Emergent Church

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Encryptus

I'll fight ya, come on put em up I dare ya. Name the time and place buddy. Come on I'm ready. Name it.

Name the topic, pick your side, I don't care

(Guess I need to lay off the starbucks this late)

LOL. By the time I saw this I was wiping the sleep from my eyes... pass the Starbucks!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by George

Well, let's get it started. Forget this emergent church stuff, I think all men should shave their heads bald to have holy glow power on their heads. Give the women some competition.

Though I do not share your enthusiasm with this opinion, as the years go by I am persuaded more and more of the "bald head = power" line of thinking.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I am a part of a upc that is emerging from old traditional customs and traditons of old time pentecost.

Does this make emergent?

That's my biggest quibble - it sounds like folks around your place are really "getting back to their roots" rather than "emerging from old traditional customs..."

The real old timers never preached half the stuff that started getting added in the '50's and 60's - like uncut hair on women, no "pants" on women, no jewelry at all, etc.

When Howard Goss retired as UPC General Superintendent, Sister Morgan (the incoming GS's wife) wore a modest strand of pearls to the reception they had for him at General Conference. Imagine something like that today.

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Romans 14:22

Just writing to talk about my feelings regarding the emergent church and would like to hear other peoples opinions.

Recently I heard that some people I respected, one of them a Pastors daughter that I highly respected are attending one of these new emerging type churches. The first I heard of it was that she had cut her hair and I confirmed that her hair was trimmed from her dad. Then I went to there church website and saw that it was really into the relevent type church thing. Rock band, jeans and tee shirts, some dressed like an apostolic and some not even close.

Now I have entertained thoughts of letting go of things in the past and getting to the heart of what the church should be about and that is reaching souls. But once I see Apostolic UPC friends doing these things I am not so sure if I could completely let go of my teachings, and yes my traditions and feel comfortable completely leaving the standards I have been taught. And I am somewhat of a moderate liberal. lol


So why am I afraid of it when I see it face to face? I just can't see going to a church with my current Pastor and his wife wearing jeans and flip flops to church and a rock band leading praise and song service. Seeing my Pastors wife cut her hair would freak me out.

But on the other hand seeing people I never knew it doesn't freak me out at all.

Anyway I really don't know how to completely express what I am feeling. But does anyone hear say to themselves "why don't we reach more souls?" Are we doing something wrong? And you see one of these new fangled services packing it out and it makes you wonder if they are doing something right.

So let me just end this because I really can't frame my thoughts but I'll ask this last question. Is this relevent/emerging thing the future of the Apostolic church or is it just the latest fad that will soon pass away. Seeing those very close to me involved has caused a controversy in my soul and I just needed to express it outwardly. I can't talk to my Pastor because it is to close to home for him.

Any thoughts on this movement? I am totally serious in asking this question.

And I probably did not clearly express my thoughts so please don't try and nail me on on inconsistent statement I just want to know what others perceptions are of this movement.

I don't see a problem with jeans and t-shirts. That's what we wear at our services. We are in an inner-city mission work and our goal is to not make anyone who visits uncomfortable because of what they may be wearing. Most don't have the money to afford nice clothing. They come as they are and they are blessed.

I believe that we need to put aside a lot of the old traditions that are no longer working. As someone already said, this "emergent/relevant" environment is NOT for everyone - especially some of the older generation. If that's the case, they should stay where they are. But we have to face the facts that our cookie-cutter look, our 3-song worship services, our red-faced screaming preachers in fancy suits are not what the world is looking for. We need to realize that our formatted services are doing little to change lives. People need to be discipled. They need to have relationship and community with the saints and be won by our conversation.

This is how I see it. Traditional services are not getting it done. And I don't believe these "emergent" or modern services will get it done either. Any time the focus of evangelism is the "church service" and getting people to "come to church" we're missing the point altogether. We are the Church. It's NOT a building, or a weekly appointment. It's a LIFE! We need to get out there and be real with people to a point where they see our honesty, and can taste our saltiness. That's when they will become thirsty for the Living Water.

Gathering with the rest of the body once a week is a great opportunity. And some personality types may be blessed by the more traditional Pentecostal service. But others may be more blessed by the more contemporary type described here. The point is that we need to be willing to adapt to our environment. Not become like the world, but be able to reach them where they are in a way that they can respond to.

Did ANY of that make any sense? LOL!

[POWERUP]

Right on Aquila! I have to agree.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by jaamez

I don't see a problem with jeans and t-shirts. That's what we wear at our services. We are in an inner-city mission work and our goal is to not make anyone who visits uncomfortable because of what they may be wearing. Most don't have the money to afford nice clothing. They come as they are and they are blessed.

I believe that we need to put aside a lot of the old traditions that are no longer working. As someone already said, this "emergent/relevant" environment is NOT for everyone - especially some of the older generation. If that's the case, they should stay where they are. But we have to face the facts that our cookie-cutter look, our 3-song worship services, our red-faced screaming preachers in fancy suits are not what the world is looking for. We need to realize that our formatted services are doing little to change lives. People need to be discipled. They need to have relationship and community with the saints and be won by our conversation.

This is how I see it. Traditional services are not getting it done. And I don't believe these "emergent" or modern services will get it done either. Any time the focus of evangelism is the "church service" and getting people to "come to church" we're missing the point altogether. We are the Church. It's NOT a building, or a weekly appointment. It's a LIFE! We need to get out there and be real with people to a point where they see our honesty, and can taste our saltiness. That's when they will become thirsty for the Living Water.

Gathering with the rest of the body once a week is a great opportunity. And some personality types may be blessed by the more traditional Pentecostal service. But others may be more blessed by the more contemporary type described here. The point is that we need to be willing to adapt to our environment. Not become like the world, but be able to reach them where they are in a way that they can respond to.

Did ANY of that make any sense? LOL!

More sense than some are prepared to hear....

I agree completely.

What scripture in the Bible ever said anything that would lead us to believe that they wore "Sunday go to meeting" clothes to the meetings during the time of the original apostles.

These are our own traditions and they are encumbrances to the Gospel of Christ and we should, literally, be ashamed of ourselves for it.

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That's my biggest quibble - it sounds like folks around your place are really "getting back to their roots" rather than "emerging from old traditional customs..."

The real old timers never preached half the stuff that started getting added in the '50's and 60's - like uncut hair on women, no "pants" on women, no jewelry at all, etc.

When Howard Goss retired as UPC General Superintendent, Sister Morgan (the incoming GS's wife) wore a modest strand of pearls to the reception they had for him at General Conference. Imagine something like that today.

Thank you Pelathias, That is true. We are getting back to the bible, the gospel Paul preached and that gospel only.

Over the last ten years "doctrines" I have found to be in error are ALL our holiness standards. Some think there is scripture to impose no pants, no make up, no jewelry and uncut hair on women, and yes the UC have their scriptures, sorely misintrperted and twisted to support there preconcieved ideas.

Over the last ten years, I have found my formeer three step gospel to be in error.

There is not much left in the UPC articles of faith and book of rules that I find soundly supportd by the word.

I guess this makes me emerging from the UPC, if that is what the UC definition of an emergent church is.

Basically I think they just got a new word to call those of us who quit drinking the kool aid. It used to be charismatic was they called us "backsliders", now it's emergent church doctrine.

Frankly, I could care less what an organization that supports the magic hair dostrine calls me.

You say, No, the UPC does not support this hair-esy. I beg to differ. They sell books at WEC bookstore that teach this doctrine and they have yet to censure anyone for preaching it.

We know that the org can stand up to error. They have come against preterism, they have come against divine flesh and serpent seed doctrine,

BUT headquarters is giving a pass to those who preach magic hair.

WHY ? Because it seems to support there positon of uncut hair on women, a doctrine that HAS NO sound clearly interpreted scripture.

I Cor 11 ????? Clear as muddy water. If it was clear there would not be 10 different ideas on what it says.

But if you can tell stories of how you laid your uncut hair over the offering plate and SHAZAM...your needs were met...well it must mean god does not want women cutting their hair.

[Innocuous]

There is no such thing as 'emergent church doctrine'. The so-called emerging church is a movement made of people and churches from many divergent denominal backgrounds. There are two theological camps in the EC. One is liberal and is experimenting with changing orthodox evangelical doctrines and the other is conservative and maintains orthodox evangelical doctrine. They united around the goal of connecting to post-modern generations and in doing so feel that the current model of public worship and some points of ecclesiology need to be revisited. The whole 'relevant church' thing that seems to be such an issue in the UPC is not connected to the EC. It is progressives in the UPC catching up to what Baptists have been doing already for 15 years with some EC style points thrown in. Don't believe everything you hear/read about the EC, and don't paint them all with the same brush.

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Innocuous

There is no such thing as 'emergent church doctrine'. The so-called emerging church is a movement made of people and churches from many divergent denominal backgrounds. There are two theological camps in the EC. One is liberal and is experimenting with changing orthodox evangelical doctrines and the other is conservative and maintains orthodox evangelical doctrine. They united around the goal of connecting to post-modern generations and in doing so feel that the current model of public worship and some points of ecclesiology need to be revisited. The whole 'relevant church' thing that seems to be such an issue in the UPC is not connected to the EC. It is progressives in the UPC catching up to what Baptists have been doing already for 15 years with some EC style points thrown in. Don't believe everything you hear/read about the EC, and don't paint them all with the same brush.

Thanks, Innocuous, for trying to bring some explanation to what this whole term means. Until I joined AFF last Fall, I had never even heard of the term "emergent" relating to the church. All I knew is that everyone thought we were backslid because we were going into bars and witnessing to people and then we were showing up to Sunday meetings/services in jeans and tennis shoes.

I wonder if Romans 14:22 would be willing to post the link to the website mentioned in his/her opening post. That might help explain things a little better as well. Especially if we look at it in the context of it being a UPCI-affiliated church.

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

LOL... The emergent church is NOT a doctrine.

I think it is time to scuttle the name.

People have already formed their opinions by a few examples of churches that went directions that they didn't like and the whole movement is tagged.

This is like saying that you went to a store front church and they were preaching trinity etc and so... the obvious conclusion is...


Store front churches are false doctrine.

Good grief.

THAT's what I was trying to say -- you just did it better