Emergent Church Movement

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Leaders call 'Emerging Church Movement' a threat to Gospel
Mar 23, 2005
By David Roach
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--A recently developed way of envisioning church known as the "Emerging Church Movement" deals carelessly with Scripture and compromises the Gospel, according to a prominent evangelical scholar and a Southern Baptist seminary president.

But Brian McLaren, one of the movement's leaders, told Baptist Press that such criticisms are unfounded and that the Emerging Church Movement is "seeking to be more faithful to Christ" in the current postmodern cultural context.

In a book entitled "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church," which is scheduled to be published in June by Zondervan, theologian D.A. Carson defines the Emerging Church Movement as a group of people who believe the church must use new modes of expressing the Gospel as western culture adopts a postmodern mindset.

What does Brian Mclaren believe about salvation, blood atonement, and homosexuality?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Carson asserts that some Emerging Church leaders are "painfully reductionistic about modernism and the confessional Christianity that forged its way through the modernist period" and that they "give the impression of dismissing" Christianity.

Carson argues that many thinkers in the movement shy away from asserting that Christianity is true and authoritative.
He also argues that the Emerging Church Movement frequently fails to use Scripture as the normative standard of truth and instead appeals to tradition.
In response to Carson, McLaren told Baptist Press that "Dr. Carson doesn't understand us."

McLaren, who is the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church near Baltimore, Md., and was listed as one of 25 influential evangelicals by TIME magazine, said that he rejects the label "movement" to describe the Emerging Church.

"I generally don't even use the term movement at this point," he said. "I think it's more of a conversation. It's a group of people who are talking about the Gospel and church and mission, especially in terms of changes going on in our culture that some people call a shift from modern to postmodern culture."

In contrast to the cultural imperialism demonstrated by believers in the past, McLaren believes Christians should present Christianity through loving attitudes rather than logical arguments.

"Those of us in the west now ... realize that there were a lot of bad consequences of European and American people trying to tell everybody else how things are," he said. "We feel that there's got to be a lot more humility and a lot more gentleness and that the Gospel is made credible not by how we argue and make truth claims. But it's made credible by the love and the good deeds that flow from our lives and our community."

 

[tragic_pizza]

I've just read McLaren's "A Generous Orthodoxy." It should be required reading for Christians, I think.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

What does he believe about salvation, blood atonement, the authority of Scripture, and homosexuality?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Here is a snippet of what Mclaren thinks about the Christian view of Hell and eternal punishment:

Deconstructing Hell
Has Our Obsession with Hell Distorted the Gospel?
How’s this for good news?

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire.
This news, from Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” delivered in 1741, hardly sounds good! We moderns generally refrain from using such intense language in our gospel presentations, but, no matter how much we temper it, the end result is the same. In The Last Word and the Word After That, the third installment of his New Kind of Christian trilogy, pastor Brian McLaren wrestles with evangelical’s obsession with hell. He is willing to recognize what few of us are willing to admit, namely, that reconciling God’s everlasting love with the eternal torments of hell is difficult, to say the least. One of the characters in his book expresses this existential frustration in a way that most of us can identify with: “If Christianity is true, then all the people I love except for a few will burn in hell forever. But if Christianity is not true, then life doesn't seem to have much meaning or hope. I wish I could find a better option” (5). McLaren offers his book as a “conversation, with multiple points of view” in order to help us discover a better option.

Deconstructing Hell

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

bump

 

[violet]

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

That is exactly what I thought when I saw it. I wonder if there are any followers of the emergent movement here who would like to defend these ideas. How about it, Tragic?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tragic_pizza]

McLaren has an orthodox view of all of those things, Joe. He's one of those people (like the late Mike Yaconelli) who believes that it's OK to think, and thus has no problem saying things to make people think.

And I am with him in this: I know that the Book of Revelation promises the Lake of Fire for certain people; many of those people are people I love. Perhaps there is a better option; likely, though, the point of it all is to be less hell-centric in our thinking and more like Jesus - cognizant of Hell, but bent on sharing His love and light with the world.

Joe, have you read any of McLaren's books?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Nope. I have no reason to read anything this liberal has to say. I have, however, talked to a friend of mine who has read all of his books and met the guy. The basic bottom line is that he is a liberal who really doesn't believe in a literal Hell. BTW, speaking of him being a liberal, where does he stand on the blood atonement of Christ? How about you? Have you read all his books? How much do you really know about what he teaches and how much do you really agree with him?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tragic_pizza]

I think it's a really good policy to go through life basing my opinions on something my friends have read.

I think I've mentioned that I've read "A Generous Orthodoxy." I agree with much of what he says in re the unity of the Body, and the things which are important to that end versus the things we have decided to make important. He and I disagree on the role of Scripture, I think, though, as I've mentioned, McLaren tends to say incendiary things not because he believes them, but because he wants to make people think for themselves.

I think, beyond this, that I will parrot back what you've told me: I don't need to justify myself to you at all.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Okie Doke.

Then, I will reach my own conclusion and state that Mclaren is a false teacher, a liberal theologian, and full of the spirit of Anti-Christ. I would encourage all Christians to stay as far away from this non-Christian cult as you can.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tragic_pizza]

You do that, and I will in contrast restate my belief that every Christian who is not afraid of thinking for themselves read "A Generous Orthodoxy."

 

[Monergist]

This is the mindset that would have the church become like some kind of floozie to become more attractive to the world.

It's called Spiritual Adultery. We are called to resist it.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Monergist:
This is the mindset that would have the church become like some kind of floozie to become more attractive to the world.

It's called Spiritual Adultery. We are called to resist it.

Is it? The idea that we many should be one in Christ is spiritual adultery?Wow, someone should tell St. Paul about that.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I think he might be referring to the liberal theology that Hell is not a literal place, but a metaphor for shame, judgement, etc...

He might also be talking about the idea that we should not focus on doctrine which seperates us, but all in the name of unity, just accept each other as Christians regardless of what someone teaches. This is liberal, anti-God theology and should be avoided at all cost.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[tragic_pizza]

Well, Joe, since I've read at least one book by him, I'd say he isn't liberal on his theology of the existence of Hell.

His position at least seems to be that there is more that can join us than should continue separating us, yes, and I disagree that this is an anti-God theology. Further, though, this obsession with listing all of the people who are going to Hell serves to drive unbelievers away, especially when said lists always begin and end with people who they percieve to be other Christians. In any case, one young Wiccan I know has been witnessed to at least three times with this opener: "Don't you know you're going to Hell???" Needless to say, this tactic has been ineffective in bringing her into the Kingdom.

So if scaring Hell out of a sinner doesn't work, Joe, what does?

Loving Hell out of them, that's what. Read the Gospels, and you will see that this is precisely what Jesus did.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

So TP,

Would you advocate changing the Gospel to make it more pallatable to the wisdom of this world? I think Paul had something to say about this:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Corinthians 1

My biggest problem with this is the idea of using tactics to convince the lost of their need for salvation. The further we take the wisdom of man and of this world, the more we tend to deny the truth of the Word of God, which is where I think Brian McLaren is taking the Emergence Movement. This is the essence of liberal theology, to change the truth of God until it meet the approval of man. Unfortunately, it loses the approval of God, and that is more important to me. I am against using fear or any other type of "tactic" in witnessing. I believe that we are to share the Word of God with the lost and those whom God saves will be saved. My job is not to convince the world of the truth, which is foolishness to them. My job is to present the truth and pray for the world. It is God and his spirit which convinces the hearts of man of their need for salvation. As Paul said in Chapter 2 of the same book:

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.

1 Corinthians 2

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Christlifter]

The joining point is the Scriptures, not if you call yourself a "Christian" of whatever stripe.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The stripe of Christian you are can effect your view of scripture, however. For example, if one is a liberal Christian, they might argue that there is no Hell, that Hell was just a metaphor for judgment.

Joseph Botwinick