RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Church



Message

Kat_D -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/26/2008 8:32:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jacobwdowning

As for this Apprasing web page, I have read through alot of there material and find that they have nothing good to say about anyone. Maybe what they are saying is true but if they don't point us to good things so that we can see that they are not just complainers and fundametalists then what good are they. I would beware of that sight.


I'm just wondering which of the churches/groups/teachers the site warns against you think are O.K.? The JW's, Mormons, Robert Schuller, TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, John Hagee, Rick Warren, Brian McLaren??....who?



jacobwdowning -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 1:27:13 PM)

I would not say that I think any of them are ok. What I am saying is that they are so negative about everyone, including Ewrin Mcmanus, Mark Driscoll, Mark Batterson, Andy Stanley, all guys who I have not come to a clear opinoin on yet nor has God told me one way or the other. Just always skeptical of a group that has nothing good to say about anyone. All of these guys named do at least one thing good and are there not any big name pastors out there doing things right. Why can't they point us in that direction. Why can't they point out the things in the EC movement that are good becausee there are many. There are also many I believe to be bad. Just don't liike all the negative. How about some positive.



Rick4Him -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 1:37:26 PM)

Jacob,

I'm just curious at what you believe to be good and bad in the EC movement?

Rick



Kat_D -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 1:59:57 PM)

quote:

All of these guys named do at least one thing good and are there not any big name pastors out there doing things right.


And so, if they do one thing right, yet the rest of what they teach is wrong, that one right thing makes it all o.k. somehow? I simply cannot understand this logic and so many use it. What about those who are new to the faith are not yet biblically savvy, and can't distinguish between what is right and wrong about a teaching and so they buy it all...who is accountable for leading them astray? It's one thing to say "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater," but what about those who aren't equipped to recognize which is the "baby" and which is the "bathwater?" They are the ones I'm concerned about.

The part of the emergent movement I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe the Bible is the complete story...that it's not enough somehow...and that God has a bigger story than His Holy Word. This, to me, is one of the most dangerous teachings out there.



hawkfan428 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 2:20:14 PM)

quote:

The part of the emergent movement I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe the Bible is the complete story...that it's not enough somehow...and that God has a bigger story than His Holy Word. This, to me, is one of the most dangerous teachings out there.


I'm sure there is a bigger story than what is told in the Bible. God knows the entire picture. We are mere human beings, and I suspect that when we get to heaven, we're going to learn a heck of a lot more than what has been shown.

That being said, it would be very wrong for any church to speculate as to what the "bigger story" is. That leads to heresy.



Kat_D -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 2:39:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawkfan428

quote:

The part of the emergent movement I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe the Bible is the complete story...that it's not enough somehow...and that God has a bigger story than His Holy Word. This, to me, is one of the most dangerous teachings out there.


I'm sure there is a bigger story than what is told in the Bible. God knows the entire picture. We are mere human beings, and I suspect that when we get to heaven, we're going to learn a heck of a lot more than what has been shown.

That being said, it would be very wrong for any church to speculate as to what the "bigger story" is. That leads to heresy.


I'm talking about the Bible for us here and now. Of course, God is able and can do exceedingly above what we can ever imagine. He is God and not limited by our view of Him. But, His Word is what He left us so that we could know Him and follow Him in the way that is pleasing to Him. It is enough...and speculating or thinking you know more that what His Word says or adding to it in any way can get you in a big heap o' trouble with Him.



hawkfan428 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 2:47:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kat_D

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawkfan428

quote:

The part of the emergent movement I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe the Bible is the complete story...that it's not enough somehow...and that God has a bigger story than His Holy Word. This, to me, is one of the most dangerous teachings out there.


I'm sure there is a bigger story than what is told in the Bible. God knows the entire picture. We are mere human beings, and I suspect that when we get to heaven, we're going to learn a heck of a lot more than what has been shown.

That being said, it would be very wrong for any church to speculate as to what the "bigger story" is. That leads to heresy.


I'm talking about the Bible for us here and now. Of course, God is able and can do exceedingly above what we can ever imagine. He is God and not limited by our view of Him. But, His Word is what He left us so that we could know Him and follow Him in the way that is pleasing to Him. It is enough...and speculating or thinking you know more that what His Word says or adding to it in any way can get you in a big heap o' trouble with Him.


Exactly! I believe we are on the same page with this train of thought.



Kat_D -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/27/2008 3:16:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawkfan428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kat_D

quote:

ORIGINAL: hawkfan428

quote:

The part of the emergent movement I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe the Bible is the complete story...that it's not enough somehow...and that God has a bigger story than His Holy Word. This, to me, is one of the most dangerous teachings out there.


I'm sure there is a bigger story than what is told in the Bible. God knows the entire picture. We are mere human beings, and I suspect that when we get to heaven, we're going to learn a heck of a lot more than what has been shown.

That being said, it would be very wrong for any church to speculate as to what the "bigger story" is. That leads to heresy.


I'm talking about the Bible for us here and now. Of course, God is able and can do exceedingly above what we can ever imagine. He is God and not limited by our view of Him. But, His Word is what He left us so that we could know Him and follow Him in the way that is pleasing to Him. It is enough...and speculating or thinking you know more that what His Word says or adding to it in any way can get you in a big heap o' trouble with Him.


Exactly! I believe we are on the same page with this train of thought.


[sm=thumbsup.gif]



jacobwdowning -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 11:53:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kat_D

quote:

All of these guys named do at least one thing good and are there not any big name pastors out there doing things right.


And so, if they do one thing right, yet the rest of what they teach is wrong, that one right thing makes it all o.k. somehow? I simply cannot understand this logic and so many use it. What about those who are new to the faith are not yet biblically savvy, and can't distinguish between what is right and wrong about a teaching and so they buy it all...who is accountable for leading them astray? It's one thing to say "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater," but what about those who aren't equipped to recognize which is the "baby" and which is the "bathwater?" They are the ones I'm concerned about.

The part of the emergent movement I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe the Bible is the complete story...that it's not enough somehow...and that God has a bigger story than His Holy Word. This, to me, is one of the most dangerous teachings out there.


So as for looking past what they do wrong, by all means no. All I am saying is that particular website has nothing good to say about anyone. Not even people who are doing things right. Why is that as christians all we can do is point out the negative and not try and gain the postive from situations. I have heard from people, that that site has written articles about pastors that after researching, are complletly false. I don't know this to be a fact because I have not researched them myself but I would not be supprised. If they are going to tell us what is wrong with Person A, why not point us to someone who is doing something right rather then just pointing out all the negative. They seem to be very much like the KJV only group.



Kat_D -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 12:30:28 PM)

quote:

All I am saying is that particular website has nothing good to say about anyone. Not even people who are doing things right.

[sm=aside.gif]

Well, the mission and vision of the site is to expose false teachers/teachings, not to praise those who teach sound doctrine, so I don't know why you'd expect to find that there.

ETA: This is off topic anyway, the topic isn't that site but the emergent church. I wonder if you'd address what I said in post #29?



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 1:12:54 PM)

Hello Hello, Say,

I found something very interesting that here in the great USA there are 1,800 different denominations here. So a lot of people have got all wrong or some have a different type of interpretation on certain scripture's. If a person teaches that the only way to eternal life is by having faith in the blood shedding on Calvary by our Lord Jesus Christ and that he rose on the third day. Then the rest is minutiae on our part.
May I also include that the commandment of loving God and our neighbor. Are very important and we seem to skip that doctrine a lot.



stateofgrace -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 3:26:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jacobwdowning

Ok so here is the question of our time. The Emerging(emergent) Church, is it good or bad? I heard Brian Mclaren speak at the Willow Creek worship and arts conference. I didn't even know who he was at the time and ask my friend with me if the guy was a Christian.(Willow is known to have non-christian speakers at there confreneces) So I knew before reading anything about it that I was not crazy about him but the more I read the more I am fearful of this whole thing. And who is apart of it. It seems like any Pastor out there that is making waves is part of the EC. Some of the names I have seen thrown around with the EC are Rick Warren, Rob Bell, Erwin Mcmanus, Mark Driscoll, Mark Batterson, Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, some guy whos last name is Pagget(?spelling). So who is good and who is band and what things are they saying that are good and what things are they saying that are bad.

Anyone want to weigh in?


Right now I'm listening to Mark Driscoll's latest sermon podcast (02/23/08) which describes his (Driscoll's) position regarding the whole emerging/emergent thing.



jacobwdowning -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 3:43:42 PM)

what is the title of that pod cast



stateofgrace -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 3:56:09 PM)

It used to be called Mars Hill Church but now I think it's called "Mark Driscoll Sermon Podcast" (likely because of the confusion with Rob Bell's church which is Mars Hill Bible Church).



jazzact13 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 4:19:37 PM)

Here's my take on the EC--

They are far more interested in being "postmodern" and "relevant" then in being true to the Gospel.

They seem intent on somehow explaining away the 'unpleasant' parts of the Bible--hell, final judgment, God's wrath, sin.

They seem more intent on issues of "social justice"--redistribution of wealth, global warming, recycling diapers, normalizing and legalizing unbiblical sexual behaviors, pacifism--then in spreading the Gospel.

Becoming heavy into mysticism.

They seem to think highly of themselves for their 'discoveries' (The Secret Message of Jesus, for example), which really aren't all that new after all.

Becoming heavily political--Sojournors, Deep Shift.

Willing to compromise on biblical truths (Bell's trampoline analogy) for the sake of some form of 'peace' and inclusion.



Kat_D -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 4:59:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

Hello Hello, Say,

I found something very interesting that here in the great USA there are 1,800 different denominations here. So a lot of people have got all wrong or some have a different type of interpretation on certain scripture's. If a person teaches that the only way to eternal life is by having faith in the blood shedding on Calvary by our Lord Jesus Christ and that he rose on the third day. Then the rest is minutiae on our part.

[sm=aside.gif]

Then I guess you've had a change of heart about Benny Hinn, Randy & Paula White, WOF, the Catholic Church, and Joel Osteen because, if I'm not mistaken, they believe Jesus died and rose and that He is the way, but you had no qualms about speaking out about their false teachings in these forums.



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 8:22:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mcleod

quote:

I would say a good question to those who embrace the emergent movement is "why approach Christianty this way?" Is it because of the legalistist churches that they feel they need to move in such a liberal direction, or is it simply because they are so liberal that they don't revere the Gospel as truth?


We need to also think about the teachers in Christ day, who thought he was liberal nut.

I"m posting as I read, so forgive me if this has already been responded to.

mcleod,
I'm not sure that Jesus would have been considered liberal. But even if He was, that is not grounds to declare that all liberal teaching is consistant with Jesus' teachings. Nor is it grounds to compare all participants in established religions with the religious establishment of Jesus' day, i.e. Pharisees and Saduccees. We need to compare our teachings with Biblical revelation rather than comparing labels.



mushhead -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 9:07:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisCovenant

I'm not able to find out enough info on the emergent church to have an opinion... which in and of itself is scary. Most info I find is fluff, not anything concrete. Because of that, I lean heavily towards "bad."

Thanks for that link to Appraising ministries, Kat. I look forward to digesting it.

HisCovenant,
the following are some quotes from "The Emergent Manifesto of Hope" which is a compilation of essays written by a variety of EC leaders and edited by Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt. It is the first book published by Baker Books in a cooperative partnership with the EC called "Emersion." The quotes will be placed in quote boxes. These are just a sample to give you some concrete examples of the EC's theology.

quote:

"Every generation of those who decide to follow Christ learns that there are Bible texts to be reinterpreted, theologies to be reconstructed, faith communities to be reimagined." Page 191

"We have experienced great joy in God's embrace of humanity through Jesus Christ. It has filled our lives with light. But Christianity's idea that other religions cannot be God's carriers of grace and truth casts a large shadow over our Christian experience. Does grace, the central teaching of Christianity, permeate all of reality, or is it something that is alive only for those who possess the New Testament and the Christian tradition?" Is the revelation that we have received through Jesus Christ an expression of what is everywhere at all times, or has the Christ Event emptied most of the world and time of saving grace and deposited it in one religion, namely ours? And more practically, how can we have genuine two-way conversation with non-Christians about our experience of God if we believe that God withholds his revelation from everyone but Christians?" page 191

"When we say that Christ saves, Christ represents something larger than the person we Christians have come to know. He is all and is in all. And Christ being "the only way' is not a statement of exclusion but inclusion, an expression of what is universal. If a relationship with a specific person, namely Christ, is the whole substance of a relationship with the God of the Bible, then the vast majority of people in world history are excluded from the possibility of a relationship with the God fo the Bible, along with the Hebrews of the OT who were without knowledge of Jesus Christ - the person. The question begs to be asked: would God who gives enough revelation for people to be judged but not enough revelation to be saved be a God worth worshipping? Never!" page 194-95

"For most critics of such open Christianity, the problem with inclusiveness is that it allows for truth to be found in other religions. To emerging Christians, that problem is sweet." page 196

"The godliness of non-Christians is not an anomaly in our theology." page 196

"Moreover, if non-Christians can know our God, then we want to benefit form their contributions to our faith." page 196

These quotes are from an essay entitled, "The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness" by Samir Semanovic. Selamanovic serves on the Coordinating Group for Emergent Village. This group is the leadership organization that drives the EC and is responsible for entering into the publishing relationship with Baker Books and organizing the annual EC conference.


I have many other qoutes that reveal the theology of the EC, but I will refrain from blowing everyone away by putting them all into the same post. It should be noted that Semanovic's theology is not just his personal opinion, but is representative of the EC. The equivalent of an urban legend is the claim that the EC has no widely agreed upon theology. Most emergents share the same theological beliefs, which is what binds them together. Those that don't agree, usually engage in ministry to postmoderns outside of the EC movement (yes it is a movement). Of course some orthodox pastors, such as Mark Driscoll, are trying to claim the EC moniker for Jesus. The pros and cons of that practice are worthy of discussion as well.

Hope this helps you to grasp the basic view of Christianity - revealed in Semanovic's statements - that inform and guide the EC's doctrinal formulations.



HisCovenant -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/28/2008 9:14:47 PM)

Thanks. I'm still wading through everything, but I did read your post and will reread it as I digest everything.



facedown -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/29/2008 6:44:19 AM)

hiscovenant
so, more words or info equals validity?

rick
i'm not certain that this word 'liberal' with all it's baggage is really the proper one.
who knows, maybe it is. but your insinuation that the gospel is not embraced to be "truth" is more than a little out there.

lycea
i'm not certain i agree with your conclusion that there is a tendency towards weakness in theology; however, i will say that there are many folks and gatherings who are still very united with the principles of seeker churches (and often see the two as the same, in error); so i could kind of understand your statement.

rick
i'm sorry, do you have any evidence, specific quotes where folks have said what you contest is believed in post 16? not looking for something where you conclude this is what is meant, btw.

earthless
you show the baggage for 'liberal' very well, as if to say if something is "liberal" then it fails the "litmus test"
speaking of "litmus tests", can you point in scripture where this is argued, and where it specifically tells one what's on the test?
because of course these tests require that nothing may be marked as incorrect. 99.999999% is failure.

kat
you believe its dangerous, one of the most dangerous teachings out there to believe that god has a big story? one that begins before eternity, and extends beyond and is inclusive of every moment and every space, everything that is seen and unseen, and in which we are beckoned to engage in this story authentically....that's dangerous?

it seems to me, if this is your opinion, then your view of scripture may be dangerous, it might seem to suggest in some way that the bible is self-referential.

what do you believe the very real consequence of bein in a "big heop ' trouble with him" is?

jazz
i disagree with your first statement, and might offer that it's more than possible for much of the rest your argument to actually validate the disagreement with your first statement. what i mean is that the teachings, "social justice", "mysticism", political activity, and mission are not about being "postmodern" nor "relevant", but "true to the message of jesus".

mushead
i agree that labels often do us no good.
though sometimes they are helpful, but only in as much as we remove baggage from them.
i would also agree that there is a tendency towards an "agreed upon theology", however, just as with any movement or community there will be variance, and because of this, we cannot simply take what one person says or writes to be "it" for all.

in addition, great quotes. maybe you would like to dialogue about one of them?



jazzact13 -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/29/2008 8:03:08 AM)

quote:

i disagree with your first statement,


Not surprising.

quote:

and might offer that it's more than possible for much of the rest your argument to actually validate the disagreement with your first statement.


Really? So, McLaren's and Bell's attempts to do away with hell have somehow invalidate the argument that they are more interested in being 'postmodern' and 'relevant' then in being true to the Gospel? Well, can't wait to see that explained.

quote:

what i mean is that the teachings, "social justice", "mysticism", political activity, and mission are not about being "postmodern" nor "relevant", but "true to the message of jesus".


Yeah, the Bible has lots to say about praying in Labyrinths (watch out for David Bowie), making sure homosexuality is a "social justice" issue (what happens when 'social justice' and biblical morality are in conflict), and playing politics so long as you do so from the left side of the aisle (while criticizing the 'religious right' for playing politics, of course).

No, they are not being true the message of Jesus.



floydette -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/29/2008 9:00:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13


Really? So, McLaren's and Bell's attempts to do away with hell have somehow invalidate the argument that they are more interested in being 'postmodern' and 'relevant' then in being true to the Gospel? Well, can't wait to see that explained.



Here are a couple of McLaren quotes from Christianity Today's archives. I happen to be reading them when I stumbled on this thread. It does not appear to be a issue of wanting to be relevant, rather looking at the scriptures and the times in which they were written and attempt to interpret was being said.

"Third, we need to re-sensitize ourselves to Jesus’ use of figurative language. We act as if “metaphorical” were a small thing, and concrete/literal were a big thing, but that’s the reverse of what I see in Jesus’ teaching. I think about John 6, for example, where Jesus talks about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and then says his flesh and blood are real food and drink. They take his statements non-metaphorically and concretely, and they miss the point."


"Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 670 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell."



HisCovenant -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/29/2008 9:50:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: facedown

hiscovenant
so, more words or info equals validity?


Prov 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls,
but many advisers make victory sure.

No, the truth is the truth is the truth regardless of how much I read about it. However, the more I read, the more I can get a sense of what the truth is and find the balance of what's good and what's bad about the movement. It gives me more info to see what lines up with the Bible and what is vanity... on both sides of the argument.

I know enough about Christian differences and arguments to know that it is rare for both sides to be 100% right and you have to find the balance to be conformed to the Word. There are times that you have to throw most of something out as heretical... but even then, it usually has it's basis in something true... like the fact that the church is ripe for reformation and revitalization.



mcleod -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/29/2008 10:43:19 AM)

Dear Mushead,

quote:

mcleod,
I'm not sure that Jesus would have been considered liberal. But even if He was, that is not grounds to declare that all liberal teaching is consistant with Jesus' teachings. Nor is it grounds to compare all participants in established religions with the religious establishment of Jesus' day, i.e. Pharisees and Saduccees. We need to compare our teachings with Biblical revelation rather than comparing labels.


Yes I agree with you in that statement. I was writing about the liberalism around my neck of the woods. And I must have taken to much time because I could not post it



jbow -> RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? (2/29/2008 10:56:06 AM)

Earthless...

Will you PM me, I have a question about something unrelated to this thread.

I cannot PM you because you have everything set to private.

Thanks,

Julien



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI