Featured Are you Emergent?

Not really... They are actually doing a completely new thing based on THEIR understanding of the Scriptures and ancient church practice, which may or may not fall in line with anything done before. In a sense, they align more closely with the "non-cal" camp than anyone else, save that they also incoroprate a lot of Protestant liberalism, Catholic mystery and sacramentalism, and a heavy dose of new-agey sort of "religiosity" into their practice. Doctrines are "fluid" in that they change according to whom, when, situation thereof, etc., one talks to or observes. In a sense, they are akin to quantum mechanics where quantum forces are said to change merely by observing them. The one most valued prize is utter and complete (Pelagian) libertarian free will, for it is the freedom of the indivual that drives the doctrinal shifts.

 

They say the same things about Sojourn, yet most posting against that church could not even fulfill the membership covenant. :thumbsup:

Oh, and the pastor there preaches in blue jeans also, as do I. I am weaning my current congregation off of suits and ties. First, they do NOT do them well (1970s suits are not that attractive) and second, no one that we would potentially attract as future congregants is likely to even own a suit, nor speak Mississippi or Texas (core group who started the church 30 years ago), or care.

 

Guy, How would you grade this "Liquid" Church that I previously posted.

 

Go here; www.understandthetimes.org And scroll down. You'll find articles on it by Roger Oakland.
MB

 

Don't know... I've heard of them but not looked into their doctrines. They could be quite sound or they could be off-the-wall. Can't tell by observation.

I'll look into it, for my own curiosity as much as any other reason -- same with Rob Bell's Mars Hill, which was widely regarded as sound until we discovered otherwise, though some who followed Bell's teachings gave warnings long ago.

 

Is this emergent???

Pews filled with Secret Service Saints....

Pews filled with *Lady Clairol Christians (only God knows for sure it they are believers)...


*Lady Clairol used to advertise that their hair color products were so good, only the persons hairdresser knew for sure, if they colored their hair. :smilewinkgrin:

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Take note of that GL.

 

What is "post modern" culture?

 

Pastors cannot wear jeans, ....when preaching?

 

You couldn't stand it, could you GL, just had to get that "jab" in.

 

So in the "stories" are the RED passages indicated to be "objectionable"?

 

No, I'm not just jabbing, and I actually thought about that line several times before I clicked submit just because I KNEW it would come back up.

The truth is, that certain tenets of the emerging church ARE IN FACT aligned with certain tenets of the non-cals on this board, whether they know it or not. THAT is why I said what I said.

Quantum, I know that you do not always agree with my doctrine, but by now you should know that I strive to be as accurate in my descriptions of other's doctrines as I can. I have nothing to fear and so I strive to defeat the strawman argument -- on both sides. Truth is God's and I strive for it, even if that means changing my mind, something that I've done multiple times in my life.

 

It is true that there are several strands of emerging/emergent churches out there:

-Some see a need to change the methods to fit postmodern times, but stay committed to the message: Sojourn Church, Dan Kimball in CA.

-Some feel that the message itself needs to change: Brian McLaren, Doug Pagit, Rob Bell. It is this group that is mostly connected to emergentvillage and it is this group that is the primary problem.

 

Wow, no wonder you are messed up...

 

It is true that those four characteristics I picked out are not necessarily reflective of all who identify with the label emerging church. And it is also true that each person or church or identifies with the label "emerging" may have a very different definition of what that means.

It is very similar to the label Baptist. To say that one person or church or convention has exclusive claim on the label and definition of Baptist is obviously not true. And Baptist churches have divided since the 1600s over that very definition and label. Additionally, to judge all Baptist churches based on the weird theologies of a single Baptist teacher is also not fair. So the emerging church, like Baptists and all non-hierarchical Christian groups have a difficulties with definition.

The emerging church is more difficult than baptist churches in this regard because they often choose not to be defined (the idea of conversation). Even the very act of defining something is a very modernist concept. (I'm using modernist here in the usage that emerging church folks tend to think of when they discuss modernism and postmodernism. More below.)

One of the confusing things is that the terms modern and postmodern have multiple definitions depending on the context you are working in (ie literature, art, philosophy, history, emerging church).

But the usage I have found most common among emerging church circles refers to a general shift in our philosophy of knowledge and authority over the last few centuries.

The paradigm of knowledge and authority most commonly used is pre-modern, modern, post-modern.
1. Pre-modern usually referring to the Middle Ages when tradition and superstition reigned the domains of knowledge, religion and social constructs with religion and Kings holding authority.

2. Modern referring to the period Post-Enlightenment to WWII where science and rationalism ruled knowledge and authority, pushing out tradition and superstition. Scientists as well as corporations and governments who are able to apply scientific knowledge held the authority. This is epitomized in World War II with the atomic bomb being the ultimate symbol of scientific power.

3. Post-modernism refers to the period after modernism which is often associated with disenfranchisement with science, rationalism and their ability to deal with the world's problems. Authority is also seen as more individual and local and has lead to a re-emergence of tradition and superstition. I won't go into the implications of that except in the context of the emerging church.


The emerging church was generally a response out of evangelicalism (there are obviously exceptions) with disenfranchisement with the rigidity of forms of church like organizations structures, worship styles, music, fashion, etc. They are often interested in re/discovering the forms found other traditions in space (other denominations or countries) and time (in history) while also adopting new styles of doing things. However, if it was just about form, I would say they really just evangelical churches with a face-lift.

I think the more profound disenfranchisement of emerging churches is their response to the perceived "modernistic" paradigm of knowing God and the bible found in things such as apologetics, systematic theologies and statements of faith. These things imply that the knowledge of God and the Bible can be encapsulated in a few "scientific" statements and answers handed down from the religious elite of our church/denomination and are closed to differing views on those topics. In contrast, the emerging church values things like conversation with Christians and non-Christians of differing opinions, authentic personal narratives and the Bible as God's story to mankind.

I think there is a tendency for any new group finding their identity to demonize the concepts they are disenfranchised with and that is often expressed as hostility towards "evangelicals" or "conservative-right Christians". I believe this attitude is counter to the original intent of the emerging church but may end up become a defining characteristic.

 

Good response, Gold Dragon. But, I think that you left some stuff about the emerging church unsaid -- i.e., their actual doctrinal stance -- and suggesting that because they are post-modern and cannot be pinned down, while true in a meta-narrative sense, is not at all true when it comes to actual practice determined by a belief system. They hold several values (they would reject the word "truths") in common, and those values set them apart as truly emerging versus emerging in apperance and culture.