Relevant/Journey OP Churches a Threat?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Back in the 40's it was the 'latter rain' then 70's& 80's the "charismatic renewal" now "the emerging church" same ole hag in a new dress. The doctrine of 'no doctrine.' The wiseman said 'there is nothing new under the Sun.' God is doing a 'new thing.' It never ends and it is always the same.
If time allows check back on them in 30 years.

I know some VERY conservative house Church Apostolics who are independent. The concept of "no doctrine" isn't among them, they are strong in doctrine. But they are house based and gathering out IN the community instead of hiding in a church building; they have Bible study and prayer in coffee shops, restaurants, malls, you name it, they bring the gospel to the community... instead of trying to drag people to them. They have little overhead and their pastors work for a living like everyone else. It's awesome really. More like the original New Testament church. It's not necessarily a "new thing"....it's getting back to a first century reality. The original church was home based with networked elders and both private house meetings and public teaching in the streets and markets. We've been praying for REVIVAL and a move of the Spirit that will reach the "unchurched". Sadly....we thought that revival would come packaged in our packaging with our stamp of approval...making the, "unchurched", "churched". The reality is that God has to "unchurch" the "church" to reach masses of lost and dying humanity. Those slow to change....well....they'll be left with their tradition as has been seen in every great revival or spiritual awakening.

The church as we traditionally know it isn't found in Scripture. This movement is more akin to getting back to the basics of Christian faith and practice....Ekklesia.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know some VERY conservative house Church Apostolics who are independent. The concept of "no doctrine" isn't among them, they are strong in doctrine. But they are house based and gathering out IN the community instead of hiding in a church building; they have Bible study and prayer in coffee shops, restaurants, malls, you name it, they bring the gospel to the community... and trying to drag people to them. They have little overhead and their pastors work for a living like everyone else. It's awesome really. More like the original New Testament church.

The issue here Aquila is not the real definition of relevant or emergent churches ... Words don't mean things to this group of head hunters.

It has now been twisted to mean an entirely different thing altogether ... anyone who threatens Old-time Pentecost can be labeled "too relevant".

See Wright's definition.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The issue here Aquila is not the real definition of relevant or emergent churches ... Words don't mean things to this group of head hunters.

It has now been twisted to mean an entirely different thing altogether ... anyone who threatens Old-time Pentecost can be labeled "too relevant".

See Wright's definition.

To be relevant - doesn't that mean "true to the purpose"!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The issue here Aquila is not the real definition of relevant or emergent churches ... Words don't mean things to this group of head hunters.

It has now been twisted to mean an entirely different thing altogether ... anyone who threatens Old-time Pentecost can be labeled "too relevant".

See Wright's definition.

The cost of being on the forefront of a move of God is the label of heretic. It's always been that way. Let the dogs bark.

The Baptists I know are worried about the more evangelical relevant church movements and emergents because they espouse a "generous orthodoxy" meaning they allow for a wide range of theological opinions. One thing that was brought up was that they are weak on doctrine....namely the Trinity. lol Frankly...for us Oneness Pentecostals this could be a good thing.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

while mcdowell's definition of pomo may in some respects be attributable to hard core pomo (not so much anymore though and even then it's an elitist view) and in some respects to some people in the EMERGENT movement, it does not represent in the slightest the majority of pomo nor does it talk about the larger segment of the church movement usually called 'emergent' which is actually 'emergING'. the 'emerging' stream of thought does not seek to change doctrine, or as Rev. Epley says " a doctrine of 'no doctrine' ", but only wishes to change the way we do church and change some of the points of emphasis from what has happened in the past. the identification by this group as 'emerging' relates only to their hope to be the church for their generation as their fathers were the church to theirs. too often people try to lump all emergent/emerging people into one lump and that no more fair than to say that all pentecostals are snake handlers or that all op's think alike.

You have to admit that Brian McLaren and his crowd tend to downplay if not ridicule doctrine. I do realize that there is a difference between 'emerging' and 'emergent' but that may be where some of the confusion is.

[freeatlast]

We at our church have a service Sunday morning's for the under 30 crowd. It's relavant and it's relational.

It's cafe style with two guitars leading worship.

We call it "The Journey"

So sue me.

The young people love it.

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Is there evidence he leaked his own letter to Haney?

I'd find that unlikely but feasible.

Leaking it would have been a secondary intent that would have probably occurred some time later for other reasons.

i thought somebody said he leaked it. i must be mistaken. who leaked it then? el jefe? whatever. anybody who knows cw knows that he'd say (and prob does say) the same thing in public. even so, now that it's leaked it has the same effect dont' u think?

[A_PoMo]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

You have to admit that Brian McLaren and his crowd tend to downplay if not ridicule doctrine. I do realize that there is a difference between 'emerging' and 'emergent' but that may be where some of the confusion is.

Mclaren and Jones et al are the leaders of the "emergent" crowd. They've organized as Emergent US and they have a website Emergent Village and they are the founders/pioneers of the whole emerging church thing. I've never heard McLaren ridicule or even downplay doctrine. I have heard him question some orthodox doctrines and ask controversial questions about orthodox doctrines and challenge people to think. I'm not saying they have ridiculed or downplayed them, but I haven't seen that. Normally its overzealous disciples that tend to make rash remarks.

McLaren, from what I've seen, is pretty gracious and measured. In fact, I saw McLaren once at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco at a public interview with Q&A. The audience was liberal and the pastor made some snide, condescending remarks about conservatives here and there. McLaren refused to bite and instead spoke kindly and gently about conservatives.

However, I know that people like Mark Driscoll pastor of Mars Hill in Seattle was formerly associated with that group and publicly parted ways with them over these somewhat liberal leanings in the area of theology. He made that statement that "messing with the doctrine of hell is a hell of a mistake." . Mark and others like Dan Kimball, Scot Mcknight, and others are influential on the 'emerging' side.

In the context of this board the doctrines of both sides are 'in error' as op's don't ascribe to orthodox theology for the most part. But for middle of the road evangelicals the 'emerging' crowd is palatable because they are firm on orthodoxy and put their reform emphasis on the area of orthodpraxy. Now more conservative evangelical guys like Rick Warren are coming on board and doing the same in terms of being missional and incarnational in ministry in the areas of social justice. The difference between him and somebody like me or Dan Kimball would be perhaps how we organize and present public worship.

It just seems unfair to me for conservative evangelicals to lump conservative emerging guys in with the more moderate/liberal guys like the emergent guys. D.A. Carson, McDowell, Colson, Dobson and others are guilty of this and when you read their stuff about ECM and pomo it generally seems so misinformed, outdated, and myopic (imo), much like Chester Wright's polemic against the 'relevancy movement' in the UPC.

It's telling that Carson was invited by some emerging guys to sit and talk and when he visited with them and visited their churches and found out what they really believed and practiced he had to admit that he'd been a little narrow minded. That's big of him to admit to, but unfortunately that doesn't get much press as his inaccurate polemics do.

Idk, I'm one of the emerging guys so I guess I just need to accept that when you do something different you put a target on your forehead. I'm leading an alternative worship/outreach project right now in our church. I've been warned by my pastor that as soon as I start advertising the event (in about three weeks) that I'll have big conservative evangelical guns in our town firing at me (and him). They'll try to paint us as liberal kooks, but they're wrong. So be it.

[Steve Epley]

Anyone who thinks CW is con has been on Mars.

[SDG]

Walks, acts, quacks like a duck.

More a product of the culture than anything.