Exactly where is the "emerging church" heading?

[dwayner79]

The four branches of the emerging church according to his dilineation are as follows: Emergent (very liberal, accepting of postmodernism and heretical theological systems), New Evangelicals (shy away from most traditional ways of "doing church", accepting of many new theological systems), "Trendy" Evangelicals (more traditional evangelicals, try to be more trendy in their music and presentation), and Missionary (even more conservative and traditional than the others, concerned with the way the church reaches the post-modern world). Of all these, the only one that seems to be okay, just from that video, is the last one.

The problem with all of Mr. Driscoll's assertions is this: God's Word is no longer sufficient to reach a lost and dying world. We have to package it in a desireable package. In the process, judging by the trends in the emerging church (which, according to Mr. Driscoll, includes the emergent church), standards upheld in the Bible are dropped by the wayside.

Then we will have to disagree. I hardly think that the way the gospel is spread today is anything like it was spread during the early church. Like it or not, culture plays a role in how the gospel is presented. Being "trendy" is not a bad thing so long as clear biblical principles are not neglected. If we completely change the way we "do church" then who cares. There is nothing in scripture that mandates Sunday school at 9:30, Service at 11:00 and 6:00, wednesday night prayer meeting (which has preaching and very little prayer).

Side note, your second group you said, "accepting of many new theological systems" which I do not think he said. He described then as evangelical moderates.

[Madeline]

.......'A female dancer dances in a skin coloured stocking in the middle of
the church in front of the altar. She crawls about on the floor and
wraps herself in a hanging down white cloth. Is this a blasphemous
provocation, a scoffing at the Christian religion?......


'The vicar arrived in a black cassock and barefoot. He announced that
eroticism and lust are not taboo areas pushed aside by God. In fact,
"lust has to be lived out", said Armin Beuscher, who tempered his
speech immediately, by saying, "we are of course today in this
service only able to implement this in a limited manner"......

:sad This sort of thing has being going on in different manifestations ever since the early Church, however (compare our Lord's castigation of the Nicolaitans in Rev.2:6; 2:15). It is probable that the beast's version of pseudo-Christianity will have something for everyone, extreme asceticism for those so inclined, but also extreme indulgence for those of the opposite tastes. Only those who completely lack discernment will be fooled into thinking any of this can truly be "of God". However, when it comes to the impulses of the sin nature, human beings are easily fooled, at least all those who are not being very careful to follow in Jesus' footsteps. I would also say that in the fast approaching end times in particular the potential for professing Christians to fall away into even more extreme abuses than you report will be immense - because they will have first fallen away. :sad

Love,
Madeline

[speerjp1]

Then we will have to disagree. I hardly think that the way the gospel is spread today is anything like it was spread during the early church. Like it or not, culture plays a role in how the gospel is presented. Being "trendy" is not a bad thing so long as clear biblical principles are not neglected. If we completely change the way we "do church" then who cares. There is nothing in scripture that mandates Sunday school at 9:30, Service at 11:00 and 6:00, wednesday night prayer meeting (which has preaching and very little prayer).

Side note, your second group you said, "accepting of many new theological systems" which I do not think he said. He described then as evangelical moderates.

I agree with you that the gospel is not being spread today as it was back in the early church days. There is not near the fervency, but there are still many, many independent fundamental Baptist out here that are fervent in spreading the gospel.

The question then becomes this: in order to spread the gospel more what do you do? Do you become a part or affiliated with groups that have heretical leanings? Do you throw out large portions of the Bible or the entire book? Do you accept the sin to try to win the sinner?

Or do you return to God's word and become a truly fundamental Bible-believing Christian? I have chosen the latter.

Most Christians in our day think that dropping standards and doing things a new way (trendy or worldly way) is so radical and will work so well. My church has organized soul-winning visitation and we will spend literally hours in folks home (at their invitation) over the course of weeks presenting God's word. Many have come to Christ as a result. We haven't had to change a thing except ourselves. You see, people have always wanted to change the movement or Christianity as a whole in some kind of reformation. We see today where that has brought us: dead churches, apostasy, heresy, a church that resembles the world more than the body of Christ, and believers who hardly even know what God's word has to say about anything. You see, people need to change. Individuals. We do not need some new movement; we need an old movement. We as individuals need to allow the power of the gospel to be lived out through us every day. We do not need to distance ourselves from Biblical principles; we need to embrace them like we've never embraced them before.

I submit to you that returning to God's word for every aspect of our daily walk as individuals is more radical of a change than what we see in any of the modern religious movements. You see, for around 2000 years the "church" or people claiming to know Christ has slid further and further away from God's word. All the while, there have been true believers who wished to fully follow the commands and principles God gave us. Those who have slidden away have done so by trying to stay relevent to an ever changing (for the worse) world. Those who have kept the faith, so to speak, have tried to stay relevent to the Bible.

God's word and God's people have been and always will be hated by the world. That is scriptural fact. To deny this or try to package either for wider appeal to the world is vanity at best and calling God's word a lie at worst.

Also, the implications of what the emerging church people and other modern church movement representatives say are staggering. By saying that we have to change our message or our method of delivery or our standards or our convictions in order to reach a lost and dying world is saying that the souls that have been saved at churches like mine this year aren't really being reached because it is impossible to reach people in our day without changing all these things. The implication is that God's word is no longer effective in itself. The Holy Spirit no longer speaks to the heart of the sinner when they hear the gospel. You see, in the effort to "take God out of a box," modern movements have thrown him further to the sidelines of the church. Instead of relying on God for the increase, they don't need him anymore; they now have all the tools of a lost and dying world at their disposal. They've imported the world's music, fashion, entertainment, books, philosophies, and everything else. When they have all that at their disposal to help bring people to Christ, who needs God? In fact, he and his word just get in the way.

[dwayner79]

IMO, the first 2/3rds of this is rhetoric, and the last third is a strawman.

Fervency is not the only thing that has changed (in fact, I would say the fervency has not changed across the board).

Your church's soul-winning visitation is not a returning to a 2000 year old tradition, its returning to a 100 year old tradition. There is nothing wrong with it, and I am glad folks are being saved. If you wanted to emulate the NT church, you would send a missionary to the town next to you. They would try to stay in someone's house, and spend months preaching on the street and in various houses of worship (really just synagogues, but we can give some leeway there). IMO, your soul-winning visitation is no closer to the methods used in the NT then holding large gatherings where the gospel is presented, or visiting coffee shops to spread the gospel.

Anyway, there is a lot of other rhetoric in there. The bit about returning to God's word for instance I agree with. But your implication that churches that are more modern are not doing that is unfounded. There are a lot of 100 year old traditions that can be done away with and still be following God's word.

The depiction of the church in your last paragraph is a strawman. No one is saying that its impossible to use 100 year old methods to win the lost, just that there may be a better way... with better as defined by sticking to biblical principles while still being culturally relevant.

[tired]

Is Donald Miller an emergent? Is the Pope catholic?(I stole that from Ken Silva). Here is a quote from Donald Miller. From his book Searching for God knows What:

If we hold that Jesus wanted us to ?believe? certain ideas or ?do? certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy. In that bar on Hawthorne, I finished the last paragraph and felt a kind of sickness at the thought of whether or not I was telling the truth. But after further consideration, and after rewriting the book, I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical.

This is the emergent double speak like you hear from Rob Bell and Erwin Mcmanus. Miller goes to an emergent church, Imago Dei. Go to the site and look. These guys don't want to live with simplicity of the gospel they want to put you in a fog. They are in direct rebellion to the word. Churches full of babies on milk. No meat. I can't figure out if they are sincere or just straight up wolves in sheep clothing.

This is what my bible says:
1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

[speerjp1]

IMO, the first 2/3rds of this is rhetoric, and the last third is a strawman.

Fervency is not the only thing that has changed (in fact, I would say the fervency has not changed across the board).

Your church's soul-winning visitation is not a returning to a 2000 year old tradition, its returning to a 100 year old tradition. There is nothing wrong with it, and I am glad folks are being saved. If you wanted to emulate the NT church, you would send a missionary to the town next to you. They would try to stay in someone's house, and spend months preaching on the street and in various houses of worship (really just synagogues, but we can give some leeway there). IMO, your soul-winning visitation is no closer to the methods used in the NT then holding large gatherings where the gospel is presented, or visiting coffee shops to spread the gospel.

Anyway, there is a lot of other rhetoric in there. The bit about returning to God's word for instance I agree with. But your implication that churches that are more modern are not doing that is unfounded. There are a lot of 100 year old traditions that can be done away with and still be following God's word.

The depiction of the church in your last paragraph is a strawman. No one is saying that its impossible to use 100 year old methods to win the lost, just that there may be a better way... with better as defined by sticking to biblical principles while still being culturally relevant.

You don't believe there is a lack of fervency among believers when it comes to living out the Bible??

Our church is doing what the NT commands when it comes to reaching souls. We, as the local group of believers, reach people in our community as well as send people out of our church around the state, country, and globe. That is what you said we should be doing to emulate the NT church, is it not? As for holding large gatherings to present the gospel not being a method used in the NT: didn't Jesus preach to large gatherings and didn't Peter, Paul, James, Stephen and all the apostles?

The last paragraph isn't a strawman. It is a response to statements like "there may be a better way." Words mean things, and when you say there is a better way than the way we are doing something, that means the way we are doing it is not the best way. However, if we are following God's word, what better way could there be?

[tired]

"I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach.
The two words seem to me to contradict each other;
that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true,
for truth is as old as God himself" -- Charles Spurgeon

I really liked this quote. It pretty much sums up all these new ideas that these teachers have. They want to de-construct christianity and replace it with vague stories about how to live your life. Jesus did not come to teach you how to live He came to save the lost. When you get saved you live by the word and that is it not conjecture from people who even in thier own words think they may be wrong.

The practice of opening up the Bible and preaching verse-by-verse every Sunday and teaching doctrines that those who come already believe, and somehow think that that will transform society, you can?t find it in [the Bible].? [2] - this is what Erwin Mcmanus thinks about the bible.
These guys hate the word and hate christians who want to live by the word.

[dwayner79]

You don't believe there is a lack of fervency among believers when it comes to living out the Bible??

Oh I do, but I find much less fervency in many baptist churches then I do anywhere else (actually most catholic churches are worse)

Our church is doing what the NT commands when it comes to reaching souls. We, as the local group of believers, reach people in our community as well as send people out of our church around the state, country, and globe. That is what you said we should be doing to emulate the NT church, is it not? As for holding large gatherings to present the gospel not being a method used in the NT: didn't Jesus preach to large gatherings and didn't Peter, Paul, James, Stephen and all the apostles?

I agree. And my point is that the kind of things most "modern" churches are doing are the same things. Totally biblical. Are there bad apples, sure. But there are just as many baptist bad apples (think Westboro)

The last paragraph isn't a strawman. It is a response to statements like "there may be a better way." Words mean things, and when you say there is a better way than the way we are doing something, that means the way we are doing it is not the best way. However, if we are following God's word, what better way could there be?

Well, I disagree... you presented a position that emerging churches hold to that is inaccurate, and then crucified them on that position. That's a textbook strawman.


You are free to feel what you want. I think many modern churches are doing well, and others are not. I do not have to change your mind, so I have said my piece, and will move on. Its unfair to lump all churches under a certain label as subscribing to the ridiculous nature of the church in the OP. Doing so is paramount to saying all baptists are heading toward westboro baptist church status. Its wrong, and unjustified.

[tired]

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jude 1:14-21

[zealyouthguy]

In our last discussion (at least the last I saw)' date=' some of these issues came out as well. I do not deny the problems with the emergent church theory, but as I said, people throw that term around without a clear definition.[/quote']


I was tickled by this...

Please get SOMEONE in the EMERGENT CHURCH MOVEMENT to give you a clear definition of what it IS.

Now THAT would be enlightening. Of course anyone who has studied the movement, knows that won't happen. Face it, it's a mystery. In fact it reminds me of the Babylon Mystery Religion that we read about.

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Mysticism... as the old saying goes... starts in the mists and ends in schism.

[LindaR]

I don't know if this site has been posted yet, but it is an excellent resource for the "emerging church" movement, plus lots of other "New Age" junk that has come into the "professing" Christian church:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/