Someone recently commented that the emerging church was new age. In some ways it is. Someone else told me that the emerging church was apostate that can be true too. Someone else told me it was the only church that got it. I am not sure that is true but it might be partly true that some of them really do "get it." Then there is there innovative worship, which some find exciting and others find really strange.
That is the problem with the emerging church. Almost anything you can say about it is probably true for some. And, nothing you say about it is true everywhere. Talk about calling for discernment! It is sort of like trying to describe people who live along interstate 95. You could make a good case and claim that these folks wear sandals and shorts. Or you could claim that they wear warm clothes. Depending on the time of year, or the location (Miami or Maine) they would both be true. Some emergents are contemplative, some are somewhat vulgar, and most are very tired of just playing church and are not interested in doing that for another generation.
I suppose we could just fight the whole thing, except emergents raise some very good issues. Brian McLaren states that the problem is that the church has failed to truly disciple its followers. He then defines discipleship his way. We might not like his definitions, but we have, in too many cases, allowed discipleship to become nothing more than an intellectual assent to biblical truths without a commitment to practicing them.
There are many things to be wary of. But, for me, here’s the take away. The next generation, seems to like authenticity, relational groups, and wants to make a difference. They are not as likely to embrace mega churches. They are more likely to reach out to those overlooked by society and try to love them for the sake of Christ without any other hidden agenda. They are more likely to embrace both the differences and the gifts of everyone who comes into their group. Perhaps the best part is their emphasis on being missional. (You don’t have to be emerging to be missional) For most, missional is more than doing a mission it is being Christ in the midst of overlooked and unjustly neglected peoples. They seek in the words of some to be incarnational instead of extractional.
This movement is more than ancient forms of worship and candles (it still seems strange to me that their "ancient" forms are not the most ancient forms). At its best it is an attempt to recapture the heart of the faith. At its worst it is heretical, ecumenical to an extreme, and willing to accept any interpretation of anything. And it might even be a little bit new age, but at the very least, the next generation of church should be a bit more authentic because of their conversation.
About Me
- Pastor Bob
- I am the senior pastor of Calvary Bible Fellowship Church in Sinking Spring, PA.
Number
Journey to the Promised Land
9 comments:
Pastor wrote:
"The next generation, seems to like authenticity, relational groups, and wants to make a difference...They are more likely to reach out to those overlooked by society and try to love them for the sake of Christ without any other hidden agenda."
It sounds like the best of what we can learn from the emergent church is what you've described above. It's only best if we measure it against our Scriptural mandate. What a study that would be! And if it is, how do we find the overlooked? Who is overlooked in Sinking Spring, West Lawn, Wernersville and/or the greater Reading area? It's so very easy to live in our neat communities and be a happy Christian without being confronted by poverty, AIDS and whatever else that constitutes the "overlooked." Is it enough that our Benevolence giving covers our fellow Calvary attenders when they lose jobs; run short on cash; need help with the roof that caved in, etc. But I'm not sure that's what you mean. It's easy to "overlook" the overlooked because my world is ordered without them. There are no street people in Robesonia. (If there were, I'm sure we'd have a township ordinance, but that's another matter!) Is the call of Christ one that beckons us to look beyond what we don't see? Should we be actively seeking out the "overlooked" or just waiting on God to bring them to us. I think I'd be waiting a long time. Maybe this starts with prayer--and being ready to respond when we get the answer we didn't exactly have in mind.
After reading your latest post, I need to remind you that a half truth/ half lie is still a lie. Why do you continue to try and rationalize the emergent church? There is much relativism in your thinking...God says the Truth shall set you free -- and unless we keep His Words in the forefront, we will continually be deceived. ONLY God's Word is Truth, not man's ideas and philosophies. Satan is the father of lies, and he is the creator of the emergent and New Age movements. Keep praying for the Lord to show you His Truth -- I am praying this for you--
Pastor wrote: "There are many things to be wary of. But, for me, here’s the take away. The next generation, seems to like authenticity, relational groups, and wants to make a difference."
A Slightly Cheeky Observation:
I think we all want those things. No one wants to be shallow in his relationships or surfacy about his faith; we want to feel as if we belong; and we all want to make a difference. But it seems that there is a lot of baggage that gets in the way.
Authenticity is often trumped by Christian culture. There is a certain way of living (it fits best in suburbia) and believing (convenient for line-item voting on the Republican ticket) that has become equated with "Christian." It's easy to fall into believing that you need to drink milk from a "Christian cow" as a necessary accessory to real faith. And if we're all not drinking that "Christian cow" milk, that's going to affect how deeply we relate to one anther--never mind confession of sin and holding one another accountable. These are private matters.
Besides, there's not much time for commitment beyond Sunday and maybe Awanas on Wednesday. Johnny has soccer two nights a week and Suzie has dance--and after all that, I need my "me" time.
I will "de-stress" in front of the television, and when I feel particularly fitness-conscience, I will drive to a gym or go for a brisk walk. Unless my travel takes me down Buttonwood Street (which I rigorously avoid), I remain isolated from the way I can really make a difference to those who are "overlooked" by society because my world is simply not ordered that way. Where are the poor, the AIDS patients, the rejected from society in places like Sinking Spring, Wernersville, Womeseldorf, West Lawn, Wyomissing? Should I actively seek them out? Where would I begin? And once I find them, what does my theology tell me? My evangelical heritage is to help, primarily for the purpose of sharing the gospel. Never mind that Matthew 25 speaks of the merits of compassionate care. I've been told not to take this passage out of context, after all, the "least of my brethren" are fellow believers. So, I’ll stick with the doctrine of loving my neighbors. That’s easy!; I never see them! In fact, at this very moment, they are either sitting in front of the television or on their way to the fitness center.
\Hi Pastor,
I am glad to know you are researching the emergant church; however I am uncertain that if it is both good in some ways and bad in others that it would be still "Okay". Does not a little bad mixed with good make it all false? Is that not how we slowly stray from the Truth? It seems to me that it is going farther away from the truth, and tickling the ears of those who want more "entertainment" than true "worship". I am deeply comcerned. I know the enemy in the end times will come as an "angel of light" and this emergent church on the surface appears good....but something in my gut is very uncomfortable with some of it's teachings.....subtle, very subtle, but is that now how deception starts?
Also, what is your opinion on the Seeker Sensitive movement that is occurring within the Emergant Church.....it seems getting more "numbers" or members is more important than telling others they are sinners.......in other words, watering down the Word just to get people.
One of the difficulties in searching out the emerging church movement is that they do not agree among themselves about many important biblical truths. For example, some deny the atonement but many, perhaps most do not. So, if half truth/half life idea doesn’t really apply in the sense it might for other areas. Otherwise, you might be saying you don’t agree with the atonement because some emergents do.
The emergents usually say that the evangelical (for lack of a better term) church has lost its way and is in danger of becoming irrelevant. We might agree with that in part although for different reasons. Some would say it is because the church has moved away from the Word, others because it is only interested in numbers, i.e. The seeker movement, and still others because it has turned its back on society and only tries to save people (if it does that) without addressing and of their physical needs. Without over stressing it, these observations – and more - might all be right.
The emergents would say, Nan, actually have said, don’t wait for your neighbor. Go to the township or school board or nursing home and ask how the church can help them with their problems. Jesus didn’t always wait for folks to come to him, at the Pool of Bethesda he healed a man but what was Jesus doing there to begin with. It was a bit off the main road, near the sheep gate but back from the road and out of His way.
Barb, the emergents would probably really have a problem being identified with the seeker church. Even though Rick Warren has supported them. Many of them would probably think that the seeker movement sold out. But seekers would say they are interested in reaching people for Christ and are simply trying to remove barriers. They would say it is not about numbers but about souls and would also probably say the evangelical church is all about maintaining their traditions. A few years ago Sally Morgenthaler wrote a book on worship where she advocated worship, with all of the symbols (seekers sometimes remove even the cross) and letting the seeker watch the worship as a from of evangelism.
Hans, back in the 1600’s I think, there was something in the church called the regulative principle. The idea being if God in Scripture did not command or instruct that something be done or used in worship then it could not be used in church. That would be the extreme of your position. So if your church used an organ for example it would be violating this principle. There are not many today, even on some of the websites you mentioned that would suggest going that far.
The emergents have looked at the lack of grace and love in the church, at the increasingly irrelevant position the church has in culture and has said, out of love of Christ, this should not be so. They have looked at the multitude of positions on some scripture and with a post modern mind set have said you can’t know the absolute truth only God can know that. (In so doing some often ignore the obvious absolutes). They have raised some questions worth dealing with and they have caused many churches to reexamine their role in the community. But they have also opened the door to increased possibilities of false doctrine. My view is we should look to see what they say is true about the church and come up with our own solutions. And, we should look to see what is unbiblical with some of their positions so we will be prepared to stand against them
One final caution, this movement is all over the map. So all you can ever really say is that some of them hold to the various positions. Additionally, there seems to be a bit of separating between some who call themselves missional and don’t want to be labeled emergent and emergents who are missional.
Hans,
These books are self-published by men with very limited credentials, if you can even find them. They are very biased not at all open like the Bereans. If you peruse their websites you discover that they tell you little about themselves, they take things out of context and seem to delight in conspiracy theory.
I have listed some books below on the front page that I have read this summer. That does not mean I recommend them but some do show what the emergents think and believe so you do not have to rely on someone else's 3rd hand report.
For a more objective view of the emergent scene (although emergents would probably not agree) I would suggest D. A. Carson’s book "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church." He at the very least is a real scholar and does not rely on Barnes notes for his Greek exegesis.
Fascinating dialog! I keep vowing I will not post anything; I find I have a problem with both blogs and answering machines: once finished I always want to undo what I have said, but I think I’ll give this another attempt anyway.
I will agree with Pastor Sloan, D.A. Carson is an exceptional writer. While I have not yet read his book on the emerging church, I have his commentary “The Gospel According to John”. It was excellent, and as Pastor Slaon has said, he can do some very solid exegesis without the need to borrow from others.
While taking seminary class at Liberty (not exactly a bastion for the emerging church movement), my New Testament professor made an interesting point. While discussing the Gospel of Luke he gave it the subtitle “The Great Reversal”. By this he meant if you read this gospel in light of the other synoptics you will find Luke has a stronger emphasis on women, the poor, Samaritans, and “tax collectors and sinners”: the “have-nots” of his time.
Dr. Fowler, the instructor, made the point that this reversal led to both a spiritual as well as a cultural change. He contends that part of the reason for the rapid expansion of the gospel was because of this social/spiritual aspect. Our current approach to Christianity: mainline churches preaching a “social” gospel while fundamentalists “contending for the truth” is not how the gospel was originally spread. I would say perhaps a benefit (intended or unintended) of this emerging church would be to evaluate what are we really doing for God?
Personally, I prefer to sit and talk about the truth of the gospel, but I am finding that unless I harness that dialog to an action (beyond teaching about talking about the truth of the gospel), I really am leading a stale life that God will probably not be pleased with – it kind of puts me on the goat side of the equation in Jesus’ story of the sheep and the goats.
What the above rambling is get across is that as long as we keep the authority of Scripture as our guide, is evaluating what impact we are having in our community (“being missional”) and how authentic our worship is (“authentic spirituality” to borrow phrases from the emerging church) ever a bad thing?
Fascinating dialog! I keep vowing I will not post anything; I find I have a problem with both blogs and answering machines: once finished I always want to undo what I have said, but I think I’ll give this another attempt anyway.
I will agree with Pastor Sloan, D.A. Carson is an exceptional writer. While I have not yet read his book on the emerging church, I have his commentary “The Gospel According to John”. It was excellent, and as Pastor Slaon has said, he can do some very solid exegesis without the need to borrow from others.
While taking seminary class at Liberty (not exactly a bastion for the emerging church movement), my New Testament professor made an interesting point. While discussing the Gospel of Luke he gave it the subtitle “The Great Reversal”. By this he meant if you read this gospel in light of the other synoptics you will find Luke has a stronger emphasis on women, the poor, Samaritans, and “tax collectors and sinners”: the “have-nots” of his time.
Dr. Fowler, the instructor, made the point that this reversal led to both a spiritual as well as a cultural change. He contends that part of the reason for the rapid expansion of the gospel was because of this social/spiritual aspect. Our current approach to Christianity: mainline churches preaching a “social” gospel while fundamentalists “contending for the truth” is not how the gospel was originally spread. I would say perhaps a benefit (intended or unintended) of this emerging church would be to evaluate what are we really doing for God?
Personally, I prefer to sit and talk about the truth of the gospel, but I am finding that unless I harness that dialog to an action (beyond teaching about talking about the truth of the gospel), I really am leading a stale life that God will probably not be pleased with – it kind of puts me on the goat side of the equation in Jesus’ story of the sheep and the goats.
What the above rambling is get across is that as long as we keep the authority of Scripture as our guide, is evaluating what impact we are having in our community (“being missional”) and how authentic our worship is (“authentic spirituality” to borrow phrases from the emerging church) ever a bad thing?
Post a Comment