methinkshe

I believe the Gospel accounts are true and are witness accounts of 4 different people. They are not symbolic unless stated - i.e. whe Jesus clearly said He was telling a parable. They are eye-wwitness accounts. I also believe that in their original languages they are inerrant, in terms of faithfully relaying God's Word. In translation, errors creep in, but Godly translations retain the Spirit of the Gospels. I do have concerns about some modern translations that are the product of committtees where some of the linguists are not necessarily Bible-believing Christians and thus are not Spirit led. They will bring their own humanistic/secular bias as they translate. Which is why I tend to rely on the AV because I believe the translators were Godly men guided by the Holy Spirit. That is not necessarily the case with some modern translations where sometimes the expertise of linguists is considered of greater worth than the Spritual guidance of the Holy Spirt. In Jesus, Ruth

Not unless you want to be judged by the Law - and that means if you fail to keep one single part of the Law then you have failed entirely. The Law was given firstly to show sin, secondly to show that man could not keep the Law, and thirdly to initiate and perpetuate an orderly society wherein the grace of the Gospel of faith in the Messiah/Jesus Christ could be preached. Anyone who tries to attain righteousness through the Law is onto a losing wicket. Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world, past present and future. Sin is no longer an issue. Moreover, as believers in Jesus Christ we are also imputed His righteousness. We are no longer under judgment, we are under grace, hid in Christ and clothed with His righteousness. Spend time reading the first 8 chapters of Romans and you will come into the most glorious liberty that is in Christ jesus. Blessings, Ruth

May I just interject that human life is not created it is transmitted. A new individual is created at the point of conception. But the new individual inherits the life that God breathed into Adam, from his parents. If the argument is about protecting life itself, then we should be concerned about the life in every single cell. If we are dicussing the potential for a new individual to be animated with the breath of God's life first given to Adam and thereafter transmitted to the whole human race via procreation, then it is a different discussion - I think. It is the new, autonomous, unique, self-determining individual that is precious. And this new individual is a product of conception. Ruth

Emotional appeal = logical fallacy. The size of these little humans doesn't matter. They are still human. Amen. Unique, too. Unrepeatable human beings. Remember, if you have a child (No.1) and are then unfortunate enough to follow that child with a miscarried baby (No.2) the next child (No.3) is not a carbon copy replacement of the lost No. 2 child who is gone forever. It is a completely different individual. What society so easily refers to as "embryos" are embryonic, unique, unrepeatable individuals. Just try thinking of them as one of your children forever missing (if you are a parent, you will understand.) How DARE WE experiment on these embryonic people. God forgive us. I am sure we shall meet all these unique little people in heaven. Even if they were not known to us, they are known to and by God who "knit me together in my mother's womb." Ruth Not all embryos finish the journey to personhood even under the best of circumstances; some things are not meant to be biologically or spiritually. Your emotional appeal there is based on idealogy and not reality or the bible. As I said before, miguided empathy. God forgive you for the blood and suffering you have on your hands if it turns out that your efforts to thwart cures holds up this reasearch; which could cost many children...and adults their lives during the interim. The suffering and grief of their parents is will also be on your head. As the mother of an 11 yr old child with profound learning and physical disabilities I could NEVER sanction embryonic stem cell research to aid a cure for her disabilitiy. Strange as it may sound to you, she is delightful and a blessing to our family just the way she is. Of course, I would have preferred that she never suffered the brain damage when she was just a few months old that caused her current condition But God has worked all things together for good so that I am not desperate for a cure. All I ever pray concerning her healing is: if thou wilst, thou canst. Meanwhile, I cannot even begin to describe what a positive benefit she has been to our family, in spite of the extra work that caring for her has entailed. Moreover she is the most blessed, lovely, innocent, inheritor of the kingdom of Jesus that one could hope to meet. "Unless ye come as a little child.........."

Emotional appeal = logical fallacy. The size of these little humans doesn't matter. They are still human. Amen. Unique, too. Unrepeatable human beings. Remember, if you have a child (No.1) and are then unfortunate enough to follow that child with a miscarried baby (No.2) the next child (No.3) is not a carbon copy replacement of the lost No. 2 child who is gone forever. It is a completely different individual. What society so easily refers to as "embryos" are embryonic, unique, unrepeatable individuals. Just try thinking of them as one of your children forever missing (if you are a parent, you will understand.) How DARE WE experiment on these embryonic people. God forgive us. I am sure we shall meet all these unique little people in heaven. Even if they were not known to us, they are known to and by God who "knit me together in my mother's womb." Ruth

Good answer. Translations will always suffer in terms of literal accuracy. However, I believe that the grammatical inaccuracies do not detract from doctrinal/spiritual truth. For instance, in Greek, the word "if" is clearly given with four different connotations: if and it is, if and it isn't, if and maybe it is and maybe it isn't, and if....I were you...open to debate. Yet, in English, we have only the single word "if" to convey all these clearly different meanings. Therefore the Gospels, in their original language, are inerrant. In their translations, the inspiration is inerrant but there may be grammatical ambiguities. I read in the newspaper the other day about a group of Christians who were attempting to translate the Bible into an obscure African dialect. They were wondering how to translate "the joy of the Lord" because every word that seemed consistent with "joy" as in "the joy of the Lord", seemed to have other connotations - particularly erotic ones. Eventually a dog ran into the tent where they were working and wagged his tail vigorously on seeing his master. The translators asked which word would they use for the emotion of pleasure that the dog was exhibiting when wagging his tail on seeing his master. They then used this word in their translation. Thus, the joy of the Lord literally translates, in their dialect, as "wagging a tail"..... Such are the difficulties of translation. It is the Spirit of the Word not the letter of the Word that is contained in faithful translations of the original Bible manuscripts. Blessings in Jesus, Ruth

I apologise if my post came across as America bashing. I am actually a staunch supporter of America and recognise that in the UK we have drifted very much further from our Christian foundations than has the USA. Your President is still not fearful of mentioning the name of God. Our Prime Minister is pilloried if he dares to suggest that he may have prayed for guidance. I was trying (obviously rather inarticulately) to suggest that the very cynicism that besets UK society does tend to innoculate us against some of the whackier so-called Christian Movements. That it also tends to innoculate us from ALL things to do with our Lord Jesus is just par for the course. I genuinely believe that UK society is desperate to know Jesus Christ. I also believe that US Christian Society has run after a lot of false movements via tele-evangelists et al. "Gimme your money" is how they are perceived over here, and I think not without just cause. Anyway, far be it from me to resurrect a post-colonial war (oops! should I have even mentioned colonialism!!!) God bless you my American brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus. Would that we in the UK still paid even lip-service to Jesus Christ. I envy the godliness that is still the backbone of American society and did not wish to rubbish it. But I cannot help but observe that nearly all the new cultish elements that have attached themselves to God's Word emanate from America. In Christ Jesus Ruth

I'll second that - excellent post. Truth is truth whether or not we live it. I'm sick and tired of hearing God's Word traduced, reduced, stripped, perverted, turned upride-down and inside out just because we as frail humans are incapable of living His truth to the utmost. Truth exists whether or not we attain to it. To base truth on a human capacity to discern or live it, is to be content with Satan's lie - Did God say.....? Ruth

Again, this is using pragmatism. What if God has not called someone to a 40 day journey? Just because He has called some does not mean He has called all, or that it is prescriptive (again, all texts that deal with it are descriptive). I have many friends that came to Christ, or gained a deeper understanding of Christ, by using LSD. Some saw Jesus and He told them to stop. Others had an experience while doing it that what they were doing was wrong...yet all of them used LSD and came to a deeper understanding of Christ. Is it then justifiable for me to use LSD as long as I am trying to gain a deeper understanding of Christ? Of course God isn't calling us all to do a 40-day fast. The LSD comments are needless tripe, and not fit for Worthy readers. No one is going to come to Christ from the influence of Satanic drug use. Please excuse me if I am even more than usually incoherent - I have one ear on the cricket - England are playing Bangladesh and need to win to progress into the semi-finals....but that's another story. Just to confess that I am listening on the side.. Do you remember how God used Nebuchadnezzar? I have no doubt that God can and does call those who are using drugs, too. But I wouldn't want to make a rule of it; like...you must use drugs so that God can call you.... I never cease to be surprised by how or why or when Jesus calls people to Himself. I do know, however, that God HAS called people under the influence of drugs and that they have been marvellously delivered. Just last Sunday I listened to the testimony of a young man who was a regular/addicted pot user who heard God's word and when he went home challenged God and said: if you are real then stop me from smoking this joint. He was promptly sick. Being the good sceptic that he was, he didn't believe and tried another joint. He instantly threw up all over the carpet. One year later he is praising God for taking him from being a cannabis user and incapable of keeping down a job to being in regular employment and going on with the Lord. So, I have to allow that God actually does come to the druggies and sinners and tax collectors and all those useless members of society - just like me. Ruth

The problem is when methodology, rule-keeping, keeping the law, whatever, overtake the freedom that comes with Christ-in Me. My experience is that I need not to DO, so much as to UNDO, i.e. strip myself of doing and actions and other things. Just let Jesus-in-me come through. When I am nothing, the least, the most worthless, then Jesus is most able to be something in me. Every time I try to DO, then Jesus is pushed into the background. There is a very fine line between doctrine and heresy - mostly it is just an over-emphasis. In Christ Jesus, Ruth

I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion. Care to explain? Are you referring to Gen 2:17? If so, I don't think the Hebrew means that spiritual death requires physical death. The punishment of sin is more than mere physical death, for physical death can be a gateway to eternal life with God, which is no punishment. The true punishment of sin is separation from God. Even the righteous die physically. So, yes, sin precedes spiritual death. Rom 6:23 and the surrounding verses is contrasting death with eternal life; not physical death with physical life. And there is no reason that man's special status over animals cannot be maintained alongside evolution. Anyone, Christian or otherwise, realizes that only humans are religious and that man essentially controls nature. May I ask you a question, Tubal-Cain? (BTW, the signinficance of your choice of handle has not escaped me). Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the once and for all atonement for sin, that through belief in in Him we not only receive forgiveness of sin but are also imputed the righteousness of Jesus Chrits such that we can stand before a Holy God without fear of condemnation? Ruth

A perfect example of the fallibility of mankind. All of us make mistakes. All of us have our good days and our bad days. All of us are just as capable of walking in darkness as we are in the light. And all of us should, knowing this, be able to decifer which of these two paths the person we are idolizing is walking in at the time he/she wrote their book(made a statement, etc). God's Truth, His Word, will always shine through anything when it is in His Will to do so. This is why a personal relationship with God, undependant on man and his fallibility, is so crucial in our walk with Christ. Amen! Been there, seen it done it! Got totally misdirected and eyes focussed on a man and not on the Lord Jesus. I had to recant a whole load when I realised that I'd followed a wrong path - albeit with every good intention. It wasn't easy to recant, either, because I'd been preaching the gospel according to such and such a minister to my parents, my brothers and sisters in Christ and anyone else who could bear to listen. Five years later I had to admit that I'd got it wrong - as had the minister whose teachings I was trying to propagate. But God is so gracious. He never held against me my dip into this cultish movement, just restored me to a place where I KNOW the truth, i.e. I KNOW Jesus Christ. Any person who now dares to suggest to me that there is MORE than the grace that is given through believing in our Lord Jesus Christ is instantly dismissed. I learnt a valuable lesson. Now I cannot bear any teaching that takes away from the sufficiency, the fullness, the completeness that we have JUST THROUGH BELIEVING in Jesus and His once and for all sacrifice. Sin is no longer an issue. My only issue now is how I respond to that amazing grace, that freedom from Law that I have received in Christ Jesus. I'm on the road to sanctification...salvation is a done thing. Joyful in Jesus, Ruth

Now we need to discuss imputation of sin. Before the Law was given, sin was not imputed. In Adam we inherit a sinful nature - one that is spiritually dead, incapable of communication with God. However, until the Law was given, personal sin was not imputed. Man was simply dead to God because of his inherited-from-Adam sinful nature. Man was made righteous through faith, as with Abraham - "And his faith was counted to him as righteousness". Yes, but physical death is a consequence of spiritual death. If you read the AV or a good translation from Hebrew, you will read "dying you will die" even if only in the margins. In other words, because you will die spiritually, you must die physically. But that wans't God's original intent. If death was already present then how can death be a consequence of sin? We read that "the wages of sin is death". If death preceded sin, then death is not the wages/penalty of sin. Like..death is just a nasty bug...or whatever. I am not disputing that God can do what He chooses, but God always operates within His own character - He is not capricious. Thus if God says that death is theconsequence of sin (which He does) then death cannot precede sin. Similarly, miscarriage cannot precede pregnancy. God is the author of reason and logic as well as the author of faith. He does not require that we have a logic/intellect bypass when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Restoration and salvation are different animals (excuse the pun). Yes, there is no doubt that the whole creation "groans" and awaits restoration. But there are also references to man's special spiritual place and authority over animals. Even to the point that we are abjured not to be like "brute beasts" (James, I think). There is a measure of authority and concommitant responsibility that is given to humans that is not given to animals. Ruth

Thank you for such a succint reply. Seems to me, that says it all. He who has ears, let him hear. In Jesus, Ruth P.S. From what I can gather, Rick Warren has given his blessing to this so-called Emergent Church, thereby identifying himself with it. See the links I posted. He may not have been the primary architect but he sure is giving it some speed. I will always remain wary of a Christian who entitles a book " The Purpose Driven Life". What's wrong with "The Jesus Driven Life"? Smacks to me of man trying to get in where he has no right to be. I am not, nor ever shall be, driven by purpose. I am driven, if at all, by Jesus Christ in me - inasmuch as I allow His Spirit life to be manifested in me.

Simple answer - He's not.

The Emerging Church This is just one of many links that mention Rick Warren in the same breath as the so-called emerging church. Google Rick Warren + heresy and you'll find a few hundred more links. Here are a couple: Birds of a Feather RICK WARREN Ever since I wasted 5 years of my young Christian life under the spell of Charles Capps' THE WORD FAITH MOVEMENT I have been very alert to potential heresies in the Body of Christ. Praise Jesus, he opened my eyes to His truth and set me free from the snare I had become entangled in. I believe (along with many other members of Christ's Body) that Rick Warren's teachings are heretical, as is the Emerging Church Movement. As believers we are called upon to test the spirits for not every spirit is of God. From the beginning, Satan has sought to ADD to what God has said. Satan said to Eve, "Hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1), planting doubt in her mind. Eve replied that God had said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it" (Gen. 3:3). But God didn't say anything about not touching the tree. Rick Warren seeks to ADD to God's Word his own personal revelations the source of which is dubious to say the least, given his spiritual mentors. Many of his teachings are not supported by Scripture and since Scripture is intended to be used as a yardstick against which we are to measure all teachings, his Scripturally unsupported revelations should, in my opinion, be placed under maximum scrutiny. Personally, I find them wanting and out of alignment with the Canon (plumbline) of Scripture. In Christ jesus, Ruth The author of that article is wrong. I'm currently writing a book on the Emerging Church, and have one article submitted for peer review in a theological journal on the Emergent Conversation as well. I have studied this issue - Rick Warren is not Emergent by any stretch of the imagination. The author of the article misplaces him in the movement because the author doesn't understand the movement. Again, Rick Warren epitomizes the church stuck under modernity - the Emergent Conversation is post-modern and an enemy of modernity. The two are opposites. Then maybe you could enlighten me as to what you believe is the emergent church and particularly how it differs from the early church and the Body of Christ as we presently know it. Peronsally, I know Jesus as epitomised in the old chorus: Yesterday today for ever Jesus is the same, all may change but Jesus never, glory to His name. I would be grateful if you could explain to me this emerging church and how it differs from the church of Jesus Christ that isn't "emerging." How is Jesus the Head of this church, for instance? I can see how the Protestant Reformers died at the stake for their belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, and faith alone by grace alone, so as to return to Biblical understanding instead of priestly intercession, but what is this emerging church doing to exemplify faith in Jesus Christ alone? Ruth

I agree to an extent. I also do not see how a true Christian could believe in Evolution. However, Old Earth Creation is not Evolution. There is a vast difference in Old Earth Creation and Evolution. I am an Old Earth Creationist, I am not an evolutionist. I believe God Created Man in an instant from dirt. I also believe that man was created several Billion years after the Creation of the Universe began. When the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters, time as we know it had not begun. Who knows of what the waters consisted or what was above or beneath the waters at that period, or for how long that period existed? Then God said: "Let there be light...." etc etc. i.e. time and Creation as recorded in Genesis began. From the moment that God began His creation I believe there were seven literal 24hr periods - as in, "evening and morning were the first day" x 6 and on the 7th day God rested. What interests me more in terms of this present discussion is the attempted synthesis of evolution and Christianity which I do not believe is possible - unless one is prepared to deny foundational truths and thus render the whole Bible open to personal interpretation. I am reminded of the apocryphal story of the old lady on her death bed who was visited by her pastor. "What can I do for you," he asked her. "Read to me from my Bible" she said, handing to her pastor her much read and worn Bible. The pastor took a look at the Bible and how thin it was and noticed that there were very few pages. "Why is your Bible so thin?" he asked. The dying woman replied: "I listened to your sermons every week. Every time you said that this is not really true, this is just a myth, it didn't really happen this way, Jesus wasn't really born of a virgin, He didn't really walk on the water - it was a conveniently placed sandbank, I tore out the offending pages because I only wanted to know truth." In Christ Jesus, Ruth

Try the link RICK WARREN that I posted in my previous reply. It would not be doing justice to the man to give a simplified answer. However, in the link quoted above, there are many examples of Rick Warren's unscriptural teaching. Read these and then decide for yourself. To quote just a little from this link, to give a flavour of what is being objected to in Rick Warren's teachings: LET

Here's the problem as I see it - well, a couple of them, anyway. God made man to live forever. He warned Adam that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "dying he would die" (literal translation) i.e. dying spiritually he would die physically. Thus physical death came into the world directly as a result of Adam's sin. "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 According to evolutionary theory, physical death preceded Adam's sin, thus death did not come into this world as a result of sin. So if death did not come into this world as a result of sin, but I know that it was for sin that Jesus died, why should I believe that Jesus dying for my sin will lead to eternal life in Him? Dying for sin cannot conquer death (and thus give eternal life) if death preceded sin rather than was a result of sin. Furthermore, if God did not create me, if I were just the accidental result of chance and/or environmental pressures, why or from what or whom do I need to be saved? If God didn't create me, I owe Him nothing. What right has He to judge me if I am just an accident, a product of chance? He may just as well claim a right to judge the final destiny of a piece of paper, blown and tossed by the wind until it ends up in a municipal dump. But God made man in His image, gave him choices, a spirit that could communicate with Himself; and thus man is answerable to God for the choices he makes. And there is no plan of salvation for animals, note. So at what point along the supposed evolutionary tree did God say that now you are no longer animal but are human, you are answerable to Me for your choices? And I will judge you on whether you believed in Jesus/the Messiah or not? Which specific ape cum human copped for God's righteous judgement? As I understand evolutionary theory, everything happens so slowly that it would be very difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when an indiviidual ape became sufficiently human to stand answerable to God. Ruth

The Emerging Church This is just one of many links that mention Rick Warren in the same breath as the so-called emerging church. Google Rick Warren + heresy and you'll find a few hundred more links. Here are a couple: Birds of a Feather RICK WARREN Ever since I wasted 5 years of my young Christian life under the spell of Charles Capps' THE WORD FAITH MOVEMENT I have been very alert to potential heresies in the Body of Christ. Praise Jesus, he opened my eyes to His truth and set me free from the snare I had become entangled in. I believe (along with many other members of Christ's Body) that Rick Warren's teachings are heretical, as is the Emerging Church Movement. As believers we are called upon to test the spirits for not every spirit is of God. From the beginning, Satan has sought to ADD to what God has said. Satan said to Eve, "Hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1), planting doubt in her mind. Eve replied that God had said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it" (Gen. 3:3). But God didn't say anything about not touching the tree. Rick Warren seeks to ADD to God's Word his own personal revelations the source of which is dubious to say the least, given his spiritual mentors. Many of his teachings are not supported by Scripture and since Scripture is intended to be used as a yardstick against which we are to measure all teachings, his Scripturally unsupported revelations should, in my opinion, be placed under maximum scrutiny. Personally, I find them wanting and out of alignment with the Canon (plumbline) of Scripture. In Christ jesus, Ruth

There is the teaching that comes from men and the teaching that comes from God through the Holy Spirit. The church is lukewarm, I agree with you, but it wasn't any Rick Warren type teaching that inspired/inspires my children but a Bible expositior who does little more than expound God's word - see my post re "annointed ministry". The unadorned Word of God is more powerful than any two-edged sword. I am uncomfortable with pastors/teachers whose ministry is an EXTENSION of God's Word rather than just an expository of God's Word. Imo, the lukewarm church needs more of God's Word expounded by Spirit gifted teachers of the Word, and a lot less of people going off on a personal "revelation" which I fear is what Rick Warren does. I have to admit that I have read ABOUT him and his teaching and have not personally come under his ministry, but what I have read leads me to believe that the Holy Spirit is not guiding his ministry. In Christ jesus Rutn

The names Adam and Eve never occur in the Gospels. I recall a passage about Christ referring to marriage being a uniting of man and woman from the beginning but this is not an insurmountable obstacle for one who believes in evolution. I didn't say that the names of Adam and Eve occurred in the NT. I said that Jesus referred to a literal first man and first woman which He did in Mark 10: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Evolution does not propose an upward or downward progression. I have yet to hear an evolutionary argument for other than a general upward progress, albeit by diverse means. It is a common assumption amongst evolutionists that the general trend is upwards. Otherwise we would have apes regressing into fish and fish regressing into amoeba - give or take a few intermediary steps. As it is we have the simple prgressing towards the complex, the lesser progressing towards the greater, the minimal intellect prgrressing towards the higher intellect. That is the whole basis of evolutionary theory. It seems that your confusion results from your ignorance of evolution. Evolution makes no claim that we are progressing towards perfection or away from perfection. See above. It may not state "perfection" as a goal but the end result of progress muust surely be perfection - yes/no? Considering the answers above, what polar opposites do you see? Either a human race made in the image of God and perfect in every way, contaminated by Fall and thus entering a degenerative state - i.e. Biblical Creation + Fall, OR the evolutionary theory which begins with an amoeba or less and results in a man with god-like properties - i.e. an upward progress.

Heh! Well Rick Warren has moved on since I last heard of his antics. He's always into something new, or so it seems. And he's rather comfortably rich with it, isn't he? That's a good 'un - the "seeker-sensitive movement". What I would like to know is what happened to the gospel of Jesus Christ and its sufficiency? Do we really need to have mere men propounding new "movements" every other day of the week? Or is Jesus the unchanging son of the Father. As I used to sing as a child: Yeterday today forever Jesus is the same All may change but Jesus never, glory to His name. Let me propose a reaffirmation of an unchanging movement: "for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life." No seeker-sensitivity, no promise-keeping, no add-ons, just whosoever believeth..... I really neither want nor need the Rick Warren's of this world to add to what Jesus has magnificently done and finished for me. Jesus alone by faith alone by grace alone - let the Reformers sing out, and let us hear, the one true faith that they burnt at the stake for. If I wanted religion I'd go sew myself a fig-leaf. All I want is Jesus - sans Rick Warren et al.... In Christ Jesus Ruth

Hmm, I've had to contend with a lot of Rick Warren's sayings and, suffice to say, I am not convinced that he is preaching the gospel of our Lord Jesus. As you say, they want to add so as to make Christianity more acceptable to modern seekers. But isn't one of the characteristics of God that He is unchanging? The Reformation just RETURNED to the Gospel. It didn't seek to update, it threw away the perverse interpretations of the priests and their indulgences and the notion of priestly intercession apart from Jesus Christ and reminded people that Jesus is accepted by faith alone and grace alone. The Reformation wasn't about change for changes' sake, nor about accomodating the people of the day, it was about returning to the Truth. The same has to be true today. Ruth

As a born-again, baptised-in-the-Spirit believer living in the UK, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to come against the latest so called Christian Movement emanating from the USA. There's been the discipleship movement that places new converts back into a bondage of works; the what-you-say-is-what-you-get type of positive thinking movement that is materialistically propagated; the health, wealth and happiness movement, the Promise-Keepers movement; the Toronto Blessing movement; and now, apparently there is an "emerging church" movement. Sorry, I want none of it. They are all cults. Not movements of the Holy Spirit. They all seek to ADD to grace. I know only Christ crucified and that's enough for me. The UK is far less godly as a society than is the USA from what I can tell from this side of the pond, but we are also far less likely to fall for cultish expositions of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that people in the UK are hungry for the REAL THING, but maybe people in the US just want a new experience of God and are thus more susceptible to any new thing. That's just my personal observation. And I could be terribly wrong - but that's how I see it at the moment. All I can say is that I have spent more than a few hours attempting to counteract cultish propaganda regurgitated by newly converted Christians who do not have the benefit of a Christian heritage and who thus find it much harder to distinguish truth from counterfeit. In short, the "Emerging Church" sounds to me like another American cult...sorry. Ruth