emergent church

Tim,

I think that you might be confusing your metaphors.

IMHO.

 

Agreed.... to change just to change is very unwise.
But to stay put when change is clearly needed is also unwise.

If you are in a church that refuses to change, and everyone is getting older... there are no youth, or young couples gracing your threshold...
and your congregation is dying off... one by one...

You NEED change. Something is wrong. God did not form churches to only see them close their doors after a certain generation dies off.

God is a creative God. Allow Him to change your church. That is the key. His changes. If we keep our eyes open He will reveal what needs changed.

 

Very possible.. I have been known to be confused before...:laugh:

Would you please unconfuse me? (I know that could be a very tough job...and in the end you may feel like :tonofbricks: or even :BangHead: But you may just get a :saint: when it is all said and done.

 

I work at a post-graduate Christian school. Two or three years ago, we had a someone come and speak to our students about the 'EC'. He is a "big name" in Southern California, as far as the EC is concerned and leads a so-called 'community of followers' (intentionally avoiding the use of the word 'church').

At that time, I did do a search on the Internet, trying to find some more information about the EC. I was surprised to see that there were some in the EC church movement stating that premarital sex was acceptable behaviour and also that they had no objection to using obscenities and swear words.

Now this wasn't a viewpoint held by the majority of the EC websites I visited, only a couple out of a dozen or more.

Secondly, the man who headed up the EC 'community' that spoke with our students 2 or 3 years ago did NOT say anything like that.

Certainly the majority of EC leaders do not believe this, but I have to admit being concerned that there were some who did.

As this has been at least 2 and perhaps 3 years ago, I do not have bookmarked anymore the sites I visited that held this opinion.

Has anyone else seen this promoted in the EC?

 

Someone said that churches need to change if they are not bringing in youth, etc...

We are going through that issue now in our church. Youth are leaving us and going to other churches because at other churches, instead of studying God's Word, they just let them p[lay basketball and throw in a short devotion as they "catch their breath at the water fountain." One of the deacons said he would rather see 50 kids playing basketball (which we do have a gym...i.e. family life center) than 10 kids studying the Bible!

So does the EC say, "Let them play?"

I see this "compromize" issue as to part of the problem within our churches and our culture. If our church "gives in" and starts playing more ball & games then next time it will be a bit more ball then a bit more etc...

That same deacon said we need to give these youth what they want. Do I let my children eat what they want for meals? Or do I give them what they need? When these kids are at school, do we expect them to learn english in english class? Math in math class? Many would be outraged if they sent their child to school and instead of learning the subject, they learned basketball! Just as a math class has a purpose and an english class has a purpose... the church has a purpose....to me it is not about play.

 

Just because some churches are wrong does not mean all are that try something new.

And if I remember right, church softball leagues were big in the 80s

 

The example of children I think is good.

Would you treat all your children the same way? Or do some respond better to certain methods than others? Does a different method imply more or less love? Does it question your motivations because at different ages (toddler-teenager etc) you treat them differently?

In church we have to realise that not all change is wrong. And remaining the same is not always right.

 

And to be fair, I have seen churches take it too far.
Not every youth get together has to be a Bible study... It must be balanced.
When I was youth pastor, I would sit down with my team in January, and plan that years youth events...

I made sure there was a healthy balance of Worship, Evangelism, Fellowship, Discipleship, and Ministry. (Yeah I know those are the same principles of PDL, but they are also found in the last part of Acts 2, imagine that!)

 

My apologies for sounding as if I am a follower of those names. What I meant was that those particular leaders may be classified as emerging pastors, but do not espouse the same views as Brian Mclaren. Although....I think you probably knew what I meant. I hope there is no confusion.

 

Linda, I think you and I agree more than what it appears. I probably haven't done a very good job explaining myself. I think the biggest problem, that has already been mentioned, is too many movements have been labeled emerging that are not in alliance with the emergant church movement. It is a name game. I don't care if my church is called emerging, or not. It doesn't matter to me. Although, it does matter if I am grouped with those most often associated with emergant churches. Unfortunately your comments are harshly towards those that are changing doctrine, etc. Do you know of any groups that would be called emerging that are reaching the next generation biblically? If you don't, than you need to stop spending time reading up on emergantvillage and see how the church is reaching those that more traditional churches can't (or maybe won't). Maybe we should stop using the term emerging so broadly. Maybe I will. But then again, I"m not afraid of a term because some use it to identify their misguided beliefs. I think its best to be cautious to group everyone together. After all...many call themselves Christians.....are you going to harp on Christians because many use the term without being devoted believers?

 

Agree

Agree

We can argue with understanding knowledge, but we can't shoot it down.

 

Why change doctrine at all? Is not the Word of God truth?

If one has to water down the Word, allow music that is associated with the world, make the church more of a social club than a house of worship, they might be reaching, but certainly not biblically!

Since the Word of God tells us to try the spirits and see if they are of God and to mark those that cause divisions among us, my wife and I will continue to examine these churches through the lens of God's Holy Word. And if perchance thay do not line up as being biblically sound, we will warn others of their heresies.

 

According to what is meant by stay put. Neighborhoods very often change over the years (in larger city's) and affluent's move out, causing change.

If however, all things being equal, in a staid neighborhood, with young people remaining, or replacing (old or young), some tweaking can be done, but new programs, or the latest fad in religious circle's, will more likely split the church, or cause unnecessary turmoil in that church.

If a dying church (building) dies, it dies. The building is not what is important, (Did Jesus try to save the Temple?) for it is not a living thing. It is we in it in him that stays or moves on. It is His Body Church we are to concentrate on. If we didn't put so much faith and money in our buildings, we would not be having this conversation.

It is the world that changes, and we must change with it. God does not change, and we are not to try and improve our standing with Him by trying to come up with emergent churches, or churches that initiate into the gospel, emergent ideas. Colossians 3:1-2, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth."

God the Father informs His Son will build a house for God's name. There are to be no more changes other than that already changed. The Body of Christ Churchis the Churches name, not Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Christian, or any other. "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular", I Corinthians12:27. When we go to a building, His Church enters that building. The building will die, and we will die, but our Church will never die.

 

You didn't really acknowledge ANY of the points that I was making. When did I say that it was okay to change doctrine? I was simply making the point that while many do....there are also many who are not, yet still considered an "emerging" church!

 

You didn't say it was OK to change doctrine.
SFIC is misreading again.

Also, by lumping all churches in together is painting with a very broad brush, and is just not right.

There are some wacky EC churches out there... just like there are some wacky Baptist churches out there... should we drop the name Baptist because of the wacky ones?

 

dan e.,

By saying:

you are saying it is ok to change doctrine. Unfortunately is the opposite of fortunately. Look at it with the opposite on the sentence. Then you are saying it is good that you are speaking against those changing doctrine.

I stand by my previous post.

 

No he was saying that her comments are directed toward the ones changing doctrine... They are harsh comments directed toward those that change doctrines.

There are some that are not changing doctrine, and to lump them all together is to falsly charge some of God's people of sin.
Which is serious...

You and Linda can be the righteous cops all you want, just be careful. For what judgement you hand out, you will be judged likewise.

For example, you have just said that dan said something he didn't say.
you need to apologize to Him...

 

On the flip side of that, tim...

The admonition and advice that you reject that is clearly in line with God's Holy Word, you will be held accountable for.

We as Christians are told to reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering... not to beat around the bush, nor to tell one that they are ok when they clearly are not.

You can brand us a righteous cops if you wish. You as a pastor are supposed to be a righteous cop too, if that is what you arecalling it. Pastors are held even more accountable for the flock they are leading.

 

As to being careful of how we judge, we are very careful. The Word of God tells us to judge righteous judgment. When the lens of God's Holy Word clearly shows that one is erring, it is remonstrated over and over again throughout the New Testament that we are to correct that one who is in err. The Apostles did it, our Lord did it.

All we have posted lines up perfectly with God's Word.

 

If I may, one of the problems the church faces is demonstrated right here.

If a young pastor is afraid to ask questions about making changes then in most cases it does not make the questions go away. Instead, they become open to going to extremes of change they may otherwise face.

If a young believer cannot approach a senior with a question about methods because he knows he is going to get shot down, reprimanded and accused for moving the old landmarks then that young believer may well keep asking the same questions but come to the wrong conclusions.

Many times this has happened and because of a lack of support from elders the younger have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of just looking at method and changing those, they have abandoned doctrine also. This is not always the case, but it often is.

Also, the older generation need to consider that the way they have done church for the past 50 years was not the way church was done 100 years before them. Change happens and those senior in the Lord must guide it, steer it according to Biblical principles otherwise we youth are going to go to extremes.

By the same token, young believers/pastors need to have patience and respect for the older saints. Sometimes the fault lies entirely with us for not listening and not heeding advice.

Change happens, it cannot be condemned simply because it is change.

As a manager in a leading supermarket in the UK we spent, it seems, the majority of our time being trained on "Managing Change" because people almost always resist change. Not because of what the changes actually are, but because they are change plain and simple.

My grandparents like pounds and shillings and resisted the system we have today, people resisted debit cards without really having a reason, people resisted internet shopping for no real reason. They resisted because it was change!

People in the church have a harder time because we have a tendency to apply our own preferences to God and call our thoughts God's thoughts. This discourages many from attempting biblical change and instead they go to an extreme.

Some here have had pretty long discussions invovling me around certain old fashioned ways. I am against carnal music, I don't believe in mixed swimming and I am pretty "old-fashioned" compared to many here. I say that because I want people to know I am not "liberal" by any description. I only use the KJV and have no intentions of changing that.

BUT, there other areas that COULD and SHOULD change.

The older generation need to patiently guide change, the younger generation need to listen.

And it is the specifics that need to be debated and not change itself.