An Emerging Church Illustration

Some comments from "Emerging" Church Evangelicals

That was a very strange, but interesting clip.

Take a look at some comments by some "Emerging" Church Evangelicals. These were posted in The Berean Call Newsletter, September, 2007--TBC EXTRA:

September 2007 TBC Extra

EMERGING APOSTASY

“...There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies...”
[2 Peter 2:1a]

The following quotes are from leaders and well-known supporters of the Emerging Church Movement. The documentation and context can be found in Roger Oakland’s critical analysis of the movement, Faith Undone (see our resource pages).

“The emerging church movement has come to believe that the ultimate context of the spiritual aspirations of a follower of Jesus Christ is not Christianity but rather the kingdom of God....[T]o believe that God is limited to [Christianity] would be an attempt to manage God. If one holds that Christ is confined to Christianity, one has chosen a god that is not sovereign....The gospel is not our gospel, but the gospel of the kingdom of God, and what belongs to the kingdom of God cannot be hijacked by Christianity.”

—SAMIR SELMANOVIC

“During a recent Life Development Forum we offered a session on Christian practices. In one of the four weeks we introduced the act of making the sign of the cross on ourselves. This gesture has become a very powerful experience for me. It is rich with meaning and history and is such a simple way to proclaim and pray my faith with my body.”

—DOUG PAGITT

“In my case intimacy with Christ has developed gradually over the years, primarily through what Catholic mystics call ‘centering prayer.‘ Each morning, as soon as I wake up, I take time—sometimes as much as a half hour—to center myself on Jesus. I say his name over and over again to drive back the 101 things that begin to clutter up my mind the minute I open my eyes. Jesus is my mantra, as some would say.”

—TONY CAMPOLO

“I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, not statements coming directly or somewhat directly from God....I realized that whatever ‘divine revelation’ and the ‘inspiration of the Bible’ meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority.”

—MARCUS BORG

“The book of Revelation is an example of popular literary genre of ancient Judaism....nstead of being a book about the distant future, it becomes a way of talking about the challenges of the immediate present. It becomes a book of warnings and promises....If Revelation were a blueprint of the distant future, it would have been unintelligible for its original readers, as well as the readers of all succeeding generations....But if Revelation is instead an example of the literature of the oppressed, full of ever-relevant warnings and promises, it presents each generation with needed inspiration and wisdom and encouragement. In this light, Revelation becomes a powerful book about the kingdom of God here and now, available to all.”


—BRIAN MCLAREN

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5965

There were three more comments you can find on the above link.

Seems as though apostasy is increasing!

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

 

Well first of all please don't confuse the emerging church and the Emergent Church. The author of the vid properly identified them.

Secondly, it didn't make much sense and I don't think it is really on task about most of those in either group above. If you're going to critique the emerging church perhaps we can begin with some better definitions and understanding of what it is before we try to lump everything that is truly seeking to reach unchurched and dechurched people. Just a thought or two.

 

Since you understand such a distinction, can you share it with us?

 

What terrible apostasy, if it even can be called such. I can't imagine some of those things coming from the lips of the saints. That "emerging church" of whatever sort is no church at all.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbnGXSYxuI

probably the most concise statement I've found. (make sure you watch it before reading the rest)

The big difference is that many emerging churches are holding to the truth of the Gospel and pursuing legitimate Gospel focused ministry while many Emergent Churches are attempting to redefine truth and the Gospel.

I deny that the Gospel needs redefinitions because Christ's words are true today as they were when He spoke them. The Gospel is what changes people. Of course I will always suggest that we need to check on how we contextualize our presentations of the Gospel but not the truth contained therein.

Lots of emerging churches are really attempting to connect with unchurched and dechurched people who would otherwise not enter the hallways or sanctuaries of traditional churches. They are pursuing legitimate ministry.

The Emergent Church group is actually finding a way to not evangelize and attempt to criticize (unfairly) many aspects of traditional, accepted orthodoxy.

There is a marked difference between the two. While I wouldn't classify the church where I get to serve as emerging (certainly not Emergent) I would consider myself deeply sympathetic to the reasons and motivations of the emerging leaders. The Emergents are just liberals in Armani khakis imho.

 

Well that video represents a more level headed and grounded understanding as to what this "emerging" church is-- missional. As Driscoll said, they are looking at America as missionaries and asking how they can reach the nation as if they were just "dropped" in to spread the Gospel here, while mainting a reformed theology.

It will be interesting to see what actually emerges. I trust given what sounds like a deep-rooted evangelical theology they will be looking to the Scirptures to not only tell them what to believe, but how to practice their faith and order their worship of God in the church and take the Gospel out to the world.

 

Yes, the Church did emerge 2000 years ago, and look what we have done to it. There are thousands of denominations, sects, offshoots, and cults, from one church, guided by one Spirit in Acts.

So today, 2000 years later, we all think we are in the correct man made division. It is quite easy to see how this happened. Look at all the difference of opinion on theology in the one section of this board for Baptists only. Multiply that by 2000 years and voila, a flawed human mess we have today.

Oops, someone disagreed with me. I am going to start another denomination.

Wonder what God thinks about our modern day church. Of course, you all have nothing to worry about, you are in the correct one.

 

Emerging Church Confusion - What Does it Really Mean?

When it comes to the emerging church, Christian leaders seem to lack understanding and discernment. Some books and several articles have now been written about the emerging church, and interestingly, nearly all of them lack the most important element -the emerging church (which incorporates the teachings of the Emergent leaders: McLaren, Pagitt, Kimball, etc.) is a conduit for mysticism and is heading right into the arms of Catholicism and eventually a universal interfaith church.

Many feel that the real problems with the emerging church are centered around methodology (e.g., how much lighting to have, where to hold church services, and what to wear while attending them, etc.) Such distraction from the true concerns is like telling a neighbor that his dog is tearing up the garden when his house is burning down and his children are inside.

The emerging church is fundamentally mystical as can easily be seen by the leaders who feed the emerging movement a steady diet of contemplative spirituality. Leonard Sweet, one of the emerging church movement's most prolific leaders explains the role of mysticism in the emerging church:

Mysticism, once cast to the sidelines of the Christian tradition, is now situated in postmodernist culture near the center.... In the words of one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, Jesuit philosopher of religion/dogmatist Karl Rahner, "The Christian of tomorrow will be a mystic, one who has experienced something, or he will be nothing." [Mysticism] is metaphysics arrived at through mindbody experiences. Mysticism begins in experience; it ends in theology. (p. 160, ATOD > A Time of Departing[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] by Ray Yungen[/FONT])

Another influential emerging church leader is Spencer Burke, director of The Ooze. He explains his views on mysticism as well:

I was struck by the incredible wisdom that could be found apart from the "approved" evangelical reading list. A Trappist monk, [Thomas] Merton gave me a new appreciation for the meaning of community. His New Man and New Seeds of Contemplation touched my heart in ways other religious books had not. Not long afterward my thinking was stretched again, this time by Thich Nhat Hanh--a Buddhist monk ... Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ gave me insight into Jesus from an Eastern perspective. (p. 157. ATOD > A Time of Departing[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] by Ray Yungen[/FONT])

While many try to minimize the seriousness of the emerging church movement, we hope you can see where this is all going. Some say that Emergent has some problems, but emerging church is ok for the most part. But here is how it works. Emerging spirituality (which ultimately proclaims the divinity of man) has been around since the Garden of Eden when the serpent said to Eve, ye shall be as gods, and later when Lucifer said, I will be like the most High God. Emergent came on the scene when some business men (i.e., Leadership Network) launched Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Mark Driscoll and some others and capsulated emerging spirituality within the confines of these young leaders. Leadership Network teamed up with business guru Peter Drucker and a successful publishing house, and wham, a formula for success - the Emergent movement was birthed. These new young leaders (then called the Young Leaders Network) in turn produced books, seminars, websites, blogs, and "conversations" that bore the fruit of the current emerging church movement. And because the true premise of this movement is grounded in mysticism and Ancient Wisdom, many are grasping hold of something that has been here all along. Emergent or emerging, whatever term you want to use ... it's heading in the same direction, and that is away from the Cross.

Some may say, "But there are positive attributes to the emerging church movement." Yet would you drink a glass of mountain spring water if it had only a drop or two of cyanide? Not if you didn't want to get very, very sick.

Jesus Christ made it clear in Scripture that we are to cling to truth. HE is truth, and He is the only way to salvation. Divination (doing a ritual or performing some method in order to gain some information or "hear God"), which is the same premise as contemplative mysticism, is forbidden by God in the Bible. Salvation, and a relationship with Jesus Christ, is free. He already paid the price for us with His blood. When we accept His gift, we will have eternal life. If we reject it, we will not. And that is something to think about.

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletter031407.htm

 

I agree with you for the most part...
I do have a problem with the lack of doctrine in the emergent movement..
But it is hard to pin down the emergent movement, because each emerging church is different... That is out of reaction/response to the traditions of men in traditional churches...

I hate tradition for tradition sake...
Why not do something different as long as the doctrine is pure?

Why stand and sing first...
Why have liturgies?
Why not a different church that makes people feel welcomed?

I know a lot of Christians that have been hurt in traditional churches because they got saved, had good ideas, and the old guard felt threatened so they rebelled against the fresh life, and ran the new ones out of church... surely those of us that have been in church most of our lives has seen this happen.

My vote for the emerging church is still out...
But if it means distorting the Doctrine of Christ to win souls... then my vote would be no..

If a church can reach new people with the true Gospel in fresh ways... then go for it...

Message the same
Methods can change.

 

Hey Tim,

Do you think that our Lord not only established and ordained the message but also the method?

 

If he did, we all have it wrong...
He used many different methods.

From confrontation ... imagine him with a whip
To "get to the point type" ... Nicodemus
To relationship... Nicodemus.. drunks prostitutes...
To teaching out of a boat, on a hillside, in the street, in the temple...

He used parables... He used visuals... (Consider the lillies, flowers, ect.)
He used things that people were aware of to teach them... farming to farmers... Jewish scriptures to Nicodemus...

He used both lifestyle, and confrontational...
He used women (which was a 1st century no, no!)

And in Mark 12:37 it says the common people heard him gladly... He was not like the pharisees and self righteous that looked down their noses at the common people... He went to where they were...

NOW, are there methods that are not to be used? Of course!!
Getting drunk to win souls is wrong!
Going out and hiring a prostitute to witness to her is wrong!!
Etc...

We do not sin to win souls.

But when I was youth pastor, one of our local grocery stores went on strike..
There was only one other Grocer in town, and Thanksgiving was approaching...

OUr youth group helped bag groceries the day before Thanksgiving, because I knew that store would be swamped.. and it would help people get in and out of the store better...
We wore our name tags that identified our church.

This was a method that helped others, and we got to witness to some as a result.

 

I agree! That is messing with the Gospel...

 

Now, this is just my 2 cents. And in the main I agree with you, but just a thought.

If I went to bad groceries for a busy store as a kindness, then all that should happen in that I bad groceries. The grocery store didn't agree to me "proseltyzing" but the bagging of groceries, under whose authority I placed myself.

However, if the store manager understood that I would most certainly bad groceries and share the Gospel when I could, then I would do it.

The point is, we should not use methods as cloaks to preach Christ unless we are being fobidden to preach Christ. Again, this is just an opinion. I have seen methods used of that caliber (not saying you guys did) and when people found out their "real" motivation was to preach, they felt decieved. I think we should work hard at living peacable, quiet lives giving offense to no one, preaching the Gospel everywhere we go.

 

I should have added the owner was a good member of our church.. so there was not a problem..