Emerging Church

No hate here bro. I think you just proved my point better than I ever could have.

 

oh brother......stop pitting this as you versus them.

no need to reply....I know what you'll say and how you'll say it. predictable. You have yet to demonstrate that any of the issues discussed are heretical (especially reggie mcneal's book), and you never will. You'll keep quoting your memory verses that you probably learned to combat people who don't hold you your precise views.


the funny thing is.....we probably have VERY similar thoughts on theology. just a hunch from your postings in other areas. Isn't it weird?

 

Where has alcohol been served in church? I think you've taken another story and exaggerated it.

When has a church service been held in a bar? Again....a story you probably heard about and exaggerated it....but I'm all ears if it has actually happened.

Denying the literal judgement....I agree with you here. I think that there are some leaders in this movement doing this very thing, and I think they are wrong. However....that isn't really an emergent thing. There are probably more people not affiliated with this movement that deny a literal judgement than in it.

Denying the author's intent to be understood....definitely agree with you here. I too think we can and should understand the author's intent to interpret scripture. See!! I'm with ya on many things!

 

church service is such a "modern" term for Sunday mornings....I prefer a more postmodern term....we call them "gatherings".

I couldn't resist.

 

makes sense to me, the word ecclesia where we get "church" means the gathered...

me either...for shame

 

"According to information published on the church’s website, Mars Hill sponsored a New Year’s Eve party that included a champagne bar. Mars Hill’s website also advertises “beer-brewing lessons ... whenever a large group of (Mars Hill) men get together.”"

http://www.mbcpathway.com/otherstories/article73917.htm

"“Followers say they may come for the beer, but they stay for the Bible,” London said. “And back at the brew pub, it’s about saving souls, one beer at a time.”

http://www.mbcpathway.com/otherstories/article73917.htm

http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml

http://www.enteuxis.org/leifh/bleedingpurple21b.mp3

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/07/the_myth_of_exp.html

 

I knew this was the article you were talking about. I also knew you exaggerated it.

Where it says that the people may come for the beer....that was not a church service. You took that article and exaggerated it. And as for the champagne bar and brewing lessons....that article never says that it is at the church. I have a hard time believing they could do brewing lessons at a church. The champagne bar could've been at the church...but who cares?

However....I think it is clear you jumped to way to many conclusions because this issue is pushing you. Stop exaggerating stories and get over it.


I agreed with you on the other points.....no need to show me proof of some people's errors. However, my point is that it is not an emergent thing......that is a human thing. People have been liberally interpreting the Bible long before the likes of Mclaren and whoever else you want to bring up. Again....no need to argue with me on these issues.

 

I would also like to point out that Acts29 network is drastically different than what most emerging churches are like (emergentvillage).

Using Acts29 to prove your points about the liberalism in the emerging movements demonstrates you need to calm down...reread some things....and probably get over a few extra-biblical preferences. It also shows your not too familiar, which is fine, nobody is saying you need to be familiar.

 

You will have to point out the exageration. It is not obvious to me.

“This isn’t just a brew pub, it’s a church,” NBC reporter Jennifer London said, describing the room where the meeting is held. The “church” in reality is the Schlafly Bottleworks where The Journey reaches out to younger adults who might not consider going to a traditional church setting."



http://www.schlafly.com/

Every Christian should care. And this is another example of bringing the world into the church.

No exageration has occured, and no conclusions have been jumped to. I hacve provided clear and convincing evidence. Which is being ignored.

And yet men like Driscoll who has been set up, on this thread, to be a primary source for the EC recently held a conference with McLaren. Denying a literal judgement of God is not to be dismissed as someone being wrong. It is an essentlail to the faith. And one of the "Primary sources" fellowships with this heresy whether he hold to it or not.

 

Hmmm...where to begin...

In the article, you'll note that the reporter said, "this isn't just a brew pub, it's a church". She was commenting that it is a group from a church there to discuss life, theology, politics, etc at a local pub. Those were the words of the reporter, not because they were having a service at the church location. So no, it was not a church meeting, nor at the church building's location. You used that to say they are bringing alcohol into church. That was not true.

Your preference is that alcohol be abstained from by Christians. Actually, the pastor of this church you've brought up abstains and doesn't promote it's use. Yet some believe it is okay to drink. Your preferences should not condemn others' freedoms. This should be an area where Christians can agree to disagree. It is not an essential. Again, your lack of understanding on this particular article shows. There is a lot of accountability that goes on, and it is not a drink fest. You'd be shocked at how many they connect with and share the gospel. Every Christian should care about that.

Your evidence is hardly clear, not at all convincing.

I'm not sure it was me that "set up Driscoll" as a primary emerging leader. Although he is significant...maybe I will agree his is a primary leader. Driscoll as actually very outspoken against emerging. He certainly does not deny a literal judgement...but again, I've said I'm totally with you on that. It is an important issue not to be taken lightly. Leaders in the movement like Driscoll agree with that as well. Many like Driscoll because he is challenging the traditions without changing the doctrine, which is why I believe he has been brought up often.

 

Wait a minute, I just noticed what you wrote. Who cares if he set up a conference with Mclaren??

What I've read of his, he's done a lot of things with a lot of people that he disagrees with. He even speaks out on those things with which he disagrees! I think you're making too big of a deal with that. You're making it as if he endorses what they endorse.

That, of course, is not necessarily true. At all.

 

The church is going out to a brewery and conducting a ministry of the church. Alcohol is served to those that want it. The church is where ever it ministers.

{quote]Your preference is that alcohol be abstained from by Christians. Actually, the pastor of this church you've brought up abstains and doesn't promote it's use. Yet some believe it is okay to drink. Your preferences should not condemn others' freedoms. This should be an area where Christians can agree to disagree. It is not an essential. Again, your lack of understanding on this particular article shows. There is a lot of accountability that goes on, and it is not a drink fest. You'd be shocked at how many they connect with and share the gospel. Every Christian should care about that. [/quote]

And here in lies the heretical issue with the EC. Using a worldly unnecessary and ungodly tool like beer to reach people. This is not seperate form the world but is bringing the world into the church.

You were not. I have heard from a number of sources that he is as you say. But yet he is willing to conference in association with the likes of McLaren who is as lost as the day is long. You cannot be in Christ and deny a literal judgement of God. There is no room for error on this.

 

We agree on much, but I don't think the things we disagree on make either of us heretical.


:thumbs:

 

I think the use of the word heretical is seen in an exagerated way. The reason I say this is that some folks seem to get upset at the use of the word. Lets take a look at the actual definition:


her·e·sy /ˈhɛrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[her-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -sies. 1.opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. 2.the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine. 3.Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church. 4.any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.


What heresy does not imply is that one is as a result of falling under this definition lost. It is however a correct use of the word as I have used it. Also I have called no one person a heretic. I have made the point that the premise of the EC is heresy. I will go so far as to define Mclaren as both however.

 

Does this video help...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtfNdg1fQk

 

A link to an article in Christianity Today was posted on the emergent thread on the other forum I've been following. It is http://www.christianitytoday.com/40534. I found this article to be very informative and a good summary of pertinent points. The author is a participant in the emerging church conversation, but he does not accept everything they are promoting.

Tim Reynolds

 

And the following is one of the primary heresies of the EC:

And this heresy is held to by many preachers, teachers, and laymen, in the EC. However God said other wise;


John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Where in scripture does it say the churuch must always be transforming itself? This ideology lacks any dependence on the Holy Ghost. It is man trying to accomplish the idas of men without any patience for God. It is flesh satisfying flesh.

And this is throughout the EC. It is sad and it is heresy.

 

I agree with what McArthur has to say...but disagree with the idea that this is solely an epistemological issue.

I definitely adhere to Scripture as authority and without error. Many involved in the emerging church (not emergant village) are dealing with other issues...and it is about other things. So.....this is why it is dangerous to assume just because the label "emerging" has been placed on a church, or a person, without any due investigation. Postmodern is not all about epistemology.

 

I haven't seen anyone "place" the label of emerging on any person or church. I would be interested to read such a person. Postmodernism is a rejection of what is considered modern. A rather vague understanding but it is correct. The probelm arises with what is rejected. Within the EC the following things are rejected:

1. Absolute truth
2. Preaching of the Word of God
3. The leadership of the Pastor to interpret scripture.
4. The Priesthood of the believer (singular)