"Emergent Church" question

[MrJim]

:wave:

I posted this question in a couple of other forums and thought I'd put it here too.

What do you know about this movement? I've heard everything from "next reformation" to "heresy".

And have any of y'all seen or dealt with "emergent" issues in your congregation?

Thanks.

[arunma]

As I understand it, the idea of the emergent church is that there does not need to be any church structure. Personally I like having a church authority, so I'm probably not this movement's best friend.

[Project 86]

My wife and I have done a lot of studying on this topic since it hits so close to home. We are working on writing an article but in the mean time I have a link to many good articles on this topic on my web site which is at the bottom of this post. In short there is good and bad in this movement. Some big names involved are Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Dog Pagitt and Tony Jones. Some of the good things are they are willing to reach out to people some churches tend not too. Also they have a good internet community and reach out in creative ways. There is much bad though. They send to shy away from absolutes. Specially in areas of homosexuality, evolution, women pastors, hell and church discipline. They seem to behave as if good works are more important then sound doctrine. Also many seem to hold an almost full preterist view. I could go on much more but in the mean time just check out the link below and the links in it.

The Emergent Church (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/emergent.htm)

[MrJim]

Thanks for the info!

[JacobHall86]

I would lean towards the heresy side.

It is out of the Post Modern Movement, and hte main tenant of the PM mindset is there is no Absolute Truth and everything is relative. We as Christians know this to be false.

[HypoTypoSis]

What do you know about this movement?

Nothing, really, but here's a few links to help kick things off.

Emergent Village (http://www.emergentvillage.com/)

Emergent Church Movement: The Younger Evangelicals and Quaker Renewal (http://www.quakerranter.org/emergent_church_movement_the_younger_evangelicals_and_quaker_renewal.php)

Emerging Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_church)

Emerging Leaders? (http://members.tripod.com/carla_b/emergentmovement/leaders.html)

Emergent Church Movement and the Gospel: Open Source Theology (http://mymiscellanies.blogspot.com/2005/06/emergent-church-movement-and-gospel.html)

Directory on the emergent church movement (http://www.letusreason.org/Emergedir.htm)

Strains Within the Emergent Church Movement (http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2006/03/strains_emergent.html)

The Gospel in a Pluralist Society and the “Emergent Church” movement (http://www.xenos.org/essays/newbigin-emergent.htm)

[HypoTypoSis]

Emergent Village (http://www.emergentvillage.com/)
Ok, on the first link, Emergent Village, here are a few relative links that explain a little more from this link's viewpoint:

The Gathering October 9-12, 2006. Glorieta, New Mexico (http://www.emergentvillage.us/events/the-gathering)

Welcome to LifeWay Glorieta Conference Center (http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0%2C1703%2CA%253D151964%2526M%253D200372%2C00.html)

Find a cohort (http://www.emergentvillage.us/cohorts-finder/)

Earthkeeping Resources (http://www.emergentvillage.us/weblog/earthkeeping-resources)


My initial thoughts, so far, is that there is an exteme mix of beliefs with the commonality being the environment which, in its own right is fine; however, some of the subtle references throughout seems rather liberal from the standpoint of being very feely touchy as though there is a 'worship the creation more than the creator' attitude. Also, its all encompassing oneness is something that 'can' be very dangerous and misleading. Still, further research is needed before any further or even definite conclusions can be reached. What are some of the thoughts of others so far?

Also, these links, especially, "the Gathering" link sound remarkably similar to the 60's hippy drug culture outgrowth that far decades now has held 'gatherings' around the country under the name, Rainbow Family of Living Light (http://beta.search.live.com/results.aspx?FORM=IE7&q=rainbow+family+of+living+light&mkt=en-us) by holding "Rainbow Gatherings", the two sound very much alike in purpose and intent, the main difference being is this new vrsion appears to be a cleaned up polished version designed to attract more mainstream and, in particular, liberal Christian groups. Still, the similarities are enough to cause considerable consternation. The more that buy into this sort of thing the more that are drawn away from the true purpose and intent of Calvary.

[JacobHall86]

The emergent church movement also is not attracting alot of lost people as intended, instead its drawing in Christians who have a grudge against traditional church. Sheep Swapping.

[Andyman_1970]

As I understand it, the idea of the emergent church is that there does not need to be any church structure. Personally I like having a church authority, so I'm probably not this movement's best friend.

As someone "deep" into the emergent "thing" as it were (both services I lead could very well be labeled emergent) this is the one thing I've never encountered with this movement. I'm certainly part of and plugged into a structure at the church I serve at.........so anyway.

[JPPT1974]

As someone "deep" into the emergent "thing" as it were (both services I lead could very well be labeled emergent) this is the one thing I've never encountered with this movement. I'm certainly part of and plugged into a structure at the church I serve at.........so anyway.


Never have either but you never know
But it is how you serve the Lord
In the right way and with the right
Heart and mind!

[Andyman_1970]

They send to shy away from absolutes.

I've yet to see this in the circles I run in with respect to the emergent movement..........Jesus is still Lord........LOL

Specially in areas of homosexuality, evolution, women pastors, hell and church discipline.

You should read, or check out from the library, "Adventures in missing the point" by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren..........they specifically address the issues you raise. Campolo for one presents a wonderful way of how to Bibilcally deal with the issue of homosexuality.

They seem to behave as if good works are more important then sound doctrine.

It could be backlash from 150 years of emphasizing doctrine with little mention of going out and doing good works............Jesus says that pagans will come to worship God because of our good works.


Also many seem to hold an almost full preterist view.

So one has to affirm Darby's interpretation to not be a "heritic"??? I guess I don't see the point here..........

The Emergent Church (http://www.issuesthatmatter.com/emergent.htm)

Not really an unbiased link....................

[Project 86]

I've yet to see this in the circles I run in with respect to the emergent movement..........Jesus is still Lord........LOL

If you have read McLaren and Campolo as you state then you should have seen many examples of them shying away from absolutes. Unless you just blind to what is really going on.

You should read, or check out from the library, "Adventures in missing the point" by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren..........they specifically address the issues you raise. Campolo for one presents a wonderful way of how to Bibilcally deal with the issue of homosexuality.

You obviously didn't go to the link I provided and read the articles I linked for everyone. Let me just post a recent quote from McLaren, I guy you ironicly mention here. Emphasis mine.

“Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably.
When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set
another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.”

January 23, 2006, Christianity Today Leadership Blog, Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response



It could be backlash from 150 years of emphasizing doctrine with little mention of going out and doing good works............Jesus says that pagans will come to worship God because of our good works.

Most people on the street in my experience think they are going to heaven because of the works. The last thing Brian and others like him need to do is encourage this type of behavior that will damn many to hell.


So one has to affirm Darby's interpretation to not be a "heritic"??? I guess I don't see the point here..........

A full preterist view is very heretical. Even partial preterists typically admit this.



Not really an unbiased link....................

Is there such a thing as an unbiased article? I have yet to see one on the internet. It's the truth in the article that matters, not the bias since everyone has a bias and it effects our writtings no matter how much denial we may be in.

[Andyman_1970]

If you have read McLaren and Campolo as you state then you should have seen many examples of them shying away from absolutes. Unless you just blind to what is really going on.

I’ve read both, more McLaren than Campolo and although McLaren can be ambiguous (purposely for his audience I believe) which drives Christians clinging to their need for concrete definitions (thanks to modernity and our IMO flawed Greek Western way of thinking) crazy.

I’ve read Generous Orthodoxy, and a New Kind of Christian, and tried to read the Controversial Jesus (wasn’t historical enough for me ironically)……..and while I found a New kind of Christian a bit contrived, I did agree with about three quarters of Generous Orthodoxy………..especially his articulation for concern for the environment.

You obviously didn't go to the link I provided and read the articles I linked for everyone. Let me just post a recent quote from McLaren, I guy you ironicly mention here. Emphasis mine.

Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do.

While I would never argue there is a Biblically appropriate homosexual relationship……………I do believe the Christian right doesn’t seem to treat homosexuals with respect or dignity. I’ve read what Caampolo says on the subject and I pretty much agree with it……………

In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably.

While I certainly don’t agree with all he said, I do agree with a lot of it………I for one can’t see how this is either heretical or not healthy for the Christian community to partake in.

Most people on the street in my experience think they are going to heaven because of the works. The last thing Brian and others like him need to do is encourage this type of behavior that will damn many to hell.

The point of good works is not to place it as some sort of stairway to Heaven (which neither author I’ve heard indicate that one can earn God’s grace through works), but as what Christians should be about the business of doing……………the whole bringing Heaven to earth deal……….you know “Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”. BTW the understanding that our good works can repair the world and bring it back to, or closer to how God intends it to be is about a 2000+ year old Hebrew term called tikkun olam…….something our Messiah and authors of the Scriptures would have understood and lived out. So that’s not really a post modern philosophy but more like an ancient Judaic one…………..

A full preterist view is very heretical. Even partial preterists typically admit this.

I’m no full Preterist………..but I’ve met several fully commited followers of Jesus that love God with all their heart soul and mind that hold this view………..so I would say the “h” word there is debatable.

Is there such a thing as an unbiased article? I have yet to see one on the internet. It's the truth in the article that matters, not the bias since everyone has a bias and it effects our writtings no matter how much denial we may be in.

The “truth” from a particular point of view…………………….

[JacobHall86]

Campola says good thigns and bad, But I know I wouldnt cite him as a source for Theology.

[Project 86]

The “truth” from a particular point of view…………………….

The type of truth we are talking about is true for everyone, it doesn't matter the point of view. If you see nothing wrong with evolution and don't think full preterism is heresy then there is really no reason to try to change your thinking on this because it would take a foundational change to accomplish such a task. I hope though that our discussion has shown others a better glimpse into the emergent church movement and what they believe and promote.

[Andyman_1970]

The type of truth we are talking about is true for everyone, it doesn't matter the point of view.

And what truth is that……….someone’s opinion on a religious movement?

If you see nothing wrong with evolution………..

I’ve made no mention of that subject in this thread so I don’t know where this came from or if you’re jumping to conclusions about my beliefs.

and don't think full preterism is heresy then there is really no reason to try to change your thinking on this because it would take a foundational change to accomplish such a task.

I don’t see that term “preterism” in either the Hebrew or Aposolic Scriptures nor do I see any conditions on being a follower of Jesus that one must hold X or Y eschatological view to be a follower of Jesus………….those are man made traditions……… I’m not preterist so I’m not going to go to any lengths to defend it, but I find it troubling that the “heresy” word is so nonchalantly thrown around…….

I hope though that our discussion has shown others a better glimpse into the emergent church movement and what they believe and promote.

Are you asserting I’m “promoting” a faith in something other than Jesus? Are you asserting I’m promoting that Christians should not center their lives around living out the teachings of Jesus the Messiah that we read in the Gospels?

[ACADEMIC]

Originally Posted by Brian McLaren
“Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn.

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we'll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably.
When decisions need to be made, they'll be admittedly provisional. We'll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we'll speak; if not, we'll set
another five years for ongoing reflection. After all, many important issues in church history took centuries to figure out. Maybe this moratorium would help us resist the "winds of doctrine" blowing furiously from the left and right, so we can patiently wait for the wind of the Spirit to set our course.”

January 23, 2006, Christianity Today Leadership Blog, Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question: Finding a Pastoral Response


A couple of things need to be said about this, I think.

Firstly, for many of us, we are not accustomed to having conversations where what we say is tentative. We want what we read, and we want what we say, and we want to read others as if, they are making pronouncements, "the Biblical position," etc. To understand McLaren, one has to understand he does not really write and speak this way. He is often more "brainstorming" publiclly than anything else, is making "perhaps" statements, and is doing so to carry on dialog about important issues.

Second, we need to view McLaren's words contextually. Let's face it, if you were to ask 100 "pagans" on the street, "What comes to mind when you hear the phrase 'evangelical Christian'?" you would likely get 99 very negative reactions. Almost assuredly, you would frequently hear something like, "People who hate gays and try to change them." Now try to imagine the people who walked when Jesus walked saying of Him, "He hates gays and tries to change them." You see, it is not so much our doctrine about homosexuality that is wrong but the fact that we have made a hobby out of being against this particular sin and politicized it. McLaren knows this and is trying to find a way forward in the church; to move things along to where "pagans" do not automatically associate "Christian" with "hate gays." In short he is suggesting a temporary concession for Christians, from left to right, saying in essense "Shut up about the matter for a while."

As well, by saying "many of us," McLaren is trying to give voice to the very broad arrray of Christians with divergent views of homosexuality, with whom he is trying to engage in conversations. He feels engagement with varied groups of Christians is the more Christ-like way of treating and dealing with them, as opposed to, for example, how most fundamentalists shun and "seperate" from non-fundamentalists. And Jesus did do as McLaren is doing, such as demonstrated in Christ having conversations with Nicodemus. And fundamentalists very largely mirror not Jesus in this but the Pharisees and Sadducees. Believe every point of doctrine we hold just so or you are outside of our tribe!

Finally, we have to recognize that conversations did ensue from McLaren's statement. Wow did they ensue! (see http://thegreatgiveaway.blogspot.com/2006/02/mclaren-driscoll-exchange-on.html ). Suffice it to say that the majority of emergents who are also pastors feel McLaren's five-year idea is a bad one. Mark Driscoll, for example, who everyday deals with sexually struggling Christians, has been particularly critical of the idea.

McLaren would say that is more than okay. His "point" was accomplished by his statement, i.e., "the conversation" continued and moved forward. McLaren never intended to make a pronouncement about not making pronouncements, yet that is exactly how most people read him! That is just not the worldview of emergents. Fundamentalists and many evangelicals try to go about understanding emergents very wrongly. Fundamentalists and many evangelicals superimpose their own worldview on to emergents and their words, and so walk away having done little other than had a colossal "adventure in missing the point."

"So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:19-20).

[Project 86]

A couple of things need to be said about this, I think.

Firstly, for many of us, we are not accustomed to having conversations where what we say is tentaive. We want what we read, and we want what we say, and we want to read others as if, they are making pronouncements, "the Biblical position," etc. To understand McLaren, one has to understand he does not really write and speak this way. He is often more "brainstorming" publiclly than anything else, is making "perhaps" statements, and is doing so to carry on dialog about important issues.

Second, we need to view McLaren's words contextually. Let's face it, if you were to ask 100 "pagans" on the street, "What comes to mind when you hear the phrase 'evangelical Christian'?" you would likely get 99 very negative reactions. Almost assuredly, you would frequently hear something like, "People who hate gays and try to change them." Now try to imagine the people who walked when Jesus walked saying of Him, "He hates gays and tries to change them." You see, it is not so much our doctrine about homosexuality that is wrong but the fact that we have made a hobby out of being against this particular sin and politicized it. McLaren knows this and is trying to find a way forward in the church; to move things along to where "pagans" do not automatically associate "Christian" with "hate gays." In short he is suggesting a temporary concession for Christians, from left to right, saying essense "Shut up about the matter for a while."

As well, by saying "many of us," McLaren is trying to give voice to the very broad arrray of Christians with divergent views of homosexuality, with whom he is trying to engage in conversations. He feels engagement with varied groups of Christians is the more Christ-like way of treating and dealing with them, as opposed to, for example, how most fundamentalists shun and "seperate" from non-fundamentalists. And Jesus did do as McLaren is doing, such as demonstrated in Christ having conversations with Nicodemus. And fundamentalists very largely mirror not Jesus in this but the Pharisees and Sadducees. Believe every point of doctrine we hold just so or you are outside of our tribe!

Finally, we have to recognize that conversations did ensue from McLaren's statement. Wow did it ensue! (see http://thegreatgiveaway.blogspot.com/2006/02/mclaren-driscoll-exchange-on.html) (http://thegreatgiveaway.blogspot.com/2006/02/mclaren-driscoll-exchange-on.html%29). Suffice it to say that the majority of emergents who are also pastors feel McLaren's five-year idea is a bad one. Mark Driscoll, for example, who everyday deals with sexually struggling Christians, has been particularly critical of the idea.

McLaren would say that is more than okay. His "point" was accomplished by his statement, i.e., "the conversation" continued and moved forward. McLaren never intended to make a pronouncement about not making pronouncements, yet that is exactly how most people read him! That is just not the worldview of emergents. Fundamentalists and many evangelicals try to go about understanding emergents very wrongly. Fundamentalists and many evangelicals superimpose their own worldview on to emergents and their words, and so walk away having done little other than had a colossal "adventure in missing the point."

"So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God" (James 1:19-20).

The problem is what the Bible is clear on McLaren tries to make it unclear. There is no need for a 5 year research experiement when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. Jesus and the disciples didn't walk around trying to converse about things like if homosexuality is wrong and think we should talk about this for 5 years, maybe even 10. Jesus was straight forward and didn't say I'm sorry that people hurt you that claimed to follow me, we really do you love you. I believe many of today's Christians would be extremly offended by Jesus if he was on earth today. I'm sure he would be accused of being a fundamentalist right wing nut that should be locked up. I'm not saying lets not be loving but what I do say is that the Bible speaks clearly on many issues and it is time we form our thinking around the Bible and not around society. While I am on my rant I'm also sick of the emergents I have read and also talked to one on one that think we should help the poor but the gospel should take a back seat during that. They think if the topic comes up then good but don't try to activly give the gospel out. What good is it if you fill up the stomachs of many if they are just going to burn in hell for eternity anyways. We must do as Jesus, minister to the needy both with earthly food but more importantly with spiritual food. Don't forget that Jesus got upset when people started using him because he fed them fish and bread.

[Project 86]

And what truth is that……….someone’s opinion on a religious movement?

Not truth about a movement in itself. The truth of doctrine. If it regards a movement then the truth or nontruth of the doctrine that the movement accepts or rejects.



I’ve made no mention of that subject in this thread so I don’t know where this came from or if you’re jumping to conclusions about my beliefs.

You didn't mention it but I did because I know that is your belief and I certainly believe that this shows how you apprach the Bible and the way you approach it will have to change before I will get you to see that full preterism is heretical right next to believing that God used goo to man evolution to give us what we see today. I know the h word isn't a well received word now a days but the early church fathers thought it important to point out false beliefs and I think we need to do more of that today instead of just letting anything fly.



I don’t see that term “preterism” in either the Hebrew or Aposolic Scriptures nor do I see any conditions on being a follower of Jesus that one must hold X or Y eschatological view to be a follower of Jesus………….those are man made traditions……… I’m not preterist so I’m not going to go to any lengths to defend it, but I find it troubling that the “heresy” word is so nonchalantly thrown around…….

I don't see the word trinity in Hebrew or Greek but do you think that isn't important either? Many well respected Biblical scholars will agree with me that full preterism is heresy. Do some reseach if you think I'm making that up.




Are you asserting I’m “promoting” a faith in something other than Jesus? Are you asserting I’m promoting that Christians should not center their lives around living out the teachings of Jesus the Messiah that we read in the Gospels?

I never claimed you promoting a faith other then Jesus. I believe your defending people though that have twisted scripture to a degree that I don't even regonize it when I read their books which I own several of for research purposes. I believe everyone needs to center their lives around the teachings of Jesus, to bad Brian seems to be reading a different Bible then I because many of his ideas are foreign to the Bible and the things he rejects or believes need to be researched for years are clearly in the Bible.

By the way I love you as a brother in Christ. I will not doubt your salvation. When it comes to Biblical truth though I will speak out even though naturally I'm a pretty pacifist person and for this I make no apology.

[Andyman_1970]

You didn't mention it but I did because I know that is your belief and I certainly believe that this shows how you apprach the Bible and the way you approach it will have to change before I will get you to see that full preterism is heretical right next to believing that God used goo to man evolution to give us what we see today. I know the h word isn't a well received word now a days but the early church fathers thought it important to point out false beliefs and I think we need to do more of that today instead of just letting anything fly.

Uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh brother you have jumped to a very misinformed and inaccuate conclusion with regards to my beliefs about Creation……..I do not believe man “evolved” so I would respectfully ask you not jump to conclusions like that with reference to mine or anyone else’s beliefs……..

I don't see the word trinity in Hebrew or Greek but do you think that isn't important either? Many well respected Biblical scholars will agree with me that full preterism is heresy. Do some reseach if you think I'm making that up.

Since I tend to disagree with most Bible scholars, especially those who subscribe to dispensationalism, who tend to be the loudest opponents to full preterism that really doesn’t have an impact with my thoughts regarding that belief.

I never claimed you promoting a faith other then Jesus. I believe your defending people though that have twisted scripture to a degree that I don't even regonize it when I read their books which I own several of for research purposes.

From a Biblically contextually holistic point of view I would say some of those people are a lot closer to the authors intent as we can ascertain historically than many more traditional fundamentalist evangelical Christian authors have gotten.



You realize you understanding of the Bible is based on an interpretation of the Bible don’t you?

[QUOTE=Project 86;26520559]By the way I love you as a brother in Christ. I will not doubt your salvation. When it comes to Biblical truth though I will speak out even though naturally I'm a pretty pacifist person and for this I make no apology.

Other than jumping to conclusions about my views on creation I’ve appreciated the tone of this discussion and hope we can agreeably disagree on some things.

[Andyman_1970]

………what I do say is that the Bible speaks clearly on many issues and it is time we form our thinking around the Bible and not around society.

Whose interpretation of the Bible shall we use?

………While I am on my rant I'm also sick of the emergents I have read and also talked to one on one that think we should help the poor but the gospel should take a back seat during that. …………….. What good is it if you fill up the stomachs of many if they are just going to burn in hell for eternity anyways.

Jesus clearly says in Matthew 25 that when we ignore the hungry we are ignoring Him. The Evangelical church in America for the most part is ignoring Jesus to the tune of 9000 African children a day dying of starvation.

The Gospel is “good news”………..you realize contextually that the Gospels are not just about people getting into Heaven, Jesus in fact makes very few references to it in His ministry………if you read the Gospels in their historical and cultural context of course. I’m not saying He doesn’t address the issue, He plainly does, but we need to understand in 1st century Judaism, in 1st century Palestine the “good news” was not all about making sure you went to Heaven when you die.

We must do as Jesus, minister to the needy both with earthly food but more importantly with spiritual food.

You realize that the emphasis that “spiritual food” is more important that physical food is a Gnostic influence don’t you?

[JacobHall86]

Emergent Church = "Lets change everything about church so nonbelievers will like us more, we need to conform the Gospel to the culture so its more acceptable".

[ACADEMIC]

The problem is what the Bible is clear on McLaren tries to make it unclear.

You are continuing to superimpose your own worldview on to emergents and thus missing the point.

That homosexuality is sin, always and forever, may seem perfectly clear in your particular segment of Christianity; and it is in mine as well.

But that is just not the case in the view of many Christians that are McLaren's intended audience. As McLaren said, "Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality" (emphasis added).

In saying this, McLaren is not in the slightest trying to "make something unclear;" he is simply recognzing the fact that the issue currently is unlcear to many he is hoping to have conversations with.

Your method of changing the minds of other Christians on this matter is to stand back and lob statements about what "the Bible is clear" on, to proclaim "the truth of doctrine" as you see it; to use propositional methods; conservative exegitical methods, etc. If that worked, how come the issue is not already resolved? That you are carrying this here proves the point that it is unresolved, and that your methods have not produced your desired outcome of convincing others to your point of view.

Or should we just refuse to converse with the Nicodemases of Christianity, except on our own fundamentalist terms, and otherwise just write them off as heretics while we continue in our fundamentalist enclaves? Most of the vitriolic critics of the emerging movement would say "yes," in their deeds if not also by their words. McLaren would say "no," and I think Jesus would agree.

[JacobHall86]

Jesus never put people over the Word of God.

[JacobHall86]

Whose interpretation of the Bible shall we use?

Not yours.

[Project 86]

Jesus clearly says in Matthew 25 that when we ignore the hungry we are ignoring Him. The Evangelical church in America for the most part is ignoring Jesus to the tune of 9000 African children a day dying of starvation.

The Gospel is “good news”………..you realize contextually that the Gospels are not just about people getting into Heaven, Jesus in fact makes very few references to it in His ministry………if you read the Gospels in their historical and cultural context of course. I’m not saying He doesn’t address the issue, He plainly does, but we need to understand in 1st century Judaism, in 1st century Palestine the “good news” was not all about making sure you went to Heaven when you die.



You realize that the emphasis that “spiritual food” is more important that physical food is a Gnostic influence don’t you?

I didn't appreciate you cutting out an important part of what I said when you quoted me. I said it is important to help the poor but even more important is sharing the gospel. How can you disagree with me on this? Are you putting making people happy here on earth over seeing them become new creatures in Christ and spending eternity in Heaven? Not to toot my own horn but you make it sound like I don't volunteer to help feed starving children. Little did you know I do volunteer on a regular basis to help feed children not only in the USA but all over the world. I think it is important. The organizations I volunteer for though believe it is just as important and infact more important to see these children hear the gospel message and what Jesus has done for each and every one of them. I guess I'm amazed when I explain my position on this the resistance I get for having such a high view of the gospel message.

[Project 86]

If that worked, how come the issue is not already resolved?

Our sinful nature.

[ACADEMIC]

Our sinful nature.

So it is because "those other Christians" are in sin and you are not?

"Dissensions," disagreements among those expected to cooperate, is certainly listed as a work of the sinful nature, "the flesh" (see Galatians 5:20).

But I do not see either modernist or fundamentalist hermenuetics listed as a work of the flesh. Nor do I see fundamentalist propositional and exegitical methods listed among the fruits of the Spirt.

Speaking of dissension, who here is disagreeing to engage in the emergent conversation except on fundamentalist terms and in-kind methods, i.e., standing back and lobbing statements about what "the Bible is clear" on and "proclaiming" "the truth of doctrine" as you and your particular tribe see it? (No one is saying you need to give up what you hold as true). Or in your view are "those other Christians" ones you should not cooperate with; ones you should "separate from" since they are heretics? In reading your words, one might justifiably conclude that you hold that all or nearly all Christians who differ from a fundamentalist view of inerrancy are heretics, are apart from and not in Christ. Do you think that?

[Andyman_1970]

Emergent Church = "Lets change everything about church so nonbelievers will like us more, we need to conform the Gospel to the culture so its more acceptable".

=gross misrepresentation..................

Do you realize that alot of what many conservative evangelical churches do regarding how they "do church" is rooted in 19th century traditions and not the Bible? It's not that their wrong, but we have to understand that they are in fact traditions and not binding on others.

Jesus had no problem making His message relevant to different groups of people, as His followers and disciples why should we be any different in how we teach others about our Messiah?

[Andyman_1970]

I didn't appreciate you cutting out an important part of what I said when you quoted me. I said it is important to help the poor but even more important is sharing the gospel. How can you disagree with me on this? Are you putting making people happy here on earth over seeing them become new creatures in Christ and spending eternity in Heaven? Not to toot my own horn but you make it sound like I don't volunteer to help feed starving children. Little did you know I do volunteer on a regular basis to help feed children not only in the USA but all over the world. I think it is important. The organizations I volunteer for though believe it is just as important and infact more important to see these children hear the gospel message and what Jesus has done for each and every one of them. I guess I'm amazed when I explain my position on this the resistance I get for having such a high view of the gospel message.


Brother I celebrate your service to those in need, please note it was not my intention to color you as not being concerned about those in need........my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Shalom........

[JacobHall86]

Because Moral Relativism has no place in the Gospel.

[ACADEMIC]

Because Moral Relativism has no place in the Gospel.
Wouldn't the above be a really clear example of, as I stated earlier, "standing back and lobbing statements about what 'the Bible is clear' on and 'proclaiming' 'the truth of doctrine' as you and your particular tribe see it"?

I am outspoken in what I believe, and I see the world in Black and White, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong. My posts will show as such, and it might seem as though I am being angry, I am not, I am simply not going to sugarcoat anything. Know this in advance. Thanks.
I used to have that attitude. Check out Proverbs 19:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2019:2;&version=31;) sometime.

Paul apparently did not see the world in only "Black and White, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong." Check out Romans 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2014;&version=49;) sometime.

Solomon seemed to think that coming across in a seemingly angry way was problematic. Check out Proverbs 15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2015&version=49;) sometime.

-------------------------------

[Project 86]

We all have a sinful nature. That doesn't mean we can't know what the Bible says. That is postmoderism thinking. The Bible is clear on several issues. When people try to deny what the Bible says or just say we can't know when the Bible is actually clear on the issue it all boils down to sin in one way or another. Heresy by the way is defined as teaching something as Christian which isn't so when I say full preterism is heresy I am using it in the definition at hand. I believe if I didn't speak out against things like evolution, homosexuality or full preterism I would have to answer God on judgment day (not in a salvation sense). Read some early church fathers and you'll be amazed to see the passion the early church spoke out against not only the denial of the trinity but things like billions of years.

So it is because "those other Christians" are in sin and you are not?

"Dissensions," disagreements among those expected to cooperate, is certainly listed as a work of the sinful nature, "the flesh" (see Galatians 5:20).

But I do not see either modernist or fundamentalist hermenuetics listed as a work of the flesh. Nor do I see fundamentalist propositional and exegitical methods listed among the fruits of the Spirt.

Speaking of dissension, who here is disagreeing to engage in the emergent conversation except on fundamentalist terms and in-kind methods, i.e., standing back and lobbing statements about what "the Bible is clear" on and "proclaiming" "the truth of doctrine" as you and your particular tribe see it? (No one is saying you need to give up what you hold as true). Or in your view are "those other Christians" ones you should not cooperate with; ones you should "separate from" since they are heretics? In reading your words, one might justifiably conclude that you hold that all or nearly all Christians who differ from a fundamentalist view of inerrancy are heretics, are apart from and not in Christ. Do you think that?

[JPPT1974]

We all are sinners and God
Is the only one that is perfect
We will though be in heaven with Him as long as we have Christ in our lives!