Emergent Church discussion?

[That Guy]

I want to inquire as to what the Emergent Church is and what purpose it serves? Where exactly would I start a topic such as this here on the board?

Regards,
Dway

[MacG]

I want to inquire as to what the Emergent Church is and what purpose it serves? Where exactly would I start a topic such as this here on the board?

Regards,
Dway

I do not know much about the emergent church but they are about reaching people that no one is reaching so I would say evangelism for lack of a better place. It also is largely a protestant thing so maybe there would work too.

MacG

[That Guy]

I do not know much about the emergent church but they are about reaching people that no one is reaching so I would say evangelism for lack of a better place. It also is largely a protestant thing so maybe there would work too.

MacG

Thanks Mac...

[Columcille]

Thanks Mac...

I think this topic does need some discussion.

I'd be more than happy to participate in it. Even though I am a Catholic, I think there are a few things worthwhile to discuss to promote a call to action. The Emerging Church is from what I understand a "movement" and not an actual denomination. Hence such ideas espoused by this movement is very fluid and can under postering infiltrate and mingle with the laity of all denominations and under such false pretense with some correct theology and an indifference to immorality, deflecting and ignoring presenting their immoral positions knowing their position is not popular amongst the conservative majority, or through even an openness to support it attempt to pervert the integrity of the Gospel and disrupt the body of believers. I think there are many aspects to this discussion that need to be addressed and what kind of preventive measures can be done.

However, since I am a former Protestant, I would in my own bias declare that the fundamental ecclessiastic structure of any Protestant Church has a problem declaring an infallibility of interpretation, has a democracy rather than an ecclesiastic structure with roots in Apostolic succession. Despite such bias, I think a reexamination of Christian universities needs to come to some accountability to the denomination that founded and supported them.

How does little ol' laity such as ourselves deal with this problem to take back the universities, to take back the laity who fell victim of this culture war? I'd suggest fasting, prayer, become a leader in your tradition to vote at the general conferences, and to withdraw financial support to the universities that are contributing in the "Emergent Church" philosophies or to go further and fire professors who teach it. If you are indifferent to making a call to action, then your money going to the general fund of the denomiation is going to be diverted back to these types of universities and so you by indifference are only a part of the problem. But that is just a thought. I don't know where you would want to start in the various subtopics related to this movement, but I am game.

[tdidymas]

I wanted to start a topic (I guess thread) about the Emerging Church, but I couldn't figure it out. The only new thread I found was under the Questions category. So if I wanted to start a thread ***led "Emerging Church" under either "The Church" or "Hot Topics" category, how do I get there from here?

[asdf]

I want to inquire as to what the Emergent Church is and what purpose it serves? Where exactly would I start a topic such as this here on the board?

Regards,
Dway

Hi Dway,

I'd be happy to chat about the emerging/emergent movement too. I was formerly personally involved in a church (now defunct) that could have been described as emerging. I'm not exactly involved in the movement anymore, but I try to keep abreast through the blogosphere. Let me know when you've got a topic up.

[tdidymas]

My question about how to start a new topic thread didn't get answered, so I have to be satisfied to post my comments where the topic already exists.

Concerning the Emergent/Emerging Church, some good reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html
http://carm.org/emerging-church
The 3rd one is very comprehensive.
A 10 min audio of John MacArthur commenting about a statement from one of the leaders of the emerging movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH1yOmij7Q4

I suppose if I had to be in an emerging church and no opportunity to go to a different church, that I might be involved and try to change things. The main problem with the movement is that most of the leaders of the movement have made bold unbiblical statements. I have heard statements about there not being a literal hell, about the virgin birth of Christ is not necessary to be believed, and many other things that are contrary to teachings of orthodox Christianity.

Some people lump the "seeker churches" such as Saddleback into the emerging church movement, but I believe there to be a huge difference. The seeker churches are committed to orthodox christian beliefs, but the emerging churches do not appear to be committed to that. The emerging church movement appears to be yet another liberal christian movement with charismatic leaders who can persuade people and tell them what they want to hear. There have been plenty of movements like this in the past century.

[asdf]

My question about how to start a new topic thread didn't get answered, so I have to be satisfied to post my comments where the topic already exists.

Concerning the Emergent/Emerging Church, some good reads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

Yeah, that's a decent start.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html

Scot McKnight usually gives the movement a pretty fair treatment, from a conservative evangelical perspective.


http://carm.org/emerging-church
The 3rd one is very comprehensive.
A 10 min audio of John MacArthur commenting about a statement from one of the leaders of the emerging movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH1yOmij7Q4

I don't put too much stock in "apologetics" activists. They seem more interested in drawing the lines of who's In and who's Out than in understanding others. It's the prevalence of such monolithic, modernist approaches to Christianity that led to the rise of the emerging movement in the first place.


I suppose if I had to be in an emerging church and no opportunity to go to a different church, that I might be involved and try to change things. The main problem with the movement is that most of the leaders of the movement have made bold unbiblical statements. I have heard statements about there not being a literal hell, about the virgin birth of Christ is not necessary to be believed, and many other things that are contrary to teachings of orthodox Christianity.

I'm not really interested in debating the specifics of who-said-what, but the fact is that emergence was* a movement about questions and conversation, rather than reinforcing pat answers. It was a group of people unafraid to question any and all of the assumptions of modern Christianity, even those deemed "theological" or "orthodox Christianity"—and thus, off-limits. They were not afraid to grapple with the historical/literary context of scriptures, to question allegiance to a particular political party or agenda, to reexamine the -ologies as well as the form of what "church" looked like.

* I use the past tense, partially because I personally am not involved anymore, and partially because there's a lot of discussion lately about whether emerging is dead or past its prime.


Some people lump the "seeker churches" such as Saddleback into the emerging church movement, but I believe there to be a huge difference.

I agree. Seeker-sensitive tends to be about changing the form while keeping the theology; emerging was willing to examine the dogmatic structures themselves.


The seeker churches are committed to orthodox christian beliefs, but the emerging churches do not appear to be committed to that. The emerging church movement appears to be yet another liberal christian movement with charismatic leaders who can persuade people and tell them what they want to hear. There have been plenty of movements like this in the past century.

I would disagree with its characterization as a "liberal" movement. They liked to call themselves a "conversation", and with good reason—they were accepting of all, and had prominent voices who could be characterized as both post-conservative and post-liberal. I understand that in conservative evangelicalism it's fashionable to refer to anything Not-Us as "liberal", but I don't find that that accurately reflects reality.

[alanmolstad]

I have heard statements about there not being a literal hell,


about the virgin birth of Christ is not necessary to be believed,

.

Thats a sign they are a CULT.

I would enjoy learning more of such statements and who made them so that I can have this information to go after people I run into on-line who might believe in these types of non-Christian CULTS and their teachings....

Believe me, if you dont believe in the virgin birth, you are likely in a CULT...for the non-christians love to attack Jesus's mom, and invent all kinds of sexual history for her.....

I doubt Jesus will taken to kindly to people that attack his mom...I know i would not.

[asdf]

Thats a sign they are a CULT.

I would enjoy learning more of such statements and who made them so that I can have this information to go after people I run into on-line who might believe in these types of non-Christian CULTS and their teachings....

Believe me, if you dont believe in the virgin birth, you are likely in a CULT...for the non-christians love to attack Jesus's mom, and invent all kinds of sexual history for her.....

I doubt Jesus will taken to kindly to people that attack his mom...I know i would not.

It's been done to death elsewhere. It's a dead horse. It's an ex-parrot.

Basically, the pastor Rob Bell said in his book Velvet Elvis that IF the virgin birth were definitively disproved somehow, through archaeology or something, it would not destroy his faith. The self-appointed Arbiters of Orthodoxy got their underwear in knots over that, and subsequently you can find 88,600 results on Google for the query "rob bell virgin birth".

[tdidymas]

It's been done to death elsewhere. It's a dead horse. It's an ex-parrot.

Basically, the pastor Rob Bell said in his book Velvet Elvis that IF the virgin birth were definitively disproved somehow, through archaeology or something, it would not destroy his faith. The self-appointed Arbiters of Orthodoxy got their underwear in knots over that, and subsequently you can find 88,600 results on Google for the query "rob bell virgin birth".

asdf, it is commendable that you want to defend Rob Bell. However, his statement implies that to be a christian it is not necessary to believe in the virgin birth. At least for himself, it is not necessary for him to believe in the virgin birth to be a christian (should it be proven that Mary was not a virgin prior to Jesus' birth). I hope you can see the obvious logic in this.

With that said, the virgin birth of Christ is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Meaning that if someone does not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin (or if they don't care that He was), then that person has need to re-evaluate their arbitrary form of religion. Here are the ramifications of a Jesus born of a non-virgin:
1. The apostles were lying or decieved
2. Mary was lying
3. Mary was not as righteous as told in the gospel stories
4. Jesus was merely human, and not divine in origin.
5. Jesus could not have been 100% righteous without sin, since he had to have been a human sinner (unless you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin)
This is merely scratching the surface, and if anyone says "yes" to any of these 5 for starters, they have already began departing from the true faith.

BTW, this is not arbitration as you accuse, since these things are well-documented as having been taught since the 2nd century. I just think it very sad that pastors like Bell et al are resorting to compromising Christian teaching (probably to accommodate liberal followers), rather than seeking a way to graciously communicate the truth.

I realize that many, if not most, of pastors, radio and TV preachers, and many charismatic leaders have made some rash statements that are contrary to Biblical teaching. If they realized their error and publicly denounced it, that would be one thing. But has anyone heard of Bell repenting from this? If they 'repent' only in private, then they aren't undoing the damage done. James 3:1.
TD

[asdf]

asdf, it is commendable that you want to defend Rob Bell. However, his statement implies that to be a christian it is not necessary to believe in the virgin birth. At least for himself, it is not necessary for him to believe in the virgin birth to be a christian (should it be proven that Mary was not a virgin prior to Jesus' birth). I hope you can see the obvious logic in this.

With that said, the virgin birth of Christ is an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. Meaning that if someone does not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin (or if they don't care that He was), then that person has need to re-evaluate their arbitrary form of religion. Here are the ramifications of a Jesus born of a non-virgin:
1. The apostles were lying or decieved
2. Mary was lying
3. Mary was not as righteous as told in the gospel stories
4. Jesus was merely human, and not divine in origin.
5. Jesus could not have been 100% righteous without sin, since he had to have been a human sinner (unless you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin)
This is merely scratching the surface, and if anyone says "yes" to any of these 5 for starters, they have already began departing from the true faith.

BTW, this is not arbitration as you accuse, since these things are well-documented as having been taught since the 2nd century. I just think it very sad that pastors like Bell et al are resorting to compromising Christian teaching (probably to accommodate liberal followers), rather than seeking a way to graciously communicate the truth.

I realize that many, if not most, of pastors, radio and TV preachers, and many charismatic leaders have made some rash statements that are contrary to Biblical teaching. If they realized their error and publicly denounced it, that would be one thing. But has anyone heard of Bell repenting from this? If they 'repent' only in private, then they aren't undoing the damage done. James 3:1.
TD

What you're saying, in so many words, is that one's beliefs need have no correlation with external reality. That if reality comes into conflict with one's dogma, one is required to hold onto the dogma and reject reality.

I do not accept that, nor do I accept that rejecting reality is required for one to be a Christian. Perhaps a Real True Christian™, but I'm not so concerned with the judgments of others.

[tdidymas]

What you're saying, in so many words, is that one's beliefs need have no correlation with external reality. That if reality comes into conflict with one's dogma, one is required to hold onto the dogma and reject reality.

I do not accept that, nor do I accept that rejecting reality is required for one to be a Christian. Perhaps a Real True Christian™, but I'm not so concerned with the judgments of others.

asdf, you are missing the point totally. What the apostles wrote in the NT is objective reality. Anyone who denies this (and thus denies the inerrancy of scripture) leaves himself open to deceit. There are many warnings from Jesus and the apostles about false teachers who depart from the teaching which they delivered. Anyone who puts a question in peoples' minds about what the apostles wrote - i.e. who suggests that what they wrote could be wrong - is a false teacher. I suggest that the statement in question from Rob Bell is a false teaching, according to the criteria set up by the writers of the NT. This is because the term "virgin" when taken within the context of the NT as a whole in addition to its immediate context, cannot be reinterpreted some other way, and anyone who does so is begging for judgment on the day of judgment. If you need an exegetical explanation, I would be happy to give it. In short, the imagination that Jesus might have not been born of a virgin is not objective reality. The fact that He was born of a virgin is objective reality. If you deny the "dogma" of correct interpretation of scripture, then all you have left is the "dogma" of Rob Bell's imagination (or anyone else's).
:)

[asdf]

asdf, you are missing the point totally. What the apostles wrote in the NT is objective reality. Anyone who denies this (and thus denies the inerrancy of scripture) leaves himself open to deceit.

Objective reality is that which does not change when you convert or deconvert.


There are many warnings from Jesus and the apostles about false teachers who depart from the teaching which they delivered. Anyone who puts a question in peoples' minds about what the apostles wrote - i.e. who suggests that what they wrote could be wrong - is a false teacher.

If a given dogma cannot stand the light of scrutiny, it is unworthy of being believed. Simply shielding it from examination is sure to lead to compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.

The Truth is—wait for it—true. If your beliefs correspond with objective reality, than there is no need to be afraid of the light. Otherwise, it demonstrates that you are concerned more with being right than with honoring the truth.


I suggest that the statement in question from Rob Bell is a false teaching, according to the criteria set up by the writers of the NT.

St. Paul would be surprised to learn this.


This is because the term "virgin" when taken within the context of the NT as a whole in addition to its immediate context, cannot be reinterpreted some other way

Of course it can. One could even believe that it is "true" without believing that it is historically accurate.

[tdidymas]

asdf, by your response, it sounds to me like you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
TD