Emergent Church Movement

This was the Great High Priestly Prayer of Jesus Christ. It was a prayer primarily for His disciples, which he had trained and discipled. He had no question about the doctrine which He Himself had given His own disciples. Thus with confidence He could pray "that they may be one." He then asks also for those in the future would also believe on Him that they also may be one. Of coures the inference is that they may be one, just as the disciples are one, that is, obedient in all areas of the Scripture. It is a prayer. It doesn't mean that it will turn out that way. Obviously it didn't, and it won't. Christ also prophesied of false teachers that will arise. Does he contradict himself? No, not at all. "That they may be one" has nothing to do with ecumenism, but with doctrine. Not one in spirit, but one in doctrine. If you are not following the doctrine of Christ, then the prayer doesn't apply to you. This was not an ecumenical prayer.

</font>[/QUOTE]This was written by Paul to the church at Ephesus. Every church must have unity. It was not written to some universal invisible church. There is no such thing. The word for church is "ekklesia," meaning "assembly." There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly. It refers to a local body, the Ephesian assembly. That is who Paul was addressing. He wanted the believers at Ephesus to preserve the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace, something that can only be accomplished in a local church setting. This is applicable to every Bible-believing local church today. We all need unity in our churches today.

Ecumenism is wrong. In every case in the Bible we are commanded to come out from those who hold wrong doctrine; separate from them. We are never commanded to cooperate with them.
"How can two walk together unless they be agreed?"
In the matter of evangelism, can I conscientiosly evangelize with someone who believes in baptismal regeneration?
At what wrong doctring do you draw the line? What wrong doctrines of other faiths are you going to endorse? Ecumenism is unity at the expense of doctrine. And that is wrong.
DHK

 

Told ya, Gold.

 

Are you a dispensationalist? I ask simply to help me understand your use of language and your general hermeneutic.

A prayer is not a prophesy. Christ knew we would have problems with unity and he prayed for it because that is what he wanted.

I think you need to keep reading to see the character of the unity that Jesus is praying for.

He wants us to be united the way the Trinity is united. Is the character of the unity in the Trinity due to sharing doctrine or is it something else?

I agree that this applies to the local church, but I don't think it only applies to the local church. Is it your assertation that the Greek word soma or "body" in this passage only refers to a local church?

Agreed. We are to separate from false teachings. But is anyone who disagrees with DHK or his doctrinal positions a false teacher? How do you know that you aren't the false teacher that the body should separate from?

With your knowledge in greek, you should know that the word ecumenism doesn't say anything about unity at the expense of doctrine, although it is practiced that way sometimes.

 

You don't understand the issue. You did bring in a red herrng. But I will explain it in a way, that hopefully you will understand.

If you have a very close unsaved friend, you should and ought to help her, if she is in need.
However, if you marry her (assuming you are not married), then you would be going directly contrary to God's Word, for she is unsaved.

Helping and cooperating are two very different things. This discussion has nothing to do with helping others. Like I said you can help Marilyn Manson of the Church of Satan. God bless you if you can. But to cooperate in the matter of evangelism or any other spiritual matter is out of the question. Ecumenism has to do with cooperation, not helping.
DHK

 

Where's the smiley of a woman running around screaming in frustration?

 

I don't think that this is the issue some of us are having with McLaren and others. I would gladly have a cup of coffee with Manson. In fact, I led a group of people in '97 to a MM concert where we talked with Manson fans standing in line to show them that Christians could be decent, nice people, and we had some very fruitful conversations. I've gone to Goth clubs and talked to Goths. I've talked to witches and Pagans, and spent about 45 minutes talking to the owner of a withcraft store in her store. So I don't need a lesson in this from McLaren or other emerging church people.

I'd sincerely like to know what you think of this remark by McLaren:

So making disciples is not necessarily making "adherents to the Christian religion" and they can become followers of Jesus and stay in a Hindu or Buddhist context? What do you think of this, TragicPizza? Do you agree?

 

So making disciples is not necessarily making "adherents to the Christian religion" and they can become followers of Jesus and stay in a Hindu or Buddhist context? What do you think of this, TragicPizza? Do you agree? </font>[/QUOTE]I think two examples of this are Messianic Judaism and Native American Christians expressing their Christianity within their native spiritualist context.

The "Christian religion" is a construct that has a lot of cultural baggage that is additional to the essence of the gospel.

 

You really should continue reading that article.

Which refers back to

I acknowledge that it can also mean increased unity with other religions which I don't agree with. I am not opposed to increased toleration and understanding of other religious groups which is something our Baptist forefathers fought and died for.

 

Yes, our Baptist forefathers fought for soul liberty, one of the Baptist distinctives that we are well noted for. Let's take an example from history. John Bunyan spent 12 years in prison (where he wrote "Pilgrim's Progress), because he refused to be licenced by the Church of England (the State Church) in order to preach. And the Church of England would not allow him to preach without a licence from them. Thus every time he was let out of prison he was arrested and put back into prison for preaching the gospel without a licence.
Fighting against ecumenism of any kind, Bunyan would never cooperate with the Church of England and be licenced by them. There would be no cooperation between this Baptist and that apostate church!! He could understand, respect, and even tolerate their beliefs, but they could not tolerate his. See the difference. Bunyan would fight for the rights of the Church of England to exist, but not cooperate with their doctrine. There is a big difference. He went to jail for non-cooperation, and at the same time beleived that the Church of England had the right to preach as they saw fit. He only wanted the same right. Respect, yes. Cooperation, no.
DHK

 

What happens when that church repents of its apostacy?

 

I would suggest that we are already part way there with many Apostolic brethren (not all) reaching out to understand its schismed brethren and heal the wounds in the body it has helped to cause. Some are recognizing this, but many Baptists are still living as if the Apostolic churches are the same as they were in the 1500s.

But I know most baptists would disagree with that assessment.

 

You don't understand the issue. You did bring in a red herrng. But I will explain it in a way, that hopefully you will understand.

If you have a very close unsaved friend, you should and ought to help her, if she is in need.
However, if you marry her (assuming you are not married), then you would be going directly contrary to God's Word, for she is unsaved.

Helping and cooperating are two very different things. This discussion has nothing to do with helping others. Like I said you can help Marilyn Manson of the Church of Satan. God bless you if you can. But to cooperate in the matter of evangelism or any other spiritual matter is out of the question. Ecumenism has to do with cooperation, not helping.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I guess you are defining words in your own new and different way, then. This is not surprising, of course.

I define "Ecumenicalism" as an effort to join together the disparate members of the Body of Christ." You seem to give it some vaster meaning. Am I correct in this understanding?

By the way, please cease speaking down to me by telling me I do not understand the issue. If I do not understand you, that is your fault. Be clearer if there's a misunderstanding. I cannot, nor do I want to, read your mind.

 

I don't think that this is the issue some of us are having with McLaren and others. I would gladly have a cup of coffee with Manson. In fact, I led a group of people in '97 to a MM concert where we talked with Manson fans standing in line to show them that Christians could be decent, nice people, and we had some very fruitful conversations. I've gone to Goth clubs and talked to Goths. I've talked to witches and Pagans, and spent about 45 minutes talking to the owner of a withcraft store in her store. So I don't need a lesson in this from McLaren or other emerging church people.

I'd sincerely like to know what you think of this remark by McLaren:

So making disciples is not necessarily making "adherents to the Christian religion" and they can become followers of Jesus and stay in a Hindu or Buddhist context? What do you think of this, TragicPizza? Do you agree? </font>[/QUOTE]I think that he may be correct. By the same token, McLaren might be saying something wild just to make us Christians think, too.

I'm of the opinion that we are too in love with our particular brand of Christianity: I mean that "our" brand of Christianity is very unlike the early Church, having been homogenized, Westernized, and caucasianized. McLaren makes the excellent point in "A Generous Orthodoxy" that much of missionary work in the last century or so has really been an effort to not so much bring Jesus to the world, but our brand of westernized religion to the world.

Let's say a person who has been raised Buddhist, whose culture and surroundings are Buddhist, becomes a believer in Christ. Must he or she completely divorce themselves from their culture, from their surroundings, and from everything they've ever known to be a Christian? This is certainly not the way the early Church did it. In fact, our celebration of Christmas is an adaptation of a pagan holiday - as is All Saint's Day and some aspects of Easter. This is because the early Church wanted to help these new pagan converts to retain something familiar to them, and Christianizing some existing pagan holy days was their way of doing this.

I'm not saying, and niether, I think, is McLaren, that one can simultaneously worship Christ and Buddha. Rather, as people come to Christ from disparate backgrounds and experiences, we should not arbitrarily decide that the only way to follow Jesus is our way: our churches, our traditions, our ancillary theologies.

 

Tragic,
Go back to the link provided by Gold Dragon. Do a search on ecumenism for yourself. Ecumenism has nothing to do with "helping" one another. We are all commanded to do that, and even the unsaved do that. People having been doing that ever since Adam and Eve, and are still doing so. That is nothing new.

Ecumenism is the unbiblical cooperation of different religions. It is cooperation, not simply giving help to. It is the uniting together of different relgions. Thus your red herring of "helping and loving one another," of "loving one's neighbor," etc. are totally irrelevant. These commands we all have had from the beginning of time, and no one disagrees with them.

I am a missionary, and have been to a number of Asian countries. As an example in Hindu and Muslim cultures, which you mention above, if the culture goes against the Word of God, then the culture must be abondoned (at least that aspect of it). A missionary doesn't go to westernize people, but to bring the gospel to them. The gospel in many cases brings civility to an otherwise barbarous nation. If you call that westernization, then so be it. I call it the fruit of Christianity. In most nations much of the culture is retained--that which does not go against the Bible (many marriage traditions for example).

In either case a missionary does not join hands with a Hindu or a Muslim, or any other religion. The goal is to carry out the Great Commission. Those relgions are the enemies of God, the work of Satan. Love the sinner and hate the sin. We preach Christ and Him crucified and have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness. We completely disassociate ourselves from them as far as any cooperation is concerned.

How can you cooperate with Islam, when the threat of Islam in many Islamic nations is death to the Islamic convert??
DHK

 

Are you denying that ecumenism is also used to describe the cooperation of Christian groups within the same religion? That was also in the wikipedia link I referenced and I would not consider that to be unbibilical.

 

If it was Christian groups within the same religion then it wouldn't be ecumenical would it?
Two IFB churches cooperating together is not ecumenism.

 

If it was Christian groups within the same religion then it wouldn't be ecumenical would it?</font>[/QUOTE]It would. Because there are still many different groups within Christianity that don't get along. Paul and Jesus knew this would be the case even in the early church and more so now. Hence their prayers and teachings on unity.

If you wish to redefine Christianity to say that only those follow DHK's 35 (making up a number) fundamental doctrines is a Christian, I would say you are adding to Scripture.