The Emerging Church

Dr. Mohler actually discussed McLaren's new book in his web commentary and thus touched on many aspects of the Emerging Church.

Mohler's webblog on Emergent Church/Brian McLaren

 

I have read some on the Emerging Church, and I read Dan Kimball's book, The Emerging Church. I understand the desire to reject or move away from some of the more superficial trends of the evangelical church, but in trying to reach postmoderns, many of them seem to be embracing a postmodern worldview.

McLaren makes a lot of disturbing statements, such as this one:

Another thing I hear a lot from pomo supporters is that we need to move away from propositional truths and just "tell stories." It is often asserted by those in this movement that Jesus just "told stories" and did not make propositional statements. This downgrading of propositional truth is a hallmark of pomo thinking.

Here's another article by Mohler (different from the one posted above by J Grayhound) in which Mohler discusses Dave Tomlinson, author of The Post-Evangelical . Postevangelism is essentially the pomo Christianity of the Emerging Church movement.

These type statements are typical of the pomo Emerging Church.

 

More from the Mohler article that I quoted above, and the link is in this quote:

 

Reforming the re-reformed reformers--

Where does the scripture say His Body ever needs reforming? "Come out from among them saith The Lord, and touch not the unclean thing" was not a call to reformation; but rather a purging of leaven which The Assembly should practice constantly.

"The Faith" once for all delivered to the saints is still out there--undefiled, the pillar and ground of the Truth.

This is about Ecumenism, brethren, it is everywhere--but not in the Bride, the Lamb's Wife.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Their view of the Bible and the whole narrative issues is troubling to be sure. Kimball had an article in the last issue of Preachign Magazine where he talked about the whole pomo thing. It wasn't so much about preaching as seemingly just to ramble about some things. It was interesting. McClaren's chapter in Sweet's book is nonsense at times, and I think Horton makes some good comments about it.

I think the relation to culture idea is a good one that we can do better with. I don't think that means we need to adopt their style of preaching. Read Driscoll's book when you get a chance and see how you respond to that one.

 

That's right.

 

I have following this thread with curiosity as to the difference between it and the "Elaborate Church" thread. The differences, and I see them, are that this thread is a mostly non-emotional discussion of what might be right or wrong with the "Emerging Church", while the other became quite emotional in both the arguments against and defenses of the "Elaborate Church". Here I've seen no one jump in with a "don't criticize them you might be wrong too" or "don't criticize them as long as they're winning souls", etc.

What is the difference? Both started with a "what do you think of this" question? Maybe that thread kind of keyed in on a local church and this is on a "movement"? Maybe some consider the "Elaborate Church" only extra-scriptural and the "Emerging Church" unscriptural? Maybe something else? I'm curious in following both of these threads what made the difference.

 

Dear brother, may I humbly suggest that is not the right question. If a church has set its course away from God, it makes little difference whether it's conservative or liberal. As an analogy, if Jesus returned this evening would you rather be a conservative Roman Catholic or a liberal Roman Catholic?

There's enough information in this thread to indicate that this movement is not of God and is in all likelihood ecumenical. And the information is from people who love God and care deeply about His church. I know I do. May I offer the benefit of my experience and suggest that the best way to tackle this question is to start with the worst symptom and work to rule that out. If you can successfully rule out the worst symptom, then rule out the next worst symptom, and so on down the line, until at last you're left with a healthy patient - in our case a healthy, biblical, Spirit-led church or movement of God.

Normally, it's a good idea to rule out anything occult first, but with the information available in this case you might start with ecumenism and rule that out first since that is a very serious sickness, and a sure indicator of Satanic involvement at the nuts and bolts, foundational level. My guess is, after some digging, you won't be able to rule ecumenism out of this movement. If you can rule out ecumenism, then look at the theology, starting with the essentials of the faith, ruling out any conflict with them one by one until you are satisfied you have covered all the bases, and are able to proclaim this church or movement healthy, according to the scriptures.

This step-by-step process of examination using God's Word, will almost always clearly expose the truth of anything that claims to be spiritual. Often, it won't take long at all. But a church or movement that can withstand this process of examination to its conclusion is going to be healthy, biblical, and Spirit-led. Believe me when I tell you that rare, but oh so joyful, is the experience of getting that far.

[ February 17, 2005, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: IveyLeaguer ]

 

Considering how much info is out there on the emerging church i'm suprised to see some of the conclusions here?

Anti-traditonal church. Not at all, read Robert Webber's 'Ancient-future faith'. And i'm sure you can have precious memories of working in Catholic community as you can working in any community of God.

The emerging church is a debate a conversation, it is multi faceted and is very hard too pigeon hole. It is an international interndenominational group of Christians who are trying to figure out how to do church as we shift from the modern period to the postmodern period. This involves lots of thoughts and ideas, there is no model, no one size fits all...

The church needs to be more flexible in it's approach to many things. Life is fluid and changing and so should the church be...that does not mean does as you please but it does mean you can explore different avenues. For example: A baptist could explore a Catholic mass, a protestant could explore Orthodox iconography.

 

QUOTE]Normally, it's a good idea to rule out anything occult first, but with the information available in this case you might start with ecumenism and rule that out first since that is a very serious sickness, and a sure indicator of Satanic involvement at the nuts and bolts, foundational level. My guess is, after some digging, you won't be able to rule ecumenism out of this movement. If you can rule out ecumenism, then look at the theology, starting with the essentials of the faith, ruling out any conflict with them one by one until you are satisfied you have covered all the bases, and are able to proclaim this church or movement healthy, according to the scriptures.QUOTE]

Let me just understand this. This quote is saying that 'Ecumenism seeks increased understanding and unity on doctrinal issues among the different Christian churches'is the work of the devil?

 

Changing approach may be fine, but not changing doctrine. That is the part that alarms many, and that is what I was posting about. There is a lot of evidence that many of those in this movement are shifting away from orthodox doctrine.

Maybe by the time they "shift," the pomo situation will have morphed into something else. If the church keeps trying to adapt to culture, the church will always be behind. I do believe strongly that the church should become aware of what is going on in the culture and address those issues (that is actually part of my ministry), but this does not necessitate a change in the church internally. (I am not referring to change in music styles, worship styles, etc.)

 

Why? A mass by definition is part of getting grace in Roman Catholic beliefs. That's why the faithful Catholics attend every day or as much as possible -- to get grace. This goes against Baptist and other non-Catholic Christian beliefs. As far as icons go, in Eastern Orthodoxy, they believe the icons themselves are actual representations of Christ or the saints that the icons depict and that the icons are actual "points of contact" between God and man. They kiss them in order to venerate the images depicted as the Roman Catholics venerate their relics. I've seen this done in an Eastern Orthodox church in the Balkans. I totally reject this. Is this something to admire? I would rather explore the Word of God than these spurious things.

From an Eastern Orthodox site, talking about the liturgy and the Icons:

On the same page, underneath an icon of Mary, the caption states:

Venerate icons? I don't think so!

 

Anyone who think icons are just pretty pictures should get educated fast before the emerging church convinces Christians we need to imitate these "ancient" practices.

From a pro-Eastern Orthodox site:

It makes me quite angry that I'm being told by other Christians that I need to "look to" practices such as this.

 

More on icons; this is what some in the emerging/pomo church are telling us we should explore.

 

Brian McLaren, who perhaps could be considered the father of the emerging church movement, has been disinvited as a speak at the KBC evangelism conference due to his remarks in his most recent book.

 

IN reference to Mark's comments at the top of hte page, the church does need to change in some areas, but many in the pomo movement are exploring too freely. There is an inherent lack of authority vested in Scripture. It too often becomes a conversation among equals rather than a declarative message from God. Driscoll has a pretty good message where he references this on the www.reformission.com site in the audio section. His message is on the Genesis of False Gospels.

 

I don't think anyone is telling anyone to look at Icons or anything else, but we are all part of the catholic church. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and some understanding of each others take on faith is important.

Brian Mclaren would not like the title of the emerging church. And it's not about changing people but conversation and exploration not being confined by one persons interpretation of the scriptures, being able to explore the wider church. If you don't want too then that's fine 'it is up to you'.

It's a shame that the KBC evangelism conference has disinvited Brian he's a great speaker.

Pastor Larry says we are exploring to freely. So how would you have people explore different parts of the wider church?

And as for changing theology, where did the baptist theology come from and was that changed from the original theology?