The Emerging Church

[Conniepaw]

Has any one here heard of it? My dad just preached three sermons warning everyone against the dangers of it. The Truth War by John MacArthur talks more about it. So is any one else here familiar with it?

[Danadelfos]

Hmm, I'm against most of the streams of the emerging church. I wouldn't necessarily always warn people against it as a whole. I personally wouldn't warn people against the entire thing, just most of it. I'm definitely against changing the songs of our forefathers, and making our worship come down to the world. If you could go to a reformed home church, rather then some liberal presbyterian/baptist church, I would go to that home church. As in, those were the only two churches in 120 miles. I don't exactly understand it, but I'm not necessarily tell someone they're sinning if they're going to a home church. I'm not for putting rap music/dry ice in our worship service, just too "reach out" to teens and the younger generation. Personally I think the emerging church is causing church government to be thought of quite little today.

*disclaimer, I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, maybe I have the emerging church all wrong.*

[Ruthie]

I would most definitely warn people against it as a whole.
I'll try to make this quick, as I can talk on this subject for hours. Seeing as we just left 2 emergent Churches...

I'm currently reading The Truth War (fantastic book! a must read!)

...



Actually- I've changed my mind about posting, I'm going to wait and see what a few other people say, and then comment. (mostly because my arms are tired and don't feel like typing...)

[Danadelfos]

I should read The Truth War, and I know how there's lots of degeneration going on, but at the same time, faithful churches are emerging as well... Churches that are truly seeking to glorify God and don't just call themselves churches while compromising with the world. That's part of why I can't just say that the entire thing is wrong.

[Conniepaw]

Hmm, I'm against most of the streams of the emerging church. I wouldn't necessarily always warn people against it as a whole. I personally wouldn't warn people against the entire thing, just most of it. I'm definitely against changing the songs of our forefathers, and making our worship come down to the world. If you could go to a reformed home church, rather then some liberal presbyterian/baptist church, I would go to that home church. As in, those were the only two churches in 120 miles. I don't exactly understand it, but I'm not necessarily tell someone they're sinning if they're going to a home church. I'm not for putting rap music/dry ice in our worship service, just too "reach out" to teens and the younger generation. Personally I think the emerging church is causing church government to be thought of quite little today.

*disclaimer, I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, maybe I have the emerging church all wrong.*

While the emerging church does do some of the things you mention it has much more to it and it is extremely dangerous!

I can't explain it well but if someone could tell me how to make his power point available (i dont know how to do it) then you are welcome to read it.

If someone here was really interested I can give you the link to my dad's sermons and you can listen to them.

[Clodius Albinus]

The emerging church isn't about modern influences on worship, which are pervasive within most strains of Christianity; it is, on the contrary, an attempt at synthesis between faith and postmodernism, and frankly, I just don't think it works. It's not true postmodernism, and it certainly doesn't look very much like biblical Christianity.

[Danadelfos]

The emerging church isn't about modern influences on worship, which are pervasive within most strains of Christianity; it is, on the contrary, an attempt at synthesis between faith and postmodernism, and frankly, I just don't think it works. It's not true postmodernism, and it certainly doesn't look very much like biblical Christianity.

Ah, thanks Jared for clearing that up. I didn't exactly understand it.

So, I assume that your dad meant the attempting to synthesize between faith and postmodernism?

[Conniepaw]

^ It is post modernism and my dad was trying to warn people of the signs of the emerging church and to tell them to be careful not to fall into the lies.
Like i said, i can't explain it as well as he can.

[Danadelfos]

Well, could you give like a quick overview of your dad's three sermons?

[Conniepaw]

Basically what my dad did was explain who they are, what they belive, and why we should stay away from them. For example their stament of faith:

We believe in Jesus. We know He's part of the Trinity and all the other important stuff we also believe, but if we're honest, we're partial to Jesus. Don't get us wrong. God is like a Father—no, God IS the father—and the buck stops with Him (if you're going to have the buck stop somewhere it might as well stop with Someone who is … well … all about love with a capital L. Of course, He's also about justice with a capital J, but we'll take our chances that, in the end, justice will feel like love). And then there is the Holy Spirit—mysterious, windy, seems to like fire a lot, whispering, and always pointing us to … you guessed it … Jesus. We not only like Jesus a lot, He likes us a lot. Enough to die for us. We know that when life gets tough (and it always does) He'll be there for us.

We believe in the Church. We know—it's flawed, inconsistent, institutional, bureaucratic, even embarrassing sometimes. Yet it is also incredibly heroic at other times. Whether we like it or not, want to attend it or not, we're stuck with it. There are a lot of parachurch organizations out there that are a lot more glamorous at first glance, but the Church is the Body of Christ, and that's pretty glamorous too. The Church is not optional, it's not up for discussion, it's been around ever since Jesus, and it's still here. That's good enough for us.

And yes thats word for word.
Now this is the "Lord's Prayer" they teach to the youth.

Our non-gender specific parent, who resides in an unknown place in both our hearts and beyond our universe,

Holy is your name, even if we don’t get to know what it is specifically,

Your kingdom come, though it may already be here and we’re just failing to tap into it,

Your will be done, if you could just send a post-it note to let us know what it is so we stop making charts,

On earth and any other planets where you have seen fit to create or at least start the process of creating life, not limited to single celled organisms with or without the influence of divine evolution,

As it is in the place of eternal happiness that we mentioned before.

And give us this day, or whenever it pleases you (we aren’t complaining or anything), our daily bread made from low-carb flowers that did not endanger any forms of life—plant, animal or vegetable,

And forgive us our debts/trespasses/sins, though we believe you are a loving God who does not keep track anyway so we don’t need to be forgiven except by those who are supposed to be following your lead on this anyway,

And lead us not into a state of mental, physical, spiritual, and emotional desire for things that may or may not be considered wrong by the majority of the geographically-oriented culture we happen to come from—either way it’s our parents’ fault,

But deliver us from those things which we like but are not necessarily condemned for liking or doing,

For thine is the kingdom, which, as you know, is both here and there,

And the power, which we may choose or not choose to recognize,

And the glory, which you deserve but may or may not actually require from us,

Forever, which is figurative anyway.

Amen and Amen.

Dear God, help us all. Amen.

Now that is not every emerging church but most emergin churches are involved with this emergent youth group material of which this is a part of.

And here is a quote from a guy named Scot McKnight who explains who these emerging christians are

“It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they don’t really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.”
--Scot McKnight (CT, February, 2007)

My dad used all this information in his sermons. His main point was that there is no absolute truth in the emerging church. For example I say that he color of this word is red. You might say no, thats blue. Well just because you think its blue doesnt make it blue. But thats what the emerging church believes. "You think its blue? Well thats ok, its blue to you." So in Christianity they might say, "You think the Bible teaches Jesus didn't rise from the dead? Well that's ok, that's how you interpret the Bible. That's what it means to you." That's simply ridiculous!

Any way thats an overview of my dad's sermons. Theres more to say but i dont feel like it know.

[Clodius Albinus]

It's unfortunate that your father quoted such material in his sermons, Conniepaw, as it has the disadvantage of not having much to do with the emerging church.

The emerging or emergent church is a movement, not a denomination, and therefore lacks a statement of faith. What you quoted is found only one place online (other than being quoted, from that page, in a blog entry), at a page entitled "Important Stuff YS Believes." The YS in question is Youth Specialties, a non-denominational group that, according to their website, "has worked alongside Christian youth workers of just about every denomination and youth-serving organization." They do not appear to embrace an emergent theology, and while I can't say I care for their rather silly statement of principles, it's simply false to assert that this is what the emerging church believes. I can't find any connection whatsoever. (UPDATE: for a couple of years, they were evidently one of many "sponsors" of an Emergent Convention. How much this means they subscribe to such principles, I don't know, as interdenominational groups like this tend to sponsor and co-sponsor events across the spectrum. Even if YS is emergent-inclined, however, what a single youth-oriented group writes in irreverent style hardly defines the movement.)

As for the so-called Lord's Prayer that the emerging church teaches, I again remind you that the emerging church is a loose transdenominational movement; they don't get together and decide what to teach. Secondly, what you then quote is obviously a parody, and I suspect your dad used it as such. No one teaches that as a serious revised Lord's Prayer, and I'm certain that those in the emergent movement learn the same one that we all know.

I take issue with most of the emergent church movement's distinctives, but this is beyond silly. The final characterization with regard to the resurrection is equally absurd. Let's deal with the problems with the movement that exist without making up more fantastic ones.

[Conniepaw]

It's unfortunate that your father quoted such material in his sermons, Conniepaw, as it has the disadvantage of not having much to do with the emerging church.

The emerging or emergent church is a movement, not a denomination, and therefore lacks a statement of faith. What you quoted is found only one place online (other than being quoted, from that page, in a blog entry), at a page entitled "Important Stuff YS Believes." The YS in question is Youth Specialties, a non-denominational group that, according to their website, "has worked alongside Christian youth workers of just about every denomination and youth-serving organization." They do not appear to embrace an emergent theology, and while I can't say I care for their rather silly statement of principles, it's simply false to assert that this is what the emerging church believes. I can't find any connection whatsoever. (UPDATE: for a couple of years, they were evidently one of many "sponsors" of an Emergent Convention. How much this means they subscribe to such principles, I don't know, as interdenominational groups like this tend to sponsor and co-sponsor events across the spectrum. Even if YS is emergent-inclined, however, what a single youth-oriented group writes in irreverent style hardly defines the movement.)

As for the so-called Lord's Prayer that the emerging church teaches, I again remind you that the emerging church is a loose transdenominational movement; they don't get together and decide what to teach. Secondly, what you then quote is obviously a parody, and I suspect your dad used it as such. No one teaches that as a serious revised Lord's Prayer, and I'm certain that those in the emergent movement learn the same one that we all know.

I take issue with most of the emergent church movement's distinctives, but this is beyond silly. The final characterization with regard to the resurrection is equally absurd. Let's deal with the problems with the movement that exist without making up more fantastic ones.

I disagree.

First of all although they are only a movement that doesn't mean they don't have a statment of faith. They way not use that stament word for word, my intention was to show you the type of things they believe. I never said the Lord's Prayer "defined the movement" I said that it is being used in many emergent churches affiliated with YS. And my example about the resurrection was not absurd, thats what they believe. To quote leaders of the emerging church

Uncertainty is a virtue. We aren’t supposed to understand precisely what the Bible means. We have to be humble enough to admit that we might be wrong.

They deny certainty and deny that we can know what the Bible really says.

I ask how much do you really know about this? My dad has spent extensive time over the past few weeks studying and exploring this new movement and this is what he is finding. Where have you gotten your inforamation? Have you read any books on the subject?

Just Curious... [/quote]

[Clodius Albinus]

First of all although they are only a movement that doesn't mean they don't have a statment of faith.

Yes it does. Go ahead: find the statement of faith of the evangelical movement. The charismatic movement. The holiness movement.

Individual congregations within the movement will have statements of faith, and these statements are apt to differ -- often considerably. A movement is generally interdenominational, a group of churches with many differences that unite around some goal or general concept. Again, there is no such thing as a statement of faith for the emerging church movement. The statement of faith for that youth organization, meanwhile, does a terrible job of describing the beliefs of just about anyone. It's not even close to emergent teaching. (Incidentally, I've looked into that group more, and they are involved in youth organizations in denominations ranging from Baptist to Episcopalian to Methodist to Presbyterian. They're a huge, evidently rather mainstream group. I may not care for them, and you obviously don't, either, but if you're going to tar the emergent movement for association with this group, you have to include practically every Protestant denomination out there in your denunciation as well.)

I never said the Lord's Prayer "defined the movement" I said that it is being used in many emergent churches affiliated with YS.

I'm amazed that you still don't recognize this for what it is -- a parody. Read through it; it's mocking biblical deconstructionism. Believe me, no one has ever taught that text. No emergent congregation is doing readings of it. Moreover, a church, emergent or otherwise, cannot fall under YS's umbrella, and I seriously doubt you had even heard of the group before I brought them up. Again, they provide assistance with regard to youth programs, and work with just about any Protestant church. No one gets their cues from YS, and YS doesn't tell churches what to believe.

And my example about the resurrection was not absurd, thats what they believe.

Brian McLaren is one of the most prominent figures in the movement, and also one of the most troubling. His doctrines are far out of the mainstream; in short, he exemplifies what I find so problematic about the movement. Even his church's website, however, has this to say on the relevant doctrinal issue: "God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to rescue us from those consequences and to restore our broken relationships with God and others, through Christ's death on the cross, a perfect act of redemption for each of us. Salvation comes to people on the basis of God´s grace through their faith in Jesus alone." Say what you will about the quoted material, there's no way to get "believe what you wish about the resurrection" out of those words. I'd challenge you to find quotes from the doctrinal statements of prominent churches or persons associated with the movement who suggest that you can deny the resurrection if you wish. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it and stand corrected -- but I'm waiting for the proof here.

To quote leaders of the emerging church

Uncertainty is a virtue. We aren’t supposed to understand precisely what the Bible means. We have to be humble enough to admit that we might be wrong.

They deny certainty and deny that we can know what the Bible really says.

I don't get it; you disagree with this? I'm not of the Reformed tradition, but this is almost an article of Reformed faith, and it ought to be throughout Christianity.

There is such a thing as absolute truth, of course, and scriptural truths are, in a word, absolutely true. It would, however, be quite arrogant to think that we understand all of them and have interpreted them properly. It's one thing to believe in absolute truth and another altogether to assert an absolute knowledge of the truth. Just witness the myriad of internecine disputes among Christians! Some things, of course, are clearer than others, and we must, as believers, adhere to certain perspicacious fundamentals of the faith. The emergent movement is far too willing to muddy the waters, as far as I'm concerned. That said, I'd be extremely wary of anyone who told me that he or she truly understood the scriptures. As a lecturer I heard recently said, it is with Holy Writ that we should consider our understanding the most provisional, precisely because its meaning is the most important.

I ask how much do you really know about this? My dad has spent extensive time over the past few weeks studying and exploring this new movement and this is what he is finding. Where have you gotten your inforamation? Have you read any books on the subject?

The answer is that I don't know a great deal about it. The movement has been profiled in a number of secular publications, such as, if I recall correctly, the New York Times Sunday Magazine and the New Yorker, and I've read those essays. I've read some rebuttals to emergent theology on Christian websites, and a handful of articles from mainstream Christian publications. That is not, however, enough to be in a position to comment extensively on emergent theology. What I do know, however, is that the material you quoted is irrelevant. Parody material and a statement of principles from a non-emergent church organization written in some sort of slang, youth-oriented style does not exactly make for a devastating take-down of an organization, or even for a coherent argument. I can't assess your father's messages, as I haven't heard them, but the quotes you provided are nothing more than straw men.

[Dr. Watson]

Here is a long articlethat brings out many of the fallacies of the Emerging Church Movement. It's written by Phil Johnson, who is closely associated with John MacArthur. I have not actually read the entire article, but I read Phil's posts on Pyromaniacs where he regularly criticizes the ECM. Well-written stuff.

[Sherlock]

They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.”

Cute, but riddled with rather insulting demoninational stereotyping. In other words, completely unconvincing.

To be honest, I haven't read much on the "emerging church", though, from what I've read in this thread, it is not unlike some of the criticisms I've heard of the charismatic movement. In Catholic circles we often refer to the modernization of the Church in terms of pre and post Vatican II as this marked a move towards a modernization of the liturgy, the administrative practices and ultimately the Church itself.

From what I've been able to determine, this isn't a solely Catholic phenomena. In fact, from what I've seen, the sweeping modernization has hit a number of the denominations and hasn't been accepted by all.

I lament the loss of the original Gregorian schola chants, the substitution of "Kyrie Eleison" for "Days of Elijah" while other denominations might lament the loss of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" for, say, the latest Stacy Orrico hit single.

For some, this change marks an inspirational synergy of the modern ideal with centuries of religious practice. For others it is an unsatisfactory compromise of oustanding proportions.

Jazzy, pop music? Yep, we've got that. Casual dress and lax participaton? Sure. Shallow, "hip" sermons? Check. Just don't ask us about the real reverence and thousands of years of tradition. 1962 took care of that.

[Lord_Kappa]

Jazzy, pop music? Yep, we've got that. Casual dress and lax participaton? Sure. Shallow, "hip" sermons? Check. Just don't ask us about the real reverence and thousands of years of tradition. 1962 took care of that.

lament the loss of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" for, say, the latest Stacy Orrico hit single.

I lament the loss of the original Gregorian schola chants, the substitution of "Kyrie Eleison" for "Days of Elijah"

*Sniff* OK! Moment of bitter resentment towards this "modern church" is over! Time to embrace the body of Christ and try to make it more perfect. We cannot reject or despise the body of Christ just because it wears this modern cloth of contemporary worship. We must be part of the church and ensure that the church continues to worship in spirit and in truth.

Credo in unum Deum.

[Clodius Albinus]

Baptists get off rather easy in the list of stereotypes, it seems. Surely one could do better than that. (Perhaps the author should talk to a couple of my friends, who consider it a point of honor to have a Baptist jab for every occasion.)

I think that there are significant differences between modernist and even charismatic movements and emergent theology, even if they share similar roots. They're all founded in experiential faith and are an unfortunate yet rather predictable byproduct of revivalism. There's more to the charismatic movement than modernization, however, and the emerging church goes much farther still. It's imprecise, but it could probably be said that many mainline churches have incorporated emotions and feelings to the point of practice; charismatics to the point of faith; and with many in the emergent church, it has altogether supplanted traditional Christianity.

Vatican II reforms are more analogous to the unfortunate dumbing down of Protestant services than to anything going on in Brian McLaren's congregation. In many ways, it's a particularly ironic development, as a historian would chart the course of cultural change in the West as undergoing its most dramatic surges through the Reformation, the rise of schismatic sects, formal denominationalism and revivalism, each of which contributed the notion, extended to all fields of knowledge, that the individual could apprehend the truth on his own, and did not need institutions or learned teachers to guide him. The ecclesiastical journey from Constantinianism through the severe Protestant aesthetic of Calvin's Geneva or even Puritanical New England, and from there to early American liturgical forms, followed by a withering away of same in favor of lay ministry mirrors, in many ways, the evolution of culture and of authority. Culturally, the end result is all around us. Religiously, the culmination (or at least, one hopes it is the culmination for most denominations) is the experiential worship services of modern churches. And now what started as a revolt against Catholicism has come full circle, and the worst effects are contaminating Catholic churches as well.

(As a side note, the rise of Protestantism forced positive changes in the Catholic Church as well; especially notable, of course, is the Counter-Reformation and the radical transformation, over the course of several centuries, of the Catholic Church's exertion of influence over affairs of state.)

As a Protestant, changes in Catholic liturgy have little direct bearing on me, but I find it somewhat sad that those aspects of the Catholic Church that I'm drawn to most have all been stripped away. I'm enough of a traditionalist (in private life, if not in terms of a state-enforced public ethic) to appreciate ritual, admire liturgical forms and see something transcendent in chantsong. My doctrinal disputations could never allow me to become a Catholic, so I don't necessarily concur with the intent of a given ritual, nor could I join in singing, say, a Marian hymn. There is, however, a certain splendor to the traditional Catholic form of worship -- and it's been abandoned for the contemporary liturgical music of Marty Haugen and David Haas.

My opinion, of course, will be of no particular import to a Catholic, since my interest here is predominantly aesthetic, but it amazes me that so many were willing to give up the Kyries for "In Every Age" or "On Eagle's Wings."

To be honest, I haven't read much on the "emerging church", though, from what I've read in this thread, it is not unlike some of the criticisms I've heard of the charismatic movement. In Catholic circles we often refer to the modernization of the Church in terms of pre and post Vatican II as this marked a move towards a modernization of the liturgy, the administrative practices and ultimately the Church itself.

I've heard Fr. Joseph Fessio state that Pope Benedict XVI has in his desk the decree that will permit each Catholic church to decide of its own accord, without soliciting the permission of the diocese, whether or not to hold a Tridentine mass. Whether many individual churches would change their missals, I do not know; sadly, I doubt there's a large audience for it. For the sake of tradition, though, I hope the practice grows. (I had intended to attend a Tridentine mass with a number of friends this spring, but it never worked out. I shall have to do so at some point, however.)

[Conniepaw]

Well i would suggest you read up on the subject before you comment negatively on the things I say. Try reading MacArthur's book "The truth war" or look for other books on the subject; A few are:
"Emerging Churches" by Eddie Gibbs
"The Emerging Church" by Dan Kimble

and if you are really interested you can listen to my dad's sermons.

Part 1


Part 2

Part 3

I hope it works ok.

[Clodius Albinus]

While I won't dispute that there's something to be gained by learning more about practically anything, I fail to see how becoming better informed about the emerging church movement would alter my contention that it's ridiculous to allege that an obvious parody or satirical piece is actually part of some supposed emergent liturgy. One can find enough statements of questionable theological validity from actual proponents of and adherents to emergent theology without falling pray to the religious equivalent of quoting news items from The Onion.

[Lord_Kappa]

One can find enough statements of questionable theological validity from actual proponents of and adherents to emergent theology without falling pray to the religious equivalent of quoting news items from The Onion.

Hey! Watch the banter here, remember that this is not a debate.