What's the Emergency? Emergent and Emerging Churches

That is a good article...since Mark Driscoll was brought up in the article, and the other thread, here are a few videos of him making distinctions between Emerging/Emergent/Missional, etc. They are from the Desiring God '06 Conference.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=beea25aa8e6c808bad58


http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f94c059e1fa4701f5a89


http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3832c87914347cc2afc3

 

I just read an article from Roger Oakland about the Emerging Church

“ANOTHER JESUS” MOVEMENT

Commentary by Roger Oakland
www.understandthetimes.org

For printer friendly version, please click here

Those who support the Emerging Church Movement justify that “reinventing Christianity” is necessary in order to “reach” the present generation.

Reaching the present generation with the gospel of Jesus Christ is a challenge for pastors today. Young people growing up in the 21st century have a completely different worldview than their parents. Education and society in general have programmed their minds into believing there are no absolutes. We now live in a pluralistic, relativistic society. Wrong can be right and right can be wrong. It really does not make any difference. This is what it means to be religiously correct in the postmodern era.

So how does the gospel of Jesus Christ rate in a postmodern society that claims truth is a word that should be archived in the dark ages? Now that this generation has been enlightened, how do you tell a sinner they need a Savior?

For pastors who are looking for numbers for success, the Emerging Church is the answer. The Emerging Church has a whole new way of looking at Christianity. Rather than dwelling on sin, death, and hell, the Emerging Church promises peace, hope, and experience. Rather than being concerned about spending eternity with Jesus, the Emerging Church promotes the kingdom of God in the here and now.

You see, this is why Christianity, according to Emerging Church proponents, must be reinvented. Those who say such a view has the potential to lead to apostasy are considered narrow-minded, old-fashioned resistors who need to be exterminated like rats from churches.

Since writing the book Faith Undone I have discovered that taking a stand for Biblical truth in the midst of Emerging Church propaganda, can create a lot of emotional opposition. I have received many comments from the “brethren” who say that coming against the “new thing God is doing” is divisive and counter-productive.

For example, I have been part of a fellowship of pastors for many years who are presently debating the issue of the Emerging Church. There are some of these pastors who believe the Emerging Church is “just being relevant”. They say this new wave that has hit Christianity like a tsunami is similar to the Jesus Movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s.

I disagree with this view. While they may be correct in saying that it is “another Jesus” movement, it is not another “Jesus Movement”. The Jesus Movement of the past was based on pointing people to the Word of God, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the soon return of Christ. The Emerging Church is headed in a direction that will soon eliminate the gospel for the sake of building the kingdom with anyone and everyone who will participate.

If you don’t believe this, it can be proven. Read chapter eleven of Faith Undone called “Slaughterhouse Religion.” Did you know that some Emerging leaders are saying the cross is “false advertising for God?”

I agree with the Emerging Church leaders that it is important to reach this generation. The issue is, what is it that we are going to reach them with? If we lead this generation away from the truth, we will not be reaching them, we will be deceiving them. The Bible calls this apostasy. For such, the God of the Bible will be the judge.

 

With all do respect....this is a very ignorant article. By ignorant, I mean he doesn't really know what's going on with those who may be labeled "emerging". He is talking about a sliver of churches that are emergent...but he is attacking the same liberalism that has gone on for ages. I'd say this guy needs to broaden himself and learn a bit more about the different churches. Unfortunately, it is more complicated than the way he has put it...and fortunately, not all emerging churches, probably not even most, are characterized the way he put it.

 

Good well thought out article that has the pulse of the movement.

 

This is hardly "well thought out" when the premise of the article can hardly be proven!

"Those who support the Emerging Church Movement justify that 'reinventing Christianity' is necessary in order to 'reach' the present generation."

How does he know that those who "support" the movement justify reinventing Christianity? The odds are that he is thinking about less than 10 people associated with the movement when he makes a statement, and an entire article, like this one. No doubt there is liberalism within the Emerging church...but no more than in any denomination. Well thought out?! Give me a break!

 

I know pratically nothing, ok, well, nothing about this. But I wondered what does this mean,
'reinventing Christianity'

 

Read some sections of this article and skimmed through others.

I thought he made a very good and fair analysis of some of the strenghts and weaknesses of the Emerging church. He was able to be critical and fair at the same time. I applaud the effort of trying to encapsulate such a difficult and amorphous group.

One criticism I could offer would be his overdependence on non-emerging sources for classification of the groups that make up the emerging church.

Still a very good effort.

 

I have always found the following article to be an articulate and concise description of postmodernism and the motivation of postmodern Christianity which is most represented in the Emerging church.

 

These so-called distinction and labels are theological gobbledygook. Driscoll does have a point in noting differences, but that is where it ends. Unfortunately he succumbs to self-promotion in minimizing and criticizing the two alleged formulas he objects to while glamorizing his preferred model.

Driscoll is dreadful, theologically. His evangelistic zeal is admirable but his incredulous method of theological examination and intellectual examination is at times simply exhaustively immature.

These names and categories are pop-gimmicks of self-aggrandizers who are focused upon their movement, their idea and their place at the table (this is not to criticize a place at the table, but the table should be for those who are recognized as mature and seasoned saints with genuine mastery of the Scriptures).

 

Well well well, it sounds like maybe you should be the only one at the table, o master and well-seasoned quackenbush.

 

Whats the emergency for some churches??

A shortage off leaven, maybe???

You know you do need quite a bit leaven, so's you can "raise the dough"!

Ed

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

P.S. Still tryin' hard to reach 5K! :laugh:

 

Now you've run into the problem of deciding the "well-seasoned masters of the Scriptures". Who is going to decide that? You?!

Let me know if there is a chair for me. :thumbs:

 

I've come to the conclusion that this board isn't the place to openly discuss issue pertaining to the emergent or emerging church world.

Particularly since many around here both don't understand the cogent differences and refuse to get educated about what really is going on within either movement.

This conversation has been going on for about fifteen years and I've been in on it for the last 10 or so. It is very complex and a good conversation to have...but some around here refuse to learn the very basic concepts. Particularly in my home denomination (SBC) there is too much speculation and over blown criticism, and a small contigent seeking a relationship with these groups.

There are some great people in these worlds...and some people that need to tone down the rhetoric and theological issues. That doesn't mean we throw it all out. There is redeemable ministry happening within these groups and souls being saved, lives being changed.

 

I do not believe that abandoning mind-body dualism is the same as a failure to separate the spiritual from the carnal.

I believe it is a false dichotomy that the mind/soul is the spiritually redeemable while the body is the carnal and unredeemable part of us. We are called to love the Lord our God with heart, soul, mind and strength which includes our bodies.

Here is an article by Dallas Willard that may help you understand what he and emergent Christians mean when they reject the Platonic philosophy of mind-body dualism.

Dallas Willard: The Human Body and Spiritual Growth

Other links that may help are

Wikipedia : Mind-body dichotomy
Wikipedia : Dualism

 

Your question assumes, if not demands, we believe no one is qualified to form such bodies or in themselves make such evaluations. The Scriptures teach otherwise, that indeed there are mature saints, those seasoned and masters of the Scriptures and to be in doubt as to who they are or the possibility of their existence indicates you may not be at that point yourself, hence your question.

 

This is laughable. :laugh:

Okay, Master Quackenbush......season me up so I can join you at the table. Then you won't be by yourself.