Emerging Church

[JudaicChristian]

The Emerging Church is a Universal Church that includes all religions. It is a Christian movement of the late 20th and early 21st century that crosses a number of theological boundaries. participants are described as Catholics, Evangelical, Post-Evangelical, liberal, and Post-Liberal. The further you go back into the history of Christianity, the less you find the joining of Paganism. Much has changed since the days of Yahshua. Is truth narrowly defined, or is it broad and all encompassing? Jude 1:3. Loved, I was eager to write to you about the salvation we share, it was necessary for me to write to you, and encourage you to earnestly contend for the faith that was given to the saints.
4. Because you are unaware that certain men have sneaked in, who are of a ancient order to their condemnation, these ungodly men turn the grace of our God into immorality, and deny that the only God is Yahwah, or that our lord Yahshua is the Messiah.
5. I will remind you although you once knew this, how Yahwah, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that did not believe.
6. Those messengers did not keep their first estate, and they were removed from their place, and He has reserved for them everlasting chains of darkness for that great day of judgment.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

So, I must ask...what are you implying about the emergent church? Let's get down to brass tacks and be a bit more specific and detailed shall we?

 

[mondar]

So, I must ask...what are you implying about the emergent church? Let's get down to brass tacks and be a bit more specific and detailed shall we?

He is saying it has some serious problems. Do you disagree?

 

[Aero_Hudson]

So, I must ask...what are you implying about the emergent church? Let's get down to brass tacks and be a bit more specific and detailed shall we?

He is saying it has some serious problems. Do you disagree?

Obviously not. He offers quite a lot of specualtion with zero facts or links to back it up. My experience with several books from leaders of the emergent church have been far different from what is depicted here.

 

[mondar]

[quote="Aero_Hudson":3vlvbha2]So, I must ask...what are you implying about the emergent church? Let's get down to brass tacks and be a bit more specific and detailed shall we?

He is saying it has some serious problems. Do you disagree?

Obviously not. He offers quite a lot of specualtion with zero facts or links to back it up. My experience with several books from leaders of the emergent church have been far different from what is depicted here.[/quote:3vlvbha2]
I should not have expressed myself in the way I did. I ask for your forgiveness concerning that. What I did was impulsive and wrong. I would simply go back and delete it, but you copied it and it is now a part of the record.

I will admit from the start that I know little about this issue. I am not a part of the Emerging Church. I have never read any of McLaren's books. Neither have a read any of the literature against the Emerging Church written by those opposed.

I forget where I read this, but somewhere I got the idea that the emergent Church is about faith without propositional truth. I personally find it difficult to take the Emergent Church serious on that point. I have no been able to grasp the point of faith without propositional truth.

I am sitting in a chair. I trust that chair to keep me from falling on the floor. I may not articulate all the propositional truth about the chair every time I sit in the chair, but if I had noticed the chair is made of paper I would not have trusted it. I hope this illustrates why I fail to see the emergent Church as a viable option in Christianity. I dont see how one can separate the object of our faith (Jesus Christ) from propositional truths about Christ. The very little I know about the Emergent Church sounds like a repetition of the older Neo-Orthodox concepts in which faith is a leap in the dark without any propositional truths to define that faith.

What I am saying is that faith has to have an object. The object of faith is a person (Jesus Christ), but to understand who and what that person is, and what he has done, takes propositional truth. One cannot understand Christ without understanding the crosswork of Christ. One cannot understand Christ apart from his complete and perfect deity. One cannot understand Christ without propositional truth.

 

[Free]

I would simply go back and delete it, but you copied it and it is now a part of the record.

Not any more. ;) All is well in the world.

 

[mondar]

I would simply go back and delete it, but you copied it and it is now a part of the record.

Not any more. ;) All is well in the world.

LOL, that works.

 

[Free]

I would simply go back and delete it, but you copied it and it is now a part of the record.

Not any more. ;) All is well in the world.

LOL, that works.

Not sure why I only italicized some of it. lol

 

[RND]

The "emergent church" has at it's roots much in common with the "new age" movement in that many of it's proponents and authors reveal philosophies characteristic of "new ageism". These are also tied to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola.

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com ... ing-church

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ECquotes.html

 

[Ed the Ned]

The emerging church is a false gospel and not scriptual. It is proposing a new Jesus and is a deception. No evidence is required against it. McLaren has in a book on faith put all religions into one. (I have read this book and can quote from it if you wish.) By doing this he has made a mockery of Jesus's sacrifice and made his death have no purpose. If we do not expose the deception of the emerging church now it will continue to rot the church and the true gospel. I pray that Mclaren will come to change his views as I believe he has a lot of influence in the world, but if he does not, we must continue to warn Christians about the false gospel he preaches. If anyone disagrees with the statements I have made, I would love a healthy debate on the subject with scripture being the judge. The emerging church cannot lean on scripture to defend its beliefs. I agree that we need to get down to the brass tacks on this subject, but not to defend the emerging church, but to expose it.

 

[Armor of God]

The "emergent church" has at it's roots much in common with the "new age" movement in that many of it's proponents and authors reveal philosophies characteristic of "new ageism". These are also tied to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola.

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com ... ing-church

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/ECquotes.html

Correct. They are mixing Christianity with New Age spiritualism. They deny critical doctrine like the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ for salvation and the existence of an everlasting Hell for the lost. You will find they are very reluctant to define any absolute truths.

It's just one more way the Devil is using apostasy from the pulpit.

Keep reading your bible folks. If you stay strong in the Word you can easily spot these and other frauds.

 

[Free]

These are also tied to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola.

Are you saying these are bad?

 

[Ed the Ned]

Correct. They are mixing Christianity with New Age spiritualism. They deny critical doctrine like the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ for salvation and the existence of an everlasting Hell for the lost. You will find they are very reluctant to define any absolute truths.

It's just one more way the Devil is using apostasy from the pulpit.

Keep reading your bible folks. If you stay strong in the Word you can easily spot these and other frauds.

Well said :yes

 

[RND]

These are also tied to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola.

Are you saying these are bad?

Much of what Ignatius Loyola taught also has roots in "new age" type spiritualism.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/newpage3111.htm

http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Man, there is quite a bit of speculation in this thread without facts to back it up. I have read 4 of Brian McLaren's books and I can say confidently that he in no way espouses false doctrine. I would suggest those that are critical of him or the emergent church based on what they heard or something they read from a critic go pick up one of their publications for yourself and find the truth. I think they have been largely distorted because they ask difficult questions and not because they espouse false doctrine.

Seriously, go check it out for yourself and do not rely on others to tell you what they are about. I have been inspired to become a better follower of Christ due to many of McLarens books and as a matter of fact an early book of his I did read was a huge factor in me becoming a Christian in the first place.

One other thing I will add after perusing some of the links provided, specifically the one with quotes, it is inherently dangerous to take one quote and labeling it as bad or heretical without understanding the full context of how the quote was delivered. I read through the McClaren quotes, as I am familiar with the context of these, and to fully understand what he is saying in most of these excerpts you must read the full chapter or set of paragraphs. They are not as insidious as some may think when discerned properly.

 

[RND]

Man, there is quite a bit of speculation in this thread without facts to back it up. I have read 4 of Brian McLaren's books and I can say confidently that he in no way espouses false doctrine. I would suggest those that are critical of him or the emergent church based on what they heard or something they read from a critic go pick up one of their publications for yourself and find the truth. I think they have been largely distorted because they ask difficult questions and not because they espouse false doctrine.

Seriously, go check it out for yourself and do not rely on others to tell you what they are about. I have been inspired to become a better follower of Christ due to many of McLarens books and as a matter of fact an early book of his I did read was a huge factor in me becoming a Christian in the first place.

“Universalism is not as bankrupt of biblical support as some suggest,†(Brian McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That, ( San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), pp. 103 (cf. pp. 182-183)

Sounds like he believes the Bible teaches universalism.

One other thing I will add after perusing some of the links provided, specifically the one with quotes, it is inherently dangerous to take one quote and labeling it as bad or heretical without understanding the full context of how the quote was delivered.

That's true.

I read through the McClaren quotes, as I am familiar with the context of these, and to fully understand what he is saying in most of these excerpts you must read the full chapter or set of paragraphs. They are not as insidious as some may think when discerned properly.

Maybe we should let him speak for himself: http://www.alittleleaven.com/2009/04/br ... ative.html

 

[mondar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

This sounds like a denial of the atoning crosswork of Jesus Christ.

 

[Drew]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

This sounds like a denial of the atoning crosswork of Jesus Christ.

I hear nothing in the 3 minute video that denies the atoning work Jesus did on the cross. What we do hear is a denial of the doctrine of hell.

But that does not mean a denial of the atonement. It is perfectly coherent to believe that the wages of sin is "annihilation" (i.e.ceasing to exist) and yet to still believe that Jesus atones for that sin on the cross, thus rescuing people from that fate and giving them eternal life.

I happen to agree with McLaren's position on the hell question and the reasoning he gives to undergird it. But perhaps that is a different issue.

 

[mondar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOUfsX2fbk

This sounds like a denial of the atoning crosswork of Jesus Christ.

I hear nothing in the 3 minute video that denies the atoning work Jesus did on the cross. What we do hear is a denial of the doctrine of hell.

But that does not mean a denial of the atonement. It is perfectly coherent to believe that the wages of sin is "annihilation" (i.e.ceasing to exist) and yet to still believe that Jesus atones for that sin on the cross, thus rescuing people from that fate and giving them eternal life.

I happen to agree with McLaren's position on the hell question and the reasoning he gives to undergird it. But perhaps that is a different issue.

"...God is incapable of forgiving unless he punishes somebody in place of the person he is going to forgive. God does not say to you "forgive your wife and then go kick the dog to vent your anger... you know." God asks you to actually forgive. There is a certain sense that a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving, unless he kicks somebody else." ------------------- Brain McLaren

 

[Drew]

"There is a certain sense that a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving, unless he kicks somebody else." ------------------- Brain McLaren

This is not any denial of the atoning work of Jesus on the cross.

It is a denial of a particular way of understanding what happened on the cross. And to the extent that McLaren is saying that is wrong to think that "God has to punish a person to make things right", then I think that McLaren is in fact in line with what the Bible teaches. And I say this fully aware that probably most people conceive of the atonement as precisely that - that God "needs to punish a person" to deal with sin, and so He punishes Jesus.

I do not think that is the correct understanding of atonement. I suspect we might spiral off into the challenging and murky theology surrounding the nature of atonement. That's fine with me. For starters, I post this from Romans 8:

For (G)what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in (I)the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Note how Paul says that God condemns sin, not Jesus on the cross. I cannot speak for Mr. McLaren, but my guess is that He is saying that it is wrong to think that God "punished" Jesus. And I would agree with that. I think the correct picture is one where God "de-activates" or defeats the power of sin on the cross, and Jesus is the self-sacrficial vessel which "contains" the true target of God's wrath - sin (seen as a power or force).

So there is indeed a sense in which I think McLaren is mistaken - there was indeed some ***-kicking done at the cross, but it was a malevolent force or power - sin - whose *** was kicked, not some person's.