|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/11/2008 1:39:51 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 550
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
I am a bit confused on this topic.I understand that the Emerging Church is full of heresy but is the Emergent Church full of Heresy as well?I heard a sermon of Mark Driscoll and he seemed very biblical and preached true christianity to me.I also understand that John Piper is a freind of his so he seems to be alright?
That's fair, and the fact that both are using such similar words doesn't help things. Here's how it seems to be.
"Emergents" are the loonie ones. If it helps, think of their main web site, Emergent Village. That's the McLaren/Jones/Pagitt faction, that support such whackiness as Faith House.
Emerging is more like Driscoll, those who haven't compromised the message while still trying to be relevant.
There is some crossover. I've read some of Dan Kimball, and he seems pretty sound, even though he's still close with McLaren and company. I've listened to McManus a few times, and while he's not as, shall we say, brash as Driscoll, he doesn't seem to have many questionable beliefs.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/11/2008 2:09:32 PM
|
|
|
floydette
Posts: 1164
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
"Emergents" are the loonie ones. If it helps, think of their main web site, Emergent Village. That's the McLaren/Jones/Pagitt faction, that support such whackiness as Faith House.
unbelievable.
_____________________________
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” Henri Bergson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/11/2008 6:25:11 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy_S
I am a bit confused on this topic.I understand that the Emerging Church is full of heresy but is the Emergent Church full of Heresy as well?I heard a sermon of Mark Driscoll and he seemed very biblical and preached true christianity to me.I also understand that John Piper is a freind of his so he seems to be alright?
His preaching seems very true to the faith so far but I just don't understand his Emergent Church Theology.Another concern of mine is that his style and his church seemed to be too focused on being relevant to the world.
Can someone explain this to me?
Sammy,
Jazz's explanation sums up the answer to your question pretty well. Let me add that IMHO this attempt to differientiate between "emerging" and "emergent" is not wise because it creates a lot of confusion for a lot of people. If you google either word, most of the search results will lead you to sites operated by or promoting the heretical version of the church. Practically speaking, that is a serious problem. Imagine that Mark Driscoll's preaching resonates with a new believer or someone that is just learning about Jesus. Then imagine that person decides to google this thing called emerging. He is going to be inundated with a version of Christianity that - depending on his worldview - is going to make sense to him because it presents Jesus in a way that confirms his understanding of the world. Now imagine this young man who was on the road to faith in Christ becoming a devoted follower of emerging church doctrines. It could mean the difference between an eternity in heaven or eternity in hell.
The only way a distinction between "emerging" and "emergent" can work, is if everyone involved agree with the distinctions. The heretical emergents do not; they use both terms to describe themselves.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/11/2008 6:37:44 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/11/2008 8:27:15 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
there are several images in scripture, several metaphors if you will, about the atonement. it seems as though, you prefer that the primary one is the cultic (hebraic) understanding of the "scapegoat". is that accurate?
The scapegoat; the Passover Lamb; the serpent on the pole... Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross at Golgatha to pay the penalty for man's sins is the heart of the atonement. As Paul said in 1Corinthians 1:22-24:
quote:
Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
We can add to the fact that Paul preaches Christ crucified, the following statement by Paul that he only preached the gospel. quote:
1Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
It is evident from these passages that the gospel is Christ crucified. Paul expands on the meaning of this gospel message in 1Corinthians 15:1-4:
quote:
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...
Notice the details of Paul's gospel.
1-Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day (vv3,4).
2-this message is of first importance (v.3).
3-We are saved when we receive, stand on, firmly hold to this gospel message (vv.1,2)
4-This gospel is a message revealed in the OT scriptures (vv.3,4).
So yes, I believe this is the primary, and the only, means of atonement.
quote:
i was raised in a lutheran church, and i recak this being the message - every week, that "jesus died on the cross", but rarely, if ever conveyed the importance of "god with us" (the incarnation), or the resurrection or ascension (even while portraying an empty cross). catholics, on the other hand, seem to focus on the resurrection, even while using the imagry of christ on the cross, and eastern churches focus heavily on the incarnation.
it seems, that perhaps all three have everything to do god's redemption story....
Some pastors believe that our ability to authentically worship God is made possible by the Gospel, therefore telling the Gospel story is the only appropriate content for a worship sermon. Churches that operate on this philosophy teach discipleship - which is teaching how to live with Jesus and for Jesus - in Sunday School and other classes. Did your Lutheran church have Sunday School? Are you saying that they didn't teach anything about how to walk with Jesus in everyday life?
I agree, but only in the context of the Cross. The purpose of Jesus' incarnation was to teach, reveal, and demonstrate the heart and character of God. But the ultimate teaching, revelation, and demonstration of God;s heart and character is in the death, burial, and resusurrection of Christ...in all its meaning.
quote:
quote: facedown
quote:
quote: mushhead
is it possible to have two contradictory beliefs about the same god..."
certainly, christians from all spectrums do it all the time, even while affirming "absolute truth"
it's interesting that you should discuss 1 corithians, in the light that some practices should be avoided, when paul clearly deems acceptable many practices that are deemed as unacceptable - heretical - false in churches today.
as i mentioned, i don't have any of pagitt's books, so i can't turn to page 134 and read it. you say that he says mankind is not seperated from god, what exactly does he say? what book are you referring to again?
and again, scripture certainly teaches things other than penal substitution.
ireaneus writes "the work of christ is first a foremost a victory over the poers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil". read 1 john 3:8, col 1: 13, or hebrews 2:14. john 1 suggests that the reason jesus came into the world was to reveal god's heart by what jesus did and who he was. col 2:15 says that christ "disarmed the powers and authorities". col 2:14 says jesus cancled the written code, nailing it on the cross. romans 8:1 suggests that there is no condemnation in christ, because of the freedom, or liberation, from sin and death. and we are compelled to follow christ - to crucify ourselves - gal 6:14, and many others. romans 5:6-10 says that we did not "get what we deserve". jesus' entire message was the "kingdom of god", and liberating people, setting the captives free, binding up the broken hearted, giving beauty for ashes, healing infirmities.
I agree that christians have contradicting truths about God - I affirmed that in the discussion leading up the question. My question was, can two contradicting truths both be true.
I've never heard anyone call anything in either letters to the Corinthians, heretical. Will you elaborate?
"Listening To The Beliefs Of Emerging Churches - Five Perspectives." Are you saying that you do not agree with Pagitt's theology as I presented it? Let me ask you another question: Do you believe that the description of the New Jerusalem found in Revelation - streets of gold, the gates of pearl, ect. - are a description of a literal place or do you believe they are a metaphor for human culture that lives in perfect harmony with God's original intent for creation?
what is a poer? Jesus did deliver us from bondage, sin, death, and the devil...through the cross. As I said the crucifixion is the entry point - the point of delivery to recieve everything you describe in your post that mankind is delievered from and to. My point in my previous post is that no one can participate in the Kingdom of God; no one can experience victory over death, sin, and the devil; no one can desire to live in God's Kingdom, much less actually do anything to advance that Kingdom, until they first have Christ. As Jesus said over and over again, and as Paul wrote in virtually every one of his epistles, we do not have Christ unless we obey the command to believe the gospel (see defintion of gospel above).
quote:
Mark 1:15
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Isaiah 64:6a
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
Romans 8:1-8
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
quote:
post 118
no no no, not "biblical gospel"....how shall i say this, the 'gospel' often presented by folks in these western, modern times, portrayed acurately by many folks in evangelical circles. *note- you see, when you suggest 'biblical' you then suggest that all other thoughts are 'unbibilical'.
Not all other thoughts, only those that contradict the words of God recorded in the Bible.
quote:
missionaries may have 'taken lands', indeed probably quite often. now, in these days, most missionaries don't take lands, but they utilize the same philosophy found in colonialism, even the same business plan as establishing a mcdonalds, setting up a franchise to offer religious goods and services, though really "offer" may be too light of a word.
Some examples please.
Think about how much manpower would be required to forcefully take and occupy another country. The church does not now, nor has it ever, had the power or the forces to colonialize anything.
Setting aside the debate over murderous maruading missionaries, let me ask you a question about something that has been bugging me. If the emergent belief is correct that culture must influence theology because it is impossible for people to seperate themselves from the influence of their cultures, then how can you say that it is/was wrong for colonialism to be part of the missionary ethic in cultures that practiced colonialism? By what standard do you make this judgment?
quote:
now, it's interesting that you label yourself as a fundamental with very close ties to what i might understand a 'baptist' to be; and use this phrase "what the church has taught for over 1900 years". lets be clear, what the church "teaches" today is rarely what the church taught 600 years ago, let alone 1900 years (though i don't want to have this viewed as some argument for reconstructionism either).
Though you addressed this to VCO, I must ask for some examples of early church teachings that contradict today's theology. I have read many such declarations by emergent leaders, but when I researched the claim I discovered that emergents tend to take liberties with the facts (much of my research into the EC has been spent studying history and church history).
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/11/2008 9:17:14 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/11/2008 8:48:46 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
mcleod,
I am out of time for today. I will post a response the first chance I get tomorrow.
God be with you!
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 3:52:31 AM
|
|
|
VCO
Posts: 98
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
VCO,
. . . can we discuss the seven churches of revelation for a moment. I wonder if the assertion that the churches described in revelation represent different church ages is as obvious as it appears at first glance. . . . For example, the church in China seems to coincide with the church in Smyrna or maybe Philadelphia, or some mixture of the two. . . .Some of them are sending their missionaries here to the United States. I guess I am wondering if the description of the church in different ages is unintentionally limited to the history of the American or western church.
What do you think?
I think "the Church" is a term that applies to the sum total of all true believers from the time of Christ until now. NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY they are from, NO MATTER WHAT DENOMINATION, and NO MATTER WHAT ETHNIC GROUP they are from. In fact, in the Great Commission in Mat. 28:19 it says "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations," and the word "nations" in the Greek is "ethnos"; the very same Greek word that we get "ethnic" from.
I agree that the Church in China for the most part is an example of the Smyrna type Chruch which is the "Persecuted Church". Any time a Church is really persecuted, the PHONIES get out quick. You will notice when you read the Letters to the Seven Churches that the Lord had NO condemnation for the Church at Smyrna and for the Church at Philadelphia; while to the other churches He made statements like, "Nevertheless I have this against you". So in China where many have been imprisoned for advocating Christian beliefs, I would expect very few phonies. However looking at Christianity as a whole, we have entered an Age where the majority claiming to be Christian only "Profess" Jesus is Lord. That is why I just cringe when I hear a TV preacher say: "Just receive Jesus as your personal Savior and you will be saved." That is a very suttle lie that has crept into the Church and decieved many. That is NOT WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS AT ALL.
Romans 10:7-9 (NASB)
8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
It is NOT JUST SAYING IT, it HAS TO BE A CONFESSION, and it is not a "confession" if you have never really gotten down off of the throne in your heart and willingly given that throne to JESUS as LORD (Master). Once you have, then and only then can you "confess Jesus as Lord"; AND only then does He become your Savior. The vast majority of the world wants a Savior, but very few want a LORD. If one does not want Jesus as LORD, is he not standing with the crowd in Jerusalem the day of His Trial, crying out, "We will not have this man to reign over us, Crucify Him!" That is the difference between those who entered the "Broad Gate" and those who entered the "Narrow Gate".
Luke 13:23-27 (NKJV)
23 Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And He said to them, 24 "Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. 25 When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from,' 26 then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.' 27 But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.'
There is no Salvation if you do not receive Jesus as Lord, THAT is the Gospel Jesus taught. That is one the cores of the Christian Faith that most mainline Churches taught for 1900 years. Then in the 1900s, especially the 60s and 70s, "easy believism" crept in and the true Gospel became watered down, to where many are teaching a false gospel and they do not even realize it.
2 Cor 11:3-4 (NKJV)
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted--you may well put up with it!
Gal 1:6-7 (NKJV)
6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
The warnings are there, and Romans 10:9 says it plain, but the majority, especially on TV, in this Laodicean Age say "Just recieve Jesus as Savior!" However Scripture clearly says:
Col 2:6 (NIV)
6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him,
So YES in a persecuted Church the majority of it's members have genuinely received Jesus as LORD, and YES in a Philadelphia type Church whose love for the Lord is hot, the majority of it's members have genuinely received Jesus as LORD. That is why when I taught sermons in the Prison Chapels, I frequently ended the sermon by asking, "Something to think about as you go back to your house, is Jesus Lord of your life, or are you still lord of your own life?"
It is true that Church history shows a specific type of Church dominated each of the Church ages, HOWEVER you could find examples of each of the Seven types of Churches in each of the Seven Ages. Also the Seven types do not fall along Denominational lines, and you can find examples of all seven types within one Denomination. Contrary to what some may think, I have little patience with someone criticizing other Christian Denominations; BECAUSE Christ recognized Seven types of Churches, I will NEVER advocate less. I also believe that the Seven Churches can also be taken as seven types of Christians, and one must be patient with those who are struggling and have not yet become a Philadelphia type, which should be the goal all of us have. However, I also believe we are obligated to warn those who have fallen for "another gospel". Ask people today how they know they are going to heaven, and you will have to look long and hard to find one that says, "Because I have repented and received Jesus as LORD."
_____________________________
Titus 2:13
VCO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 7:11:00 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 1013
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
mushead
i'll try to respond as best as i can, but i've only a few minutes...
interesting thing about the "scapegoat" is that it wasn't a "sacrifice. the scapegoat was impure, not an offering or a gift, not given to yahweh, ritually abused, and driven out into azazel. the scapegoat was expelled, which is the opposite of a gift. so i'm not certain that this metaphor is the one to interpret all others.
others including: justification, reconcliiation, and adoption, and even the heroic. reconciliation (katallagey) refers to restoring right relations. justification (dikaiosis) is making just, especially transforming, rather than in legal or economic terms. adoption (huiothesia) is a formal adoption designating a nonrelative to be an heir. finally, paul by using such phrases as jesus diying "for us" or "for me" syposes a major theme.
getting back to scapegoat, it is a transfer, not a solution. in addition, neither the sacrifice nor the scapegoat involves punishment. sacrifice is meant for purity, and the scapegoat is transport - not a penal substitute. and yet, we see paul using both imagries, but this conflation doesn't retroactively turn the scapegoat into a sacrifice. paul mixes metaphors, such as in romans 2:24-25 (ransom and aquittal and purification). that doesn't mean he saw no difference between a hostage-release and a law court or temple purification. he mixes them to convey the message about the death as liberating, releasing, and purifying, but we miss the point when we think that there is no difference, and then take one as the lens to view all others.
remember, the sacrifical animal was pure; while a curse-transmission animal started out pure, but ended up impure and does not rate as a sacrifice. in addition remember that the sacrifice was not sin-laden, the blood then was not polluted, it was pure meant to cleanse and purify. the sacrificial animal was not killed to punish, but to purify impurities.
..
what do you make of acts 17? was paul's message a failure? was that not part of the 'gospel' -or- god's good news? when jesus is said to preach the gopsel of the kingdom, did he not do so?
..
sure we had sunday school, my point is/was that the message seemed to be non-holistic.
for paul, it seems that the resurrection is very primal. what, or how does the resurrection play into soteriology in your understanding? how does the burial play into soteriology? how does jesus teachings play into soteriology? how does the incanration? nothing in themselves....but all pointing towards or coming from the cross?
can both be true? sure.
not the letters, but folks taking what the letters say, and beleiving in them, and acting upon them. but this isn't a thread about cessation, and i don't want to get too far away from the op.
what i've said in regards to paggit's excerpts, is that i don't have any of his materials first hand, and therefore cannot really offer good talk about it. do i believe that the descriptions and imagry found in revelation are "literal places"? sure, i guess - but maybe not as though it was a video-taping, so maybe no. a "metaphor" - well, metaphors are suggestive, so yes - but maybe no depending on what's being suggested.
jesus delivered persons, as recorded in the gospels, in "real-time". what do you make of that?
examples of missionaries involved in taking lands? oh my - the church of rome. now, while the missionaries may not have "carried swords", that doesn't remove liability. and the church has the power to colonize thought, belief, faith, etc.
i don't believe your correct in your observation that "culture must influence" (emphasis added). how could you ask your following questions and them not be a straw-man, if you didn't believe that colonialism was a part of the "missioinary ethic"?
VCO's point was that the church has lived the exact same life in belief and practice for 1900 years. is that your underrstanding - not just the "early church". so when you use the phrase "today's theology" you are lumping into one vat "all theology". so, here's an example (i'm running out of time): many christians today believe that the evidence of being born-again is speaking in tongues. i don't believe that this is an authentic interpretation of scripture nor the early church, nor the church for well over 1800 years. there are tons of examples however, that was just the most drastic i could think of in the time i had.
pax
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 8:56:40 AM
|
|
|
floydette
Posts: 1164
Status: offline
|
Good quote from Jonny Baker “Emerging churches are simply communities who practice the way of Jesus in postmodern culture.”
Pretty simple.
_____________________________
“The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” Henri Bergson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 10:20:55 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 562
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Dear Mushhead,
quote:
Think about how much manpower would be required to forcefully take and occupy another country. The church does not now, nor has it ever, had the power or the forces to colonialize anything.
Boy oh Boy did you fail in history class? Not to be a person of bad demean-er, but I recall reading were the Reformers and the Anabaptist. Just over sprinkling and dunking issue, a lot of people were killed. The trash that happen in Spain in the 1500's. Just like a few years ago, where oh, Jerry Falwell was ask if they should get along with the Pentecostal. He said no because they have it all wrong. In his eyes at that time. But I believe that today Jerry, and like everyone else who will face judgment in the future. Will be singing a different tune. Because we don't quite have all of it right. But that is why I have faith in his grace. To know that I try to do some of what is required.
Do I need to go any farther in this ****. Just like the Hebrews in the Old Testament where their were going to have some pagans join them and they went ahead and had them circumcised driving them to a state of insanity. Or the Jews in the New testament who thought that the requirement was to be circumcised. Humans because of their sinful nature believe that their way is the only way and will in most instances cause great harm on another human in order to get their idea in first place. Even to make a person seem to be ignorant and foolish. Not to say that you believe that.
I can not talk about Maclaren, Jones, or Padgett for I do not know them in detail. But when someone talks about a person I do know and I have not found anything wrong in their teaching. I get a little worried about what goes thru their mind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 2:34:18 PM
|
|
|
YvonneW
Posts: 24
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Boy oh Boy did you fail in history class? Not to be a person of bad demean-er, but I recall reading were the Reformers and the Anabaptist. Just over sprinkling and dunking issue, a lot of people were killed. The trash that happen in Spain in the 1500's. Just like a few years ago, where oh, Jerry Falwell was ask if they should get along with the Pentecostal. He said no because they have it all wrong. In his eyes at that time. But I believe that today Jerry, and like everyone else who will face judgment in the future. Will be singing a different tune. Because we don't quite have all of it right. But that is why I have faith in his grace. To know that I try to do some of what is required.
Do I need to go any farther in this ****. Just like the Hebrews in the Old Testament where their were going to have some pagans join them and they went ahead and had them circumcised driving them to a state of insanity. Or the Jews in the New testament who thought that the requirement was to be circumcised. Humans because of their sinful nature believe that their way is the only way and will in most instances cause great harm on another human in order to get their idea in first place. Even to make a person seem to be ignorant and foolish. Not to say that you believe that.
I can not talk about Maclaren, Jones, or Padgett for I do not know them in detail. But when someone talks about a person I do know and I have not found anything wrong in their teaching. I get a little worried about what goes thru their mind.
mcleod,
I'm having trouble following your thoughts here because some of your sentences are a little fragmented.
Could you please restate your argument? I'd appreciate it.
Yvonne
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 3:33:27 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 562
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yvonne,
mcleod,
I'm having trouble following your thoughts here because some of your sentences are a little fragmented.
Could you please restate your argument? I'd appreciate it.
I'm sorry, I try to read over and over again so that I am making myself clearer in what I'm saying. But I do fail miserable quite often.
The Reformers who believe in sprinkle a person on the head for baptism and the Anabaptist who believed in fully putting whole body in the water for baptism. So the reformers said since you believe in that we'll be sure that you accomplish that. So they went ahead and had them drowned, because of their belief.
Jerry Falwell had a hard time loving a Pentecostal person. Because of his beliefs.
I would argue that no one has all of the answers. That in our future we will be able to listen on how we fail him miserable. Because we didn't have the requirements down right.
The early church leaders were arguing over if some need to be circumcised or not in order to be a follower of Jesus. What laws were to be keep or not. Forgot what Christ was teaching them when he was in the mist of them. But there has been violence in the past and today because someone doesn't believe like the other person does.
That's what actual made earlier Christians message different than Caesar message. They taught of a king who wasn't the violent type. But a God who wanted us to be reconcile to him who loved and cared for us. Not like Caesar who with an army forced people to worship him.
But when we step out of that box. Then we are being lead by the evil one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/12/2008 5:36:46 PM
|
|
|
YvonneW
Posts: 24
Joined: 2/14/2008
Status: offline
|
mcleod,
Thanks! Now I understand what you were referring to.
Y
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/13/2008 4:59:49 AM
|
|
|
VCO
Posts: 98
Joined: 1/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: facedown
mushead
VCO's point was that the church has lived the exact same life in belief and practice for 1900 years. is that your underrstanding - not just the "early church". so when you use the phrase "today's theology" you are lumping into one vat "all theology". so, here's an example (i'm running out of time): many christians today believe that the evidence of being born-again is speaking in tongues. i don't believe that this is an authentic interpretation of scripture nor the early church, nor the church for well over 1800 years. there are tons of examples however, that was just the most drastic i could think of in the time i had.
pax
U&U
Obviously the difference is in how you define the term "The Church" and how I define it.
Matt 7:21-23 (NKJV)
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Also See the Parable of Ten Virgins, Mat. 25:1-13)
I was talking about the Mainline Churches and the core of the Christian Faith, "receiving Jesus as Lord" (John 20:28, Col. 2:6, John 1:12), NOT all the various other issues that spawned the various Denominations. Sure there have been major differences in other issues, but the core beliefs such as the Holy Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Physical Resurrection, and the plan of Salvation described in Rom. 10:9 telling us to confess Jesus as Lord; has been taught by most of the mainline, genuine Churches throughout the Centuries by most Churches, from Paul on. Yes there were Heresies, that is why Paul warned about those who would teach "ANOTHER GOSPEL" (2 Cor. 11:2), and warned about those who would shipwreck "the faith" like Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:18-20). Yes there were some very ungodly Popes, but there were some good ones too. Yes there have been some very ungodly Churches claiming to be Protestant, and still are; but I am talking about Narrow Road Christians, NOT those who went through the Broad Gate. So when I use the term "the Church", I am talking about those who DID NOT shipwreck the faith. I am sorry, but if they did not teach the TRUE GOSPEL, they are those on the Broad Road of Destruction, and not part of the Bride of Christ, no matter what they claim.
The point I was trying to make tho, for the MOST PART, amoungst those that taught "THE FAITH", this easy believism we see today, this watered down gospel that is not the "TRUE GOSPEL" was relatively a product of the 20th Century. Unfortunately it was my generation that drug it into Churches that traditionally taught people to receive Jesus as Lord. It came in SUTTLELY, almost unnoticed, and bit by bit Churches that once taught it like Paul did, have watered it down to where it is no longer the True Gospel. In the 1800s especially, you would find few who thought the Bible was not all the inspired Word of God, now according to a CNN pole about 10 years ago, 67% of 1000 Pastors that they called from the 6 major Denominations, said, "NO, it is not all inspired by God." In the 1800s almost NONE thought there was anything but a miraculous Creation at the command of His voice. NOW the majority of those claiming to be Christians think Evolution is how God created (Rom. 1:22), DISPITE THE EXAMPLE Jesus gave us of HOW HE CREATED, in the Feeding of the 5000. In the 1800s almost NONE thought homosexuality was not a sin, and Churches unanimously taught that it was an abomination before God. Today they teach "tolerance" NOT repentance, and they EVEN ordain them. In the 1800s almost unanimously Churches taught that God intended only men to be ordained as Pastors (1 Tim. 2:12), but NOW there are probably more Churches that ignore the plain teaching of that verse and say, "Well that only applied to that period of time". Popular opinion and Political Correctness are esteemed more important today than "Thus says the Word of God".
There is no denying it, Liberalism or "the Emerging Church" is permiating the Church more and more each day, and it is not the same as Paul taught it. Sadly it appears today that the majority are doctrinally far from what the Church was even 50 years ago. In my lifetime, (I am 59), I have seen many Churches make changes in their Teachings to conform to Society; when it is the Churches that should be insisting that Society should conform to the Scriptures. As I stated before, I even had two Churches that I was a Member of, make such changes; and I for conscience sake had to leave, and seek out another Church that remained true to the Scriptures.
< Message edited by VCO -- 3/13/2008 5:23:26 AM >
_____________________________
Titus 2:13
VCO
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/13/2008 6:06:22 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Dear Mushhead,
You wrote:quote:
The issue with the EC is not the desire to implement the Kingdom of God - for that is a noble desire. The issue is that emergents desire to reject much of Jesus' message; going so far as to call Jesus' message evil.
I need to know where that is written, because I will write to teaching pastor of where I attend and confront him on that.
mcleod,
sorry I took so long to respond, but I didn't have any time yesterday to do anything but read the new posts on this thread.
Here are two examples:
quote:
"Exclusivism, at the other extreme, also says that Jesus is the only way, but he is the Savior only of those who choose (or are chosen) to believe in him. Only they will go to heaven. (Brian McLaren; "A New Kind of Christian; page 125)
McLaren takes issue with two of Jesus' teachings. 1- Jesus' teaching in John 14:6 that He is the only way to the Father; 2- only those people who believe in Jesus will go to heaven.
Just so there is not mistaking what McLaren means when he contests these teachings, here are some additional statements by McLaren on the subject:quote:
"For too many people the name of Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus' statement 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father except through me' actually means, 'I am in the way of people seeking truth and life. I won't let anyone get to God unless he comes through me." (Brian McLaren; "A Generous Orthodoxy;" page 78)
"OK. Now I want you to imagine that someone has walked beside you through that doorway of death. And that person has lived his life cramped in hatred and ffear, tight in guilt and greed, ingrown in lust and selfishness...He is prowd, arrogant, unwilling to admit he is wrong, mabybe now incapable of doing so. He is so used to getting his own way that he has never been satisfied in any situation unless he is completely in charge...Could it be that the very light that seems beautiful to you would seem blinding to him? Could the very warmth of the love of that place that to you is so perfect seem to him horrible? Couold the acceptance and love and trust and openness that welcome you seem to him disgusting, weak, terrifying, insipid, or repulsive? Sometimes I wonder if e have it all wrong. Maybe it's not that there are two places beyond the door of death, heaven and hell. Sometimes I wonder if hell is just what heaven feels like for those who haven't learned in this life what this life intended to teach. I believe with all my heart that God is not willing for even one person to miss out on the joys of heaven." (Brian McLaren; "A New Kind of Christian;" page 91)
As you can see from these exerpts, McLaren disagrees with Jesus' teaching on the subject of salvation and hell (a position shared by virtually every emergent leader). So much so, that he calls Jesus' teachings extremist. Maybe I should have said that emergents call Jesus a false teacher rather than characterizing their portrayal of Jesus' teachings as evil. However, after reading so many caricatures of Christianity and christian doctrine (including McLaren's own proposal that western christianity is responsible for Hitler and the atrocities committed by the Nazis) it seemed pretty clear that they were now lumping Jesus' own teachings in with their views of the misguided, false, and ultimately devilish doctrines of modern Christianity.
Here is another example that I included in a previous post:
quote:
"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 1Emergent Manifesto of Hope" in an essay titled, "The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness." by Semir Selmanovic; pages 94-95
Emergents are unwilling to worship a God that teaches the doctrines described in the Bible. Why? Because in their thinking, these doctrines are evil. Selmanovic makes that perfectly clear when he describes a grace that is available only through the person of Jesus as wrong, and a God who thinks that way as unworthy of our worship.
quote:
mcleod:
It has been forty seven years in a lot different of churches. Saying that if I say a sinners pray and just believe. that I would have eternal life. I have no problem with that. Except when it came to helping other humans who were being missed treated or starving to death or were do to things beyond their control found themselves out on the streets. They missed the mark and quite frankly. Think is nothing but keeping the law wasn't requirement to do it at all. It's funny that those peopled have made up a bunch of rules (which there is a thread on it) that has nothing to do with a relationship with the creator of the universe. It just amazes me to know that if someone wants to put into practice what Jesus said and what Isaiah wrote. Then they in so-called christian circles, think those people are evil. I know been there and done with my dad. Back in the sixties and seventies and even in the eighties. Go and ask a church to help someone here in America and sorry, but no luck. The reason we would do that because the need was great, but the building projects was more important.
Just to be absolutely clear, obeying the rules of the law do not have anything at all to do with salvation. That said, you are correct that some Christians do not act like they are supposed to. My wife and I know that full well. She was so completely mistreated by the leaders of our former denomination (Utah-Idaho Southern Baptists) for whom she worked, that we compare it to being raped...spiritually. While we were going through that very difficult time, a friend told me that we should expect bad behavior from those in the church because Christians are imperfect people who will act according to their sinful nature from time to time. Or because, as Jesus said, some who are in the church are not Christians, but unregenerate people planted by the evil one. This is not an excuse or an effort to minimize the pain and suffering the bad behavior causes, it is simply a fact. So the question we must ask ourselves is, what should we do when we encounter people acting unChristlike? God tells us to either forgive them and cover over the sin, or to confront the sin in the hope of bringing about repentence. In either case, the motivation is love for our brothers and sisters in Jesus.
Is this how emergents deal with the issue? No they don't. Instead they launch into viscous attacks in which they attempt to portray all of Christianity (with rare exception) as acting the same way. In fact, emergents suggest that the cause of this bad behavior is not disobedience to Jesus, but instead it is caused by obedience...obedience to bad doctrine. The ultimate purpose of McLaren's book, "A Generouos Orthodoxy" is to prove that the doctrines of modern Christianity cause the hateful, exclusive, abusive, power mongering behavior of uncommitted, uncaring, self-serving, Christians and their power hungry leaders who refuse to engage in authentic fellowship with one another and who hide from the hurting people around them by hunkering down behind the four walls of their church buildings. After making the case that the doctrine is bad, McLaren then offers a new, gentler, orthodoxy...a generous orthodoxy, that he says truly represents the intent of Jesus' message and mission.
However, this is truly a malicious slandering of modern Christianity. Contrary to what emergents claim, modern Christians do not focus only on evangelizing people overseas, they also engage the lost and hurting people of the U.S. For example, the Southern Baptists and the Salvation Army operate two of the three largest disaster relief organizations in North America. Southern Baptist men and woman take personal time off of work and pay their own expenses to help remove trees and other debris from houses damaged by hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters. They tarp the roofs and do whatever they can to prevent further wheather related damage. They also dig mud out of houses damaged in floods; operate medical services when necessary, and do just about anything necessary to help the victims of a disaster - including being responsible for cooking approximately 95% of the meals served by Red Cross; operate portable child care units, and provide portable shower and laundry facilities. this doesn't sound like people hiding from their culture.
The church is also responsible for operating food distribution centers located in low income neighborhoods to help the homeless, and anyone else that needs help. They operate rescue missions to feed and house the homeless; they operate pregnancy counseling centers, open free day cares to assist low income families. Charles Colson started prison ministries which also operates Angel Tree. Angel Tree is a ministry dedicated to provide the children of prisoners with toys for Christmas. Focus on the Family is a ministry that provides support services to single moms; latchkey kids; families in crisis - just to name some of the ways that ministry assists families. Teen Challenge is a ministry that helps troubled teenagers and young adults to overcome drug addiction and other problems to become fruitful members of society. Every day of the year you can find modern era Christians doing the hard work of ministering to people in the midst of some of our countries most dangerous, dilapidated, and needy communities. Not because they must, but because they must. They must respond to the love of Jesus that spawns love and compassion for people.
Emergents also claim that modern Christians are abandoning the inner city for the burbs because they want to get away from people that make them uncomfortable. The descriptions above prove that to be untrue. However, it is true that some churches are in the burbs. Is that all bad? Don't people living in the burbs also have issues that God has answers to. The modern church has, and still does, minister to people in many different ways - whether they are around the world or around the corner. Yes, some people don't participate; some are withdrawn and don't demonstrate Christ's love for people; but the truth is many do. We need to love and forgive - and sometimes call out - those that are not acting Christlike, but it is akin to lying about Jesus Himself to try and convince people that the bad behavior of some is indicative of the behavior of all modern Christians and that their doctrines are to blame.
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/13/2008 9:38:31 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/13/2008 7:51:25 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
VCO,
While I tend to agree with you about the seven churches, I am still not convinced. But that is a discussion for another thread.
I also tend to agree with your points about misrepresenting the true gospel. Numerous times on these forums I have said that I believe we inadvertantly mislead people by doing alter calls where we tell people they can get eternal life by saying a prayer. Some people are just teaching false doctrine, many...even most...are unintentionally causing confusion by employing an evangelism methodology that seperates the discussion about discipleship from the presentation of the purpose for Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection.
Please don't be confused about the emergents argument on this matter. They are equating methodology with doctrine, and they do so because they deny penal substitution. They are not looking for a better, more faithful way to communicate penal substitution, they deny that it is the means of salvation. For example, Brian McLaren says that penal substitution is "false advertisement of the cross." (podcast interview with Leif Hansen).
In the near future, I am going to post a detailed description of the postmodern understanding of the Kingdom of God, the means of salvation, and an explanation of why they believe the Kingdom - not the church - is what Jesus tells us to participate in. As a preview, the following is a single quote that reveals the emergent belief about the importance of the church:
In answering the question if there is anyway to follow Jesus without becoming a Christian, Brian McLaren writes:
"If you need permission, YES, you can follow Jesus without identifying yourself as a Christian." ("A Generous Orthodoxy;" footnotes on page 20)
< Message edited by mushhead -- 3/13/2008 9:43:54 PM >
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Emerging Church-Good or Bad? - 3/13/2008 8:20:14 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 350
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sammy_S
Thanks guys for the answers..As I mentioned Mark Driscoll seemed to be alright for me and the fact that one of my favourite preachers (Piper) likes him leads me to believe that he may be alright.
The few concerns of mine about him is that why does he even refer to himself as emergent?Why put yourself in a pisition like that,that could lead to confusion?I also don't like the fact he believes in the Church being more "relevant" to the world and so forth.It is not the style that saves but the power,I understnad that he is wise,so why believe in that?I am lead to believe that though he may not be "Emerging" he may still attached to them somewhat.
Again,he seems t preach the truth and I love the fact that he is a calvinist  but I am still a bit concerned about him.
And this doesnt help either....
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2006/12/11/grunge-christianity/
Sammy,
I think you touched on the answer to why they choose to identify with emerging, when you talked about relevance. After the 1950's the church's rate of baptism began to nose dive. Christians became increasingly concerned about this trend. I believe that this concern came to head in the mid-1980's. Christians began looking for ways to attract non-believers. Churches increasingly adopted programs in the hopes of recreating someone elses success. Then seeker-senstitive became very popular. While seeker-sensitive is, in principle, a Biblical concept, the way it was practiced became utterly unbiblical. Instead of worship services being primarily a gathering of believers who together bow before the throne of Almighty God, it became all about luring the unbeliever. Many worship practices were set aside in the interest of not offending the seeker.
Seeker-sensitive didn't stem the baptism slide, so about the time I entered the ministry in the early nineties, the new call was for the church to learn how to connect with the larger culture. More and more churches looked to contemporary worhsip services and other practices to connect with people outside the church. Some churches even took down the crosses in their buildings. Next came the call to demonstrate that the Bible has a relevant message for the lives of people in todays world. Preachers increasingly taught felt need sermons that addressed topics of concern in the lives of the congregants. Felt needs sermons are also Biblical (Jesus preached "felt-needs" sermons) but they too were taken too far. Instead of seeking to provide Biblical guidance for the pressing issues facing congregants, these sermons increasingly became the religious version of "successful living techniques." We began to hear messages with phrases like, "What does the Bible say about how to manage your finances?" or "What does God tell you about how to be the best employee and succeed in the workplace?" or "What does the Bible say about how to have a happy life?"
If you listen close enough, you will notice that these messages are all about the individual succeeding in everything he chooses to do. Joel Osteens book title sums up this phenonema well, "Your Best Life Now." Emphasis on it being your life. The problem is that the only truly successful life as a Christian is the one utterly surrendered to the Lordship of Jesus.
This brings me to the EC. An entire generation (at least) has been raised under the rubric of relevance. I believe that even though he disagrees with the doctrine, Mark Driscoll thinks that the practices of the EC are the best way to reach postmoderns. He doesn't seem to understand that in the final analysis there are only two cultures (two worldviews). 1-The worldview of the unbeliever and 2- the worldview of believers. Unbelieving cultures are manifested in many different ways, but ultimately they are based on a view of the world that is different than what God reveals. WE as believers are called to present the truth to the unbelievers and call them to turn away from their worldviews and adopt the worldview presented in the Bible. Remember Paul's message at Athens. He described the truth about creation, God, humanity, sin, and of course Jesus. He called them to repent, but they did not.
As a Calvinist, this won't be an issue for Driscoll, but many Christians seem to think that we have to convince people to accept Christ, when only the Holy Spirit can convict someone of the Gospel's truthfulness. Our task is to deliver the message, not find better ways to convince them. Knowing this might free us to make worship about worshipping God again...whatever style of music we use.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
