Postmodernis...The Emerging Church

[None]

[None]

I agree, none. Bible believing Christians are Holy Spirit led, not purpose driven. Warren has changed and rearranged much of biblical terminology to fit into his psycholigical man-made theology.

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.

[rtwo]

I've noticed a couple things about this thread: practical Christianity is seen as somehow "bad" and evidently for a church to be a "megachurch", they must, clearly, have done something to water down the Gospel.

Look, it's simple: if you are in a church building, you are in something that was at one time an "emergent" church, at least in the strictest sense. The message doesn't and won't change, but the way we "do church" does and must. Many large churches do water down the gospe; but so do many small ones. Are you prepared to limit the Holy Spirit by suggesting that Truth-speaking church with a heart for the lost won't grow?

Many here seem to be under the misconception that Warren and the other "megachurch" leaders are -about- church growth, rather than Kingdom growth. I suggest instead that if your church has the goal of growing Christ's Kingdom, and allow the Holy Spirit to lead in that endeavor, your church will also grow. I've studied Purpose Driven Life, and frankly, I don't really get what people are so upset about. Warren is "pragmatic?" Okay. So was Paul. "Faith without works is dead." Anyone remember that one? Faith, by definition, is practical faith... otherwise it's just empty belief.

I see a whole lot of backbiting on this thread, and it really ought to stop. You want to know what Warren believes? Send him a letter and ask. But nothing in this book we're all so worried about is against scripture... and frankly more Christians could do with his "Get off your butt" attitude and do something for the Kingdom, instead of verbally attacking the churches that are trying.

Finally, the Postmodern approach is different than the Modern approach, and that's a good thing. But it doesn't mean they don't both have a place. God puts ministries where they are needed, and for whom they are needed. People are different, so churches are different. It's a simple concept.

If you want to complain about how the modern (and postmodern) churches are trying to reach the "unchurched", that's okay too. Go find an upper room somewhere and wait for the Spirit.

[Floatingaxe]

I agree, none. Bible believing Christians are Holy Spirit led, not purpose driven. Warren has changed and rearranged much of biblical terminology to fit into his psycholigical man-made theology.

I don't know about you, but I am a Bible-believing Christian and I am led with a purpose! My purpose is to serve God with my life! To lay down my desires for His. To win others to Christ. That is the purpose that drives me...to be like Christ, a child of the King.

From that perspective, I have read The Purpose Driven Life and not found anything in there that opposes my purpose in Christ AT ALL.

People are like sheep. They follow. If there is a pious negative voice, they will be led easily by it. Stop listening to all the negative hype and follow after Christ, read the book with an eye on Him, and you will be blessed.

[apothanein kerdos]

Warren is "pragmatic?" Okay. So was Paul.

No he wasn't. Pragmatism is setting a goal and then achieving that goal by any means necessary. The problem with Warren is that he has set the wrong goal (remember, he wrote the Purpose Driven Church prior to the Purpose Driven Life). Warren, by his own admission, created PDL in order to enhance people's lives through a method of doing something for 40 days. The problem is, he says you don't have to be a Christian in order to achieve this, that it can simply be a method. This is pragmatism, and it is wrong.

If spirituality is a method than it is reproducible and even the world can do it. Though there are certain methods within Christianity, when it comes to a spiritual life - prayer, faith, works, etc - we cannot be pragmatic, that is reproducible in what we are doing. This ruins not only our individuality, but ignores the work of the Holy Spirit.

Paul was not a pragmatist by any stretch of the imagination (especially considering pragmatism is an American philosophy), so I don't know where you are getting this from.

Why doesn't someone create another thread for Rick Warren considering he has literally nothing to do with the Emergent Conversation? He wrote a foreword for one of their books, that's all. That doesn't link him to it.

As for your comment about post-moderns in the Church - those that have accepted it [post-modernity] as a theological stance have become heretics, thus they have not been sent by God. It is not "backbiting" when you point out heresies and false teachings...we are commanded to do so in the scriptures. Early in Baptist history, the General Baptists had a heretic named Matthew Caffyn who denied the deity of Christ. When John Wright began to argue against him, calling him a heretic and calling for his removal from the convention, the General Baptists chastised Wright saying what he was doing was not Christ-like. Wright subsequently was forced to leave the General Baptist association. A few years later, at the Salter's Hall Debate, the representatives of the General Baptist all (except for one) voted to deny the deity of Christ because they had been influenced by Caffyn. This is what happens when you let heresy in under the guise of "brotherly love" and "ministries."

[rtwo]

Warren is "pragmatic?" Okay. So was Paul.

No he wasn't. Pragmatism is setting a goal and then achieving that goal by any means necessary. The problem with Warren is that he has set the wrong goal (remember, he wrote the Purpose Driven Church prior to the Purpose Driven Life). Warren, by his own admission, created PDL in order to enhance people's lives through a method of doing something for 40 days. The problem is, he says you don't have to be a Christian in order to achieve this, that it can simply be a method. This is pragmatism, and it is wrong.

If spirituality is a method than it is reproducible and even the world can do it. Though there are certain methods within Christianity, when it comes to a spiritual life - prayer, faith, works, etc - we cannot be pragmatic, that is reproducible in what we are doing. This ruins not only our individuality, but ignores the work of the Holy Spirit.

Paul was not a pragmatist by any stretch of the imagination (especially considering pragmatism is an American philosophy), so I don't know where you are getting this from.

Why doesn't someone create another thread for Rick Warren considering he has literally nothing to do with the Emergent Conversation? He wrote a foreword for one of their books, that's all. That doesn't link him to it.

As for your comment about post-moderns in the Church - those that have accepted it [post-modernity] as a theological stance have become heretics, thus they have not been sent by God. It is not "backbiting" when you point out heresies and false teachings...we are commanded to do so in the scriptures.

No, pragmatism is a word. Because somebody chose that word to describe a philosophy that has more to it than pure pragmatism, that doesn't change the true meaning of the word.

I, too, have a goal that I will do anything (so long as it's legal, moral and biblical) to accomplish: to grow God's Kingdom. In the strictist sense, I am a pragmatist. I recognize that philosophy doesn't get work done. Nevertheless, this is all semantic and meaningless.

I'm curious, though, where you find Warren's quote about "not having to be a Christian" -- and in what context. If you actually read the book, you see that, in fact, that the purposes discussed, and the "method" given requires a basis in Christ. Having said that, if somebody wants to start a backbiting thread about Warren, I'd be happy to pop in and defend, since he's not around to defend himself.

Postmodernism as a philosphy, you are correct, is absolutely heretical. Postmodernism, in the sense that we are past the "modern" age is, however, again just a descriptive word. Most "postmodern" churches I've been to use this latter meaning, and not the former... though they know what the former means for society and work directly to deal with it. A church that -doesn't- understand postmodernism is simply not equipped to deal with that philosophy; which, as I said, is fine if that's not what the ministry is. Not all Christians are equipped to deal with wiccans and occultists, either -- but those who are shouldn't be labeled as heritics simply for preparing themselves to minister to those people.

And yes, I am aware of those few "postmodern" churches that actually preach that philosophy... I'm just saying that you can't assume you know, because if you haven't been there, you don't.

Edited April 11, 2007 by rtwo

[Floatingaxe]

prag

[None]

Early in Baptist history, the General Baptists had a heretic named Matthew Caffyn who denied the deity of Christ. When John Wright began to argue against him, calling him a heretic and calling for his removal from the convention, the General Baptists chastised Wright saying what he was doing was not Christ-like. Wright subsequently was forced to leave the General Baptist association. A few years later, at the Salter's Hall Debate, the representatives of the General Baptist all (except for one) voted to deny the deity of Christ because they had been influenced by Caffyn. This is what happens when you let heresy in under the guise of "brotherly love" and "ministries."

I agree completely.

One thing that seals our Christian faith, and you can't even use the word "faith" without it,

is knowing that Jesus is God Himself.

I believe Warren means well. Many books were written where the writer had to recant statements and apologize for misleading their readers.

Who knows, maybe one day he'll see the "bigger picture" of the massive door he just helped

open wider.

Matthew Caffyn was pointed out to Wright as a snake by the Holy Spirit Himself and no one believed him.

Caffyn's statement and belief was clearly anti-christ, why didn't the others see this also? Jesus did say "narrow is the gate...", those people,

just like many humans following other humans, were blinds lead by a blind man.

This is not uncommon or this world wouldn't be in the mess it's in right now.

[apothanein kerdos]

No, pragmatism is a word. Because somebody chose that word to describe a philosophy that has more to it than pure pragmatism, that doesn't change the true meaning of the word.

I, too, have a goal that I will do anything (so long as it's legal, moral and biblical) to accomplish: to grow God's Kingdom. In the strictist sense, I am a pragmatist. I recognize that philosophy doesn't get work done. Nevertheless, this is all semantic and meaningless.

Which, of course, is wrong...

Pragmatism is an entire philosophical system that delves into morality and epistemology. In Christianity, it affects theology, which is a major problem. The reason is people will often shape the scriptures to make it look like what they are saying is Biblical, when in all reality it isn't Biblical at all.

Take Warren, for example. He insists within his book that a 40 day journey is the best way to accomplish something. He even states, on page 9, "The Bible is clear that God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period. Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days." (my emphasis).

He then mentions Noah, Moses, twelve spies, etc. The problem is, these are all descriptive texts and not prescriptive texts. A descriptive text is not always authoritative (if it were, then we would all have to sacrifice our daughters according to Judges), thus are weak when used as authoritative. Likewise, Noah, the spies, Moses, David, and Elijah waited 40 days for something other than their purpose or spiritual journey - it was just a wait. Furthermore, he ignores Abraham waiting many years, Jacob multiple years to discover his purpose, Joseph waiting two years before finding his purpose, Paul's life being change in a few minutes, or the disciple's discovering their purpose in Christ.

My point is, because of his use of pragmatism, he has mislead people to believe spirituality is nothing more than a method. When this occurs, the Holy Spirit is kindly showed the door whilst pragmatic methods are welcomed in under the guise of "Biblical." What he lists is not entirely true for all people, because each person is unique.

I'm curious, though, where you find Warren's quote about "not having to be a Christian" -- and in what context. If you actually read the book, you see that, in fact, that the purposes discussed, and the "method" given requires a basis in Christ. Having said that, if somebody wants to start a backbiting thread about Warren, I'd be happy to pop in and defend, since he's not around to defend himself.

Yes, I have read the book and I have also watched him on television when giving interviews. Such as, from his Larry King Interview:

KING: You can, though, Rick, have a purpose-driven life and be an agnostic or an atheist, can't you? Still do good, still help others, still have purpose?

WARREN: Absolutely, you can help other people. I believe that we were made for a purpose, and that purpose is really to know God and to serve God and to love God, and to serve other people by -- serve God by serving others. You know, you can't really serve God directly, Larry, not here on Earth. The only way you can serve God is by serving other people.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/22/lkl.01.html

He goes on to offer a weak apologetics to back up his claim, but the apologetic boils down to, "You have to believe in a creator." This, of course, could lend credit to any theistic belief. The fact is, because the Purpose Driven Life is pragmatic and a method, it can be reproduced in any theistic religion that has a supreme deity. Christian spirituality is not reproducible, but what Warren offers us is. This makes it inherently wrong.

Postmodernism as a philosphy, you are correct, is absolutely heretical. Postmodernism, in the sense that we are past the "modern" age is, however, again just a descriptive word. Most "postmodern" churches I've been to use this latter meaning, and not the former... though they know what the former means for society and work directly to deal with it. A church that -doesn't- understand postmodernism is simply not equipped to deal with that philosophy; which, as I said, is fine if that's not what the ministry is. Not all Christians are equipped to deal with wiccans and occultists, either -- but those who are shouldn't be labeled as heritics simply for preparing themselves to minister to those people.

Mate, have you read anything by a post-modernist thinker? Have you read Baudrillard, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, or Nietzsche (I include him because his thoughts really brought about post-modernity)? I only ask this because these are who McLaren, Rollins, Jones, Miller and other Emergent/post-modern 'Christian' leaders are quoting and following. These are the main drivers behind the Emergent Church.

If you have not studied it, your experience is nill because it means you have a biased and tainted view on the issue. We do not live in a post-modern society because such a thing is impossible. Those who say we do live in one often do not understand post-modernity. We still have schools, police, institutions, and religion. So long as people get offended or we feel the need to have institutions we will never have a post-modern society. What we live in is a fractured society, or a post-Christian society...or a "last-man" society (again, from Nietzsche). Western thinking, really beginning with Descartes, placed man at the center of epistemological certainty and removed God. This has continued into the modern day. Whereas the Enlightenment thought man could come to objective truth through himself, post-modernism (the response to the Enlightenment) teaches man cannot know the truth because man is biased. Both premises begin with man. Though they come to different conclusions, the premise is the same.

This is what we find in our churches. The liberal churches, which stem from Barth and those before him, buy into the Enlightenment ideal that man can reason his way to God. They are wrong in thinking this because it denies that man is removed from God and that God should be the center of our thinking. The post-moderns, however, place man in the same situation, only stating because we are biased we cannot know truth. Though they never live this way, they do think this way.

Thus, we do not live in a post-modern society but instead a society that has rejected God as the center of thinking. By doing so, there are not ultimate truth claims and there is massive debate over the ethical value of things and if we can truly know anything. Though this is the debate, you cannot find one person that lives with this view. All men rely on institutions and order of some kind, whether it be governmental or even anthropological, of order. Thus, it is impossible to live in a post-modern society.

I say all that to say this - post-modernity "lite" does exist. When it finds its way into the church it often forms heresy. I have been involved in this movement, I was an Emergent member, I followed this thinking - thus I do have experience and study in this issue (to answer your question).

And yes, I am aware of those few "postmodern" churches that actually preach that philosophy... I'm just saying that you can't assume you know, because if you haven't been there, you don't.

Then my question to you is, when was Paul a pagan? He preached against it but was never part of it...shall we exclude his passages concerning paganism?

There are several principles in the Word of God, which, when applied, will achieve results as promised, but they certainly would be empty spiritually. So, they are lawful principles that God has laid out and, when set in motion by someone, even though he may be an unbeliever, will bring results. This is what Warren is setting forth.

Floatingaxe - your first mistake is you used a dictionary for a philosophical term. I might suggest looking the word up in a philosophical dictionary which will give you more information about it.

Pragmatic philosophy is supposed to be a repeatable method. In other words, I should be able to take an American style democracy and apply it to another nation and see similar results, even though there are two different systems (cultures). Historically, this has happened. Likewise, if the spiritual applications of the Bible are pragmatic, then I should be able to take these principles, apply them to any religion, and achieve the same or similar results. Is this what you are claiming about the Bible?

The problem is many of you are saying, "I accept pragmatism" or "this seems pragmatic." Though there is some truth in pragmatism, there is little truth in its application of spirituality or morality. It would bode well for all of you to take heed of Colossians 2:8.

[methinkshe]

I agree, none. Bible believing Christians are Holy Spirit led, not purpose driven. Warren has changed and rearranged much of biblical terminology to fit into his psycholigical man-made theology.

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