Postmodernis...The Emerging Church

[davidshultz]

Hey, what is the deal with the Emerging Church???

The definition I read:

A noticeable shift of contemporary churches with non-religious approaches is becoming known by many as the Emerging Church Movement.

What does this mean? How can you have a non-religious approach to something that is meant to be religious?

Doctrine should come from the word of God, not from something Rick Warren or some other surface-level writer has thrown out to barnes & noble for some pocket change.

I hate to be blunt.. but unless someone can clear something up... The emerging church seems closer to the emerging cult.

[methinkshe]

Hey, what is the deal with the Emerging Church???

The definition I read:

A noticeable shift of contemporary churches with non-religious approaches is becoming known by many as the Emerging Church Movement.

What does this mean? How can you have a non-religious approach to something that is meant to be religious?

Doctrine should come from the word of God, not from something Rick Warren or some other surface-level writer has thrown out to barnes & noble for some pocket change.

I hate to be blunt.. but unless someone can clear something up... The emerging church seems closer to the emerging cult.

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

[apothanein kerdos]

First, Rick Warren is NOT part of the Emergent Church. Rick came out with "40 Days of Purpose," which gives believers a 40 step process to getting closer to God. This is the antithesis of the Emergent Conversation because it is modern in its construct, not post-modern.

Secondly, there are different types of Emergent churches. The petty difference is you can have an "emerging" church, which simply means they're changing the structure of how a church operates (no more dressing up, small groups instead of Sunday School, contemporary worship, more money spent on helping people in the church than building a new church, etc) without touching the doctrine. Some churches have gone this way and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, most Emergent leaders, such as Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Rob Bell (though he says he's not Emergent, he is), and others are changing the doctrine of the church. Their view is that doctrine, as well as practice, has been changing over the years. They point to the reformation and show how doctrine changed to suit that time. Of course, they ignore the thousands of groups that existed from 300AD - 1500AD that taught the same doctrine of the reformation, just under persecution. Thus, in today's world, they teach we must be more post-modern with our doctrine. We can no longer be absolute and universal in our truth claims and epistemological stance.

My opinion is that it is heresy when it comes to that. Rob Bell, for instances, argues that Christianity shouldn't rest on doctrines at all. In his book, Velvet Elvis, he states that if it were discovered tomorrow, beyond absolute proof, that Jesus was really born of a man and woman, wasn't God, and didn't really die on the cross, that Christianity should still survive..we would just have to change that aspect of our doctrine. This allows for heretical beliefs to seep into Christianity, which eventually ruins evangelism and community help...not to mention ruins any chance of us bringing glory to God.

[methinkshe]

First, Rick Warren is NOT part of the Emergent Church. Rick came out with "40 Days of Purpose," which gives believers a 40 step process to getting closer to God. This is the antithesis of the Emergent Conversation because it is modern in its construct, not post-modern.

Secondly, there are different types of Emergent churches. The petty difference is you can have an "emerging" church, which simply means they're changing the structure of how a church operates (no more dressing up, small groups instead of Sunday School, contemporary worship, more money spent on helping people in the church than building a new church, etc) without touching the doctrine. Some churches have gone this way and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, most Emergent leaders, such as Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Rob Bell (though he says he's not Emergent, he is), and others are changing the doctrine of the church. Their view is that doctrine, as well as practice, has been changing over the years. They point to the reformation and show how doctrine changed to suit that time. Of course, they ignore the thousands of groups that existed from 300AD - 1500AD that taught the same doctrine of the reformation, just under persecution. Thus, in today's world, they teach we must be more post-modern with our doctrine. We can no longer be absolute and universal in our truth claims and epistemological stance.

My opinion is that it is heresy when it comes to that. Rob Bell, for instances, argues that Christianity shouldn't rest on doctrines at all. In his book, Velvet Elvis, he states that if it were discovered tomorrow, beyond absolute proof, that Jesus was really born of a man and woman, wasn't God, and didn't really die on the cross, that Christianity should still survive..we would just have to change that aspect of our doctrine. This allows for heretical beliefs to seep into Christianity, which eventually ruins evangelism and community help...not to mention ruins any chance of us bringing glory to God.

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

Edited April 3, 2007 by methinkshe

[Floatingaxe]

I just don't see how Rick Warren is changing Jesus at all.

[Kabowd]

Rick Warren is part of the "Seeker-Sensitive" Movement (which is different from Emergent). I'm not a fan of the Seeker-Sensitive Movement either, however...in my opinion...it is not nearly as dangerous as the Emergent Movement. The Emergents question whether truth can be known at all, embrace all sorts of doctrines and do not believe in absolutes. Here's a couple of topics where this was discussed recently:

Link 1

Link 2

Apothanein Kerdos has done extensive study on the Emergent Church, so I'm going to link you to a couple of his posts too that are really informative:

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

Hope those links work. I'll try to post more in here later but right now I'm short on time...

[methinkshe]

Rick Warren is part of the "Seeker-Sensitive" Movement (which is different from Emergent).

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

[Floatingaxe]

Rick Warren is no threat to you. He has a heart for the lost. This age is apostatic and so many of us need much re-teaching in the area of sharing our faith, becuase the church in general has been lukewarm for a looooonnng time. She is now awakening to the signs of the times.

[methinkshe]

Rick Warren is no threat to you. He has a heart for the lost. This age is apostatic and so many of us need much re-teaching in the area of sharing our faith, becuase the church in general has been lukewarm for a looooonnng time. She is now awakening to the signs of the times.

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

[apothanein kerdos]

I thought the thread was about the Emergent Church...not Rick Warren. The two are completely different.