Is the emerging church good?
Ogyle asks the question:
Hmm, .. the EC is good ?? Essentially, the EC is “change from within”, but the change is corrupt. It’s essentially Hinduism in Christian clothing. The “centering” is achieved by emptying the mind via chanting a “sacred word” over and over for about 20 minutes.
But there are many other facets of the EC, besides “chanting” that should send up warning signals. Quite a number of good articles on the Emerging Church here.
Especially the one on Biblical versus Postmodern Thinking
Warning, … danger … look out !!!
Some others have already provided their responses in the thread, but I thought I would open it up for all and sundry. How do you define the EC? What do you consider its strengths and weaknesses?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I think that the whole idea of submission to scripture sets scripture up as being God - shouldn;t we live in submoission to God and guided by scripture? I konw that peopple will trhen say but scripture is all we know of God and yes…….thats……true (read the hesitation)…but….
September 20th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Well, it’s usually about now I start my normal rant concerning Catholicism and sola scriptura…..but I won’t. I’ll just ask Greg if he’s ever rally thought about the way us Micks think about Scripture…???
September 20th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
There is not sola scriptura as far as I have ever seen. Everyone is influenced by something, including themselves. I have a hard time trusting the RC, or any other power structure, but to say I am not influenced by anything but scripture would be false. I believe in essence what Catholocism teaches about the churches authority, I just disagree about what exactly the true church is, and how that authority is meant to operate.
rev
September 20th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Yeah, fair call rev…when I swum the Tiber that was one of the things that was a big sticking point for me.
But the essence of the teaching - that was what turned me away from strict Protestantism in the very beginning. You’re right; there is no such things as sola scriptura even amongst those who preach it.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Couldn’t agree more (in fact, had to write a paper on this last term). Leaving aside obvious stuff like church tradition, and the imperfections of translation (or the endless academic arguments over what some Greek and Hebrew words really meant anyway) the simple truth is that we are all products of our culture and of our own personal emotional and spiritual journeys as well. Of course scripture has objective meaning, but interpretation and application are always subjective human constructs. Nobody, not even those who claim to (eg Sydney Anglicans), can say authoritatively that they have the last word on what the scripture means (though, of course there are some things it self-evidently does not mean!)
September 21st, 2006 at 2:04 am
If I see one more blog posting on an ‘emergent’ blog…pointing to an upcoming discussion between church people about re-imagining the church for a post-modern unchurched generation…..WITHOUT actually ASKING an UNCHURCHED person for input….I’m going to froth at the mouth.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:49 am
Rev - “Calling people to live incarnationally” What exactly does that mean??? i am nor EC andf I assume it is part of EC Christian Speak and i do not own an EC thrombosis..I mean tranasourus… imean Thesarus.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:41 am
Sorry Kevin,
What Jesus did was he left heaven, and incarnated among the people he was trying to reach. He learned their language, he learned their culture, and he lived with them. He did not say, “look we have a lot of nice programs here in heaven, things are great, you will have a lot more happiness up here, why don’t you join us” He entered into the sewage of the world and became one with it. The idea of incarnational mission is to take the church outside the walls and live among the people. To understand their language, and their culture. To understand their hurts and frustrations, and to bring Jesus into the centre of that. And then in turn to encourage those that come to Christ to stay withing their particular sub cultures and minister among their friends and family.
Lance,
I cannot speak for all of the emerging church, but the people I know actually spend a lot of time with unchurched and non Christian people. I have asked many of my friends why they don’t like church, organized religion, and Christian people. I have learned a lot from the discussions, my life and ministry is not based on what some academic in an ivory tower tells me, but is the result of actually being in relationship with non Christians.
rev
September 21st, 2006 at 10:49 am
(AKA tbokar)
At the well, the whole story becomes amplified by understanding the context of the event. Jesus was mixing with one of the lowlier members of society, she was a woman, on her own, may have been a prostitute or certainly had a number of husbands. He drew near to her, offered her a source to satisfy more than her physical thirst, yet rebuked her. She, amazed by His insight and compassion, recognised His authority and accepted the rebuke. She would have been convicted of her own sin.
With that in mind, how do we operate with the heart that the rev reveals, yet still confront people with the obvious aspects of their lives that need to be recognised, owned and dealt with?
This, to me, is why I think modern church is becoming irrelevant. At one end of the scale, the Pentecostal churches claim that those who love God are blessed, with the implication that those who are not blessed obviously don’t have enough faith. At the other end, heavy legalism condemns without compassion. Squeezing out of the middle, the EC tries to “engage” people through various mediums and a spirit of inclusiveness.
A common observation of the non-churched is that they see little difference in the lives of Christians to those of non-Christians. It’s actually a valid point. Add to this the negative aspects from child abuse to dodgy financial accounting and it’s not difficult to see why the non-churched don’t want to become churched. Yet…. deep in people’s hearts is the recognition that everything is not OK. I believe that the un-churched actually want to be confronted. If I went to the doctor with a pain in my stomach I would want him to identify a cause and offer hope of a cure. In the same way, when people turn up at a church, it’s in the recognition that all is not well.
This brings me back to the question. How do we confront those who practice a lifestyle that is openly in defiance of the gospel, without sounding legalistic or judgemental? How do you deal with the sin whilst still showing love to the sinner? How do we do that, whilst still being aware of our own shortcomings?
To save our friend from becoming rabid, can anyone give us an “outside” view?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:46 am
I will ask a few of my nonchristian friends to post their thoughts on here. I for one believe that the best way to confront others sin is to confess our own sins freely, and seek forgiveness and freedom from them. And to invite these “sinners” into our lives so that they might experience something different. Then allow God’s word and Spirit to speak to them when they begin to search.
But like I said I wil have a few of my friends drop in.
rev
September 21st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Mars Hill’s Mark Driscoll is joining the big boys.
“Things are getting complicated, to say the least. To cover some of the real estate debt, we’re also asking our people to give over $1 million in a single day in a few weeks, which is a big stretch since many are young and most are still single.”
From http://theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-09-19_its_always_something_at_mars_hill_church
September 21st, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Mars Hell.
http://www.electrolicious.com/archives/2006/09/mars_hell.html
September 21st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Thanks Lance, but reading that, I don’t know whether to laugh and cry. The concept of my husband and i in bed, and me asking him intimate theological questions (umm … I’m the theology student, he’s a professional in his own field ..) if infantilising a woman by being the big know-all is what Driscoll finds erotic … sickening and scary .. and this guy has influence way beyond his own 5,000 ..
hmm .. I’d never realised before that I’m a theological adulteress
September 21st, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Well that was a bit disturbing. Mark Driscoll has said some pretty scathing things about McClaren and others in the emerging church scene. He is a pretty arrogant dude from what I have seen.
But he likes mixed martial arts, so he can’t be all bad.
rev
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:36 am
here is a response from an nonchristian friend:
Rev,
Not sure if this is the kind of info you’re after but:
Irrespective of the belief system/god(s), How I react to a Church depends on how a church presents itself and how it presents it’s faith. I’ve plenty of time for any church who “put’s its money where its prayers are”. I may not belive that Churches given system, but I admire the determination and belief that it’s members have in themselves. I do draw the line though at ‘extremism’ of any sort (read - The Crusades, Salem, Spanish Inq, Religious Jihad etc).
As for sinful behaviour, again it’s a matter of action over words. If your (and I don’t mean you personally) church is against pre-marital sex (for example) then get out there and try to educate about the benefits/virtues of your beliefs. Don’t resort to sledgehammer preaching, try to engage the community in debate/discussion.
This is all just my opinion and might not be what you’re after.
I’m one of these people who will admit there’s more to life than simple black and white (science or faith), but won’t submit to any heirachial belief system.
Maybe I’m just a bitter ex-Catholic?
I would say that is close to a typical response, but there will be more for us to look at.
rev
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:57 am
good grief - I read Mark Drisolls blog and thought: “ah…conservative - biblical literalist, a bit engaging” and then read the other blog and thought “MY GOODNESS…I’d liek to ahve sat next to those girls - especially the one in the come hither boots” Didn;t much like tyhe reference to getting the tatse of Jesus @#$% out fo her mouth - but understood the reference.
Mars Hill - its better as a cafe in parramatta than a church in seattle!
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:38 am
Greg - that reference turned me off too…
Great post though, and thoroughly disturbing. The whole theology in bed thing is just a bit too weird - there’s so much that strikes me as kinky that Christians are cool with ‘cos it’s cloaked in religious language.
Anyone read the Red Tent? Soooo many Christian women I know love it. I’ve never been able to get through it - totally dull, bad writing, and loads of gratuitous sex scenes. I’ve only met one other woman who feels the same way I do - and she’s an editor! I’ve tried to read it a couple of times, but to me, it’s just Mills and Boon for Christian and Jewish women who feel guilty reading about sex unless it’s labelled “religious reading”. What a crock…
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for the advice .. I’ve heard many people (ok, all women) recommend The Red Tent. Sounded strange to me, now I know not to bother…
But yeah, I agree, definitely kinky, almost like (and I don’t think this is putting it too strongly) a kind of Christian mind-game version of BDSM …
If this is what the Seattle-ites are lapping up so eagerly it is very scary ..
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
BDSM?
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Red Tent - isn’t that a perfume?
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:33 pm
blestpickle - I wouldn’t decide that based on my view only!! Seriously, I was so relieved when I found out my friend who’s an editor didn’t like it…until then, I was wondering what was wrong with me, since plenty of women who’s taste I generally like loved it, and I just couldn’t get into it.
Greg, I believe you mean Red Door.
September 23rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Re #105 (on topic)
People do expect difference from ‘ Christians’ - and it makes us vulnerable.
I think that there has always been a challenge for Christians to model a different way of contributing to the community, to their families, a different way of visibly living faith. Jesus spent a lot of time with people, and He talked about living a life that did not collect burden, by following His example. The burden of consequence - guilt, loss, secrets, sorrow and regret. This was very attractive then, and could be very attractive now to those who know that they are burdened.
When I share my faith I have to have ‘permission’ to share. I cannnot stand on the street corner of no-relationship and shout bible verses into the street - that puts me in the Whacko category.
I had a Jehovah’s Witness seriously, passionately and compassionately try to convert me. Because, he cared about me and wanted me to ‘know the truth’ and ‘have a future’. I was shocked and seriously offended, at first. I could not believe he was showing me such disrespect, after knowing me as a Christian for 5-6 years - how could he shove his stuff at me??
And then it occurred to me that ‘conversion attempts’ without permission - for anything - are just the same.
It was a very pertinent lesson.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Having read a bit more about the Emerging Church, there seems considerable weight to the fact that the EC is a uniting of all religions and the denial that Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation.
Some interesting reading in the article - Emerging Church —A Road to Interspirituality through mysticism, plus other comments on the EC.
I see a connection between Rick Warren and Brian McLaren, see - http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/warrenemerging.htm
I had seen one article where Biblical thinking was compared against postmodernism. The comparison chart shown at The Emergent Church Teachings V. The Bible’s Teachings displays just how far from scripture the EC has ‘moved’, or should I say ‘emerged’.
But of course EC advocates will say that is all nonsense, because of the belief that there are no absolutes.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I think that this is a bit unfair to put words in peoples’ mouths. I went and read the articles that you linked to. First, I am not sure what the comment is about Rick Warren and Brian McLaren. Does this reflect badly on Rick Warren or vice versa? Whichever way it goes, inviting someone to speak is a pretty tenuous basis to infer that you endorse everything that he/she says.
I looked at the list of EC teachings v Bible’s teachings. Although it presents itself as a summary of the broad teachings of the EC, I find that quite a stretch. I think that you would be hard pressed to find an EC leader who would look at that list and think it was a fair representation of what they believe (”As a whole, I believe I speak for the EC when I say that we are pleasers of men and man-centred”)
Secondly, some of these dichotomies are incredibly misleading. “This generation is different from past generations” is contradicted with the “biblical” position that “this generation’s spiritual condition is the same as past generations”. This is just a straw man argument.
Finally, it seems to me that if you took the descriptors in the right hand column as descriptive of a “biblical” faith, there would be plenty of non-EC people who would want to distance themselves from such a description. How many people would name their top twenty characteristics of faith as not being respecters of men, believing in a “one step” deliverance system from troubles.
I am happy to address and engage with genuine critique of the emerging church, but the articles you link you are not genuine critique of the emerging church. They are articles which set up a straw man or a characiture of the EC and then break it down as “unbiblical”. If you (YOU) think that the EC is centred around the pleasures of man, then say so and I will say why I don’t believe that to be the case.
Oh, and as for your last sentence, to my knowledge nobody on this forum has ever agreed that EC people believe that there are no absolutes and I can’t think of anyone in the EC who believes this.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Ogyle,
I’m really struggling here, because so far you’ve used criticisms that are inaccurate and inflammatory, and you haven’t backed any of it up when you’ve been asked to. If you’re going to say things like “EC is a uniting of all religions and the denial that Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation”, you have to back it up.
Can you tell me how, in your experience, the Australian EC is “a uniting of all religions”, and how you’ve seen “Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation” denied? We need specifics if we are to engage - and you’ve got internet access, so you can easily refer to EC bloggers if you want. Where are these denials? Who is making them?
September 27th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Of course Dan, but if we don’t agree with that gross inaccurate charicature of the emerging church, then we obviously aren’t part of it.
Oygle, why don’t you try asking some people you know who are actually part of the Emerging Church, and not just a part, but people that are engaged in training leaders within it?
Oh, yeah, incase you don’t know any that would be myself an employee of FORGE missionary training network, and pastor of Red West which is an emerging church network. Or Phil McCredden, staff member at FORGE as well, and pastor of the emerging church Northern Communities. Or Tim Jeffries a sometimes poster here, or Andrew Hamilton backyard missionary.com Or Wayne who pastored an emerging church here in Melbourne, or Greg who is doing the same or… well there are just so many of us here.
No better to listen to a bunch of intelectual wankers that have never really even attempted to understand the movement. And speaking of those wankers, how come none of them have the guts to actually take on our real theologian N T Wright? Do you want me to categorize the evangelical church by the writings of Max Lucado? Or Dr. J Vernon McGee? Or Even Chuck Swindoll? No, your experts are not the popular names are they?
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
I was hoping to be a little bit more conciliatory. I understand that people get information from their own networks, and I was wanting to suggest that if Ogyle has concerns we would be most willing to respond to those concerns. Seriously, open conversation. Even if it is just “someone told me”, I would say that we will give you a response to those issues if you are willing to listen to the response.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Sorry Dan, I am just sick and tired of this crap. I don’t believe most of the crap that gets critiqued by these guys, and nobody I knows believes it. Yet these people are putting out books and just flat our misrepresenting us. And guys like McClaren do us no favours by being cryptic and not commital in their answers.
rev
September 27th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Yeah, well I don’t know that you can blame Brian for being cryptic. I see a lot of the conversation which goes on with Brian echoes the pharisees trying to trip Jesus up and Jesus coming out with some cryptic comment.
I think that Brian does the best that he can to answer “when did you stop beating your wife” questions honestly and with grace. He refuses to throw it back in peoples’ faces which would probably just arm those determined to criticise him with whatever he says.
I know that it probably isn’t how you would handle it Rev, but I am in awe with the line that McLaren walks.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
yeah that is a fair call Dan, and you are right. It wouldn’t be easy being him. The other thing that I can relate to, is not wanting to make a concrete statement when your thinking is in a state of change.
And you are right it is easy for me to expect everyone to do as I would do, which is full frontal assault, leave the casualties for later. I can intelectually understand it probably isn’t the best way to deal with things, but personally it is how I am wired.
I just wish some of the “conversations” could be a bit more straight forward instead of vague hinting. And if you are going to get attacked even if you don’t give an opinion, then why not just go ahead and say what you think?
rev