week or eight week study. Discipleship is a commitment. It takes about two years to get a person on road and growing so they can feed themself well. It takes weekly training opportunities to teach them how to do ministry. Too many in the church think it is the pastor who is trained and it is his job.

 

One of things that emerging church participants and leaders are dealing with is having been burned by the institutional church at some point in the past. It is this angst towards a bad situation combined with an amazing amount of incredulity towards education that leads many within the "emerging church" to swing out and start something new.

I've been involved with emerging church conversations for about five years now. (Before it was cool to be emerging) I doubt that many within the E.C. realize the true theological and ecclesial problems they are causing by some of their efforts. Each person in the E.C. wants to be an authority on God...yet few actually want to engage themselves in conscious, exacting work to understand Him.

There are some good things going on in the E.C. and I believe that many of their practices will be fruitful in reaching a generation turned off by the harsh legalism and pompous piety of some more established churches. Yet the unsettling matter remains, how will the Emerging church survive when its doctrines are disputed by those from outside?

 

I don't think there is a church whose doctrine or practices are not disputed, it's par for the course I think. But as i'm sure you are aware there are many different strands to the emerging church I doubt if there will be an emerging church denomination, that's is not what it's about but I tend to agree with much of what you say.

[/QUOTE] The Bible tells us what true salvation looks like and on that basis we can have confidence in their salvation. One of the defining marks is doctrine, and based on the doctrine of the emerging church we can have no confidence.[/QUOTE]

The only confidence we have is hope and that's it - there is no gurantee of salvation for any of us.


[/QUOTE]God does change people, but he does so in conjunction with his word. We must converse with people ot be sure, but what the emerging church typically means by that is something entirely different than the Bible means by that.[/QUOTE]

Pastor Larry can you please explain what you believe the doctrine of the emerging church is because I have yet to see it. There are many ideas and many opposing ideas, but what exactly do you mean by the doctrine?

[/QUOTE]The approach of the emerging church is troubling in many ways. Doctrine takes a back seat to other things. Experience becomes more important than reality. Exploring other churches becomes more important than exploring God's word. These things should not be. [/QUOTE]

Exploring other forms of christian worship or prayer is exploring the word of God and I believe we can all learn from each other, it runs side by side and crosses over with my studys of the word of God.

 

Marc

That came out of nowhere ...

[ February 24, 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: El_Guero ]

 

mea culpa

 

I would have seen that coming had I read your previous post ...

Adolf was "a great speaker". I do not believe that bad theology is better when wrapped in good speech ...

 

The elders of his church should call him into accountability. His accountability partner should do the same. IMHO

There is no reason for a Christian to be ashamed of Jesus Christ and the Good News that He is the Savior ... IMHO ...

 

There is a guarantee of salvation in Christ. 1 Peter 1:5 makes that clear. But obedience and doctrinal fidelity are evidencees of salvation. When someone like McClaren says that there may be a way to salvation apart from conscious faith in Christ, he is aberrant doctrinally.

Statements like McClaren's. Some of the allow for baptismal regeneration. Some of them deny the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Some have unorthodox views of hte atonement. The EC is such a large junk drawer that it is impossible to detail all the problems.

Exploring other forms of Christian worship and prayer is not exploring the word of God. IT is exploring other forms of Christian worship and prayer. You said that yourself.

We can learn from each other, many times learning what is wrong. The EC is a dangerous philosophy, too often unchecked by Scriptural authority. That is not to say that it is all wrong. But it is dangerous.

 

A few clarifications about the emergent church.

Postmodernists are not moral relativists. I consider myself to be a Christian who is involved in the postmodern conversation in Christianity who definitely believes in the absolute truth of Jesus Christ. I also stand firm on the bible as God's inspiration and holy scriptures to mankind that is completely authoritative and trustworthy.

A second idea is that the emergent movement is not about replacing denominations or churches. It doesn't seek to be another Christian group that is right at the exclusion of all others. And many who are taking part in this conversation are doing so within their pre-existing groups. And it also recognizes that some will never want to take part in this conversation and that is ok.

A key aspect of the emergent conversation is a challenge of the place of authority that Christians have historically given to the institutions of church, the doctrines we teach and even the words of the bible. That isn't to say that there is no authority in those things, but that we have often raised those things to a place that is only rightly held by the person of Christ.

Jesus didn't come to start an institution. He tore down the curtain of the temple and the religious dogma/doctrines of the Pharisees and his new wine was "Come follow me" a person.

Jesus didn't come to start or complete a book and has this to say about the scriptures.

Jesus came to start a relationship with mankind.

Is your church they way? Is having correct doctrine the way? Is the scriptures the way? No! All these are wonderful things that point us to the way, which is Christ and new life in Him.

The emergent movement is about recognizing that the institutions, right doctrines and propert interpretation of the scriptures have been and will be invaluable parts of the story of Christianity that help us to point to the person of Christ. But as many Christians are prone to do in the past, let us not raise those things to a level they are they were not intended for.

 

Gold,

PL's comments stuck me as "ok. Big deal. So what!"

Then reading your comments I realized the "what".

EC then is an "alternative" to Denominations.
It is relevant to a Post Modern World View which holds that "no absolute authority exists".
It is in opposition to to the relevance of Scriptural Authority.

Relevant and conversing with a World View that holds Christ and the Word of God in contempt, looks like a dangerous world view.

PS World View is just a fancy name for Religion.

Why would we want to be in relation with a church other than the Church that Christ is Head of?

 

The only confidence we have is hope and that's it - there is no gurantee of salvation for any of us.


Marc the bible say's that if you confess with your mouth the lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved. brother I know with all my heart that Im saved and on my way to heaven with all the confidence in the world.

 

As a whole, this is incorrect. The foundation stone of postmodernism is individual truth rather than absolute truth. ONe can "be involved in the postmodern conversation" without being a moral relatavist.

This is misleading. The doctrines of Scripture can never be elevated about the place that Christ has. It is impossible to do such, because he gave those doctrines binding authority.

Incorrect, or at least incomplete. He did come to build his church. That involves people following him.

This is not a dimunition of Scripture but an exaltation of it. The Scriptures should be held in highest regard because they testify of Christ. It is the only way that we can know of him.

Again, incomplete at best.

I think your post illustrates my point about the dangers of the emergent church. It is too unguided and too driven by human thinking rather than revelation.

 

As a whole, this is incorrect. ONe can "be involved in the postmodern conversation" without being a moral relatavist. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. Many postmodernists are also moral relativists. But there isn't a dependency of the two.

I would disagree with this. Postmodern philsophy is not about a denial of absolute truth and raising individual truth as its replacement. That would be an accurate representation of relativism which does have similar roots to postmodernism.

This article from Wikipedia articulates it well.

 

While doctrine should never be elevated above Christ, unfortunately it has been throughout the history of Christianity.

Obviously it is important to have orthodoxy and turn away from false teaching. But how often have we raised our doctrines to be the most important part of Christianity? How often have we separated because of minor doctrinal differences. Just look at all the different baptist sub-groups out there for starters.

 

I agree. As I stated, he built his church to point to Him. But often we just point to the church and stop there.

He is criticizing them for their tunnel vision. They are looking at the scriptures to find him when he is standing right in front of them and they don't recognize Him. How often have we done that too, worship the book and its words instead of the person the book and words points to. KJVO is one extreme result of this phenomenon.

 

It is guided by the Holy Spirit incarnate in us, the holy scriptures God has inspired and the teachings of Holy Spirit indwelled Christians through history all submitting to the primacy of the person of Jesus Christ.