Emergent Church

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by Kings Kid

Actually I wouldn't make that comparsion. Did you know that the chrasmatic movement has even come against the emerging church movement.

not sure if this is directed to me....or someone else....i'm not sure what comparison i made.

the word charismatic can also mean...compelling, appealing, captivating....things i think most would want their church to be.

my point being...I think we would all be better to stop labeling people....charismatic...liberal...consrvative...EC ...etc... the exception i see in the NT is for those who cause divisions among brothers.

labeling allows us to paint with broad brushes or classify movements...instead of looking at each person as just that....a person....or look at each Christ-follower as just a Christ-follower....not a pentecostal, baptist, UPCI, AMF, ALJC, etc......but just a person who is trying to follow in Christ footsteps. I believe if we did this....then we would better fulfill what Jesus prayed for....to be ONE....and that the Father's kingdom would come and will be done here on earth as in heaven.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by George

I am not going to argue with you, but you need to do some research. Emergent Church is a doctrine. It has nothing to do with churches trying to be relevant or return to their roots. The Emerging Church movement envisions a utopia in which the oppressed of the world are free, the poor are no longer impoverished and the environment is clean. This paradise is achieved through social activism. Many emergent leaders think it is selfish folly to live for the return of Christ.

As I've said before - I'm not into the "trendy" stuff too much - not to condemn them outright, in fact they may be great, but I'm just not "hip." I've tried to work on it, but like Popeye and the Apostle Paul, I am what I am.

That being said... the Emergent Church™ is usually billed as a "conversation" because of the newness and the unsettled nature of the whole shebang. This seems to be an opportunity to get involved and "converse." Just because "Commies" are pushing "paradise achieved through social activism" doesn't mean you can't push your own hobby horse. Of course you'll be more successful if you plan it out a bit and don't do or say something foolish that will only embarass everyone else.

[Innocuous]

Originally Posted by George

Go to your local Bible bookstore and you should be able to find an entire section of books devoted to "Emergent Church." At my local Bible bookstore, there are at least 75 books concerning this topic and I have read several of them. Do your own research. I'm not basing my opinions from websites, blogs, and forums.

I too have read the books and I have gone to seminars and conferences where many of the emergent guys have spoken and a couple of the more prominent guys I have taken to lunch and talked personally and corresponded with in email. So, my information is first hand. There is no "Emergent Church" and there is no doctrinal forumulation that's normative for all emergents. The EC is a movement, not a church. It's ideas are constantly in flux and nothing is set in stone. At this point it's just a bunch of people thinking aloud and bouncing ideas off each other, hence the term 'conversation'.

There are two streams within the EC movement. One is, from an evangelical pov, somewhat liberal theologically and they are questioning basic orthodox positions on hell, soteriology, discipleship, etc... These guys are the founders of the movement and they have organized and can be found online. Their leaders include Tony Jones and Brian McLaren.

The other stream refers to itself as 'emerging' (as opposed to 'emergent') and is led by people like Dan Kimball, Scot McNight and others. This stream is not organized and is more a loose knit group that mixes with the other group but distances itself from the others more radical theological ideas and prefers to be distinguished from them by the term 'emerging' instead of 'emergent'. These guys are solidly fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative in their theology but open to revisiting church/worship praxis in order to continue to connect to emerging generations.

This is the common thread between the two. They are both convinced that the current model is dying and that it needs to be re-engineered in order for the church to continue to be 'relevant' in post-modern culture. Otherwise, they fear, the American church will suffer the fate of the European church that didn't see post-modernism coming and didn't adjust and the church there is all but dead and it's becoming and increasingly pagan enclave in the world.

Culturally, the US is always about 15-20 years behind Europe and since this happened to Europe beginning in the 60's and 70's the cultural wave is hitting us now and the American church is trying learn from the mistakes of the European church and adjust. That's common thread between the two groups. As usual, the movement is split by conservative and progressive povs. That's human nature and bound to happen.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by George

What makes it false is the acceptance of anything. Do more research and you will find those who have become Emergent Church (not emerging people) are the extreme of liberal. There is no such thing as sin. IMO, you cannot accept every way of living and be saved. It's much like The Gay Street Preacher CG. Anything goes as long as you love and give to the poor. It is good to love and give to the poor but there is more than that to living a godly, holy, sanctified, saved life.

All due respect Geo - to me you sound like someone who is parroting that "Open Letter to Kenneth Haney" concerning the "Emergent Church" with all of its insinuations. The author of that letter seemed to have a gripe about a neighbor of his being used to preach a GC sermon. There were a lot of stones thrown, but last time I looked that fellow had taken his "open letter" down from his website.

Maybe we should all follow his good example?

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by pelathais

All due respect Geo - to me you sound like someone who is parroting that "Open Letter to Kenneth Haney" concerning the "Emergent Church" with all of its insinuations. The author of that letter seemed to have a gripe about a neighbor of his being used to preach a GC sermon. There were a lot of stones thrown, but last time I looked that fellow had taken his "open letter" down from his website.

Maybe we should all follow his good example?

i didn't see that one. i did read the artical that was in the Forward...and have since drafted a letter to the editor.

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by Innocuous

I too have read the books and I have gone to seminars and conferences where many of the emergent guys have spoken and a couple of the more prominent guys I have taken to lunch and talked personally and corresponded with in email. So, my information is first hand. There is no "Emergent Church" and there is no doctrinal forumulation that's normative for all emergents. The EC is a movement, not a church. It's ideas are constantly in flux and nothing is set in stone. At this point it's just a bunch of people thinking aloud and bouncing ideas off each other, hence the term 'conversation'.

There are two streams within the EC movement. One is, from an evangelical pov, somewhat liberal theologically and they are questioning basic orthodox positions on hell, soteriology, discipleship, etc... These guys are the founders of the movement and they have organized and can be found online. Their leaders include Tony Jones and Brian McLaren.

The other stream refers to itself as 'emerging' (as opposed to 'emergent') and is led by people like Dan Kimball, Scot McNight and others. This stream is not organized and is more a loose knit group that mixes with the other group but distances itself from the others more radical theological ideas and prefers to be distinguished from them by the term 'emerging' instead of 'emergent'. These guys are solidly fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative in their theology but open to revisiting church/worship praxis in order to continue to connect to emerging generations.

This is the common thread between the two. They are both convinced that the current model is dying and that it needs to be re-engineered in order for the church to continue to be 'relevant' in post-modern culture. Otherwise, they fear, the American church will suffer the fate of the European church that didn't see post-modernism coming and didn't adjust and the church there is all but dead and it's becoming and increasingly pagan enclave in the world.

Culturally, the US is always about 15-20 years behind Europe and since this happened to Europe beginning in the 60's and 70's the cultural wave is hitting us now and the American church is trying learn from the mistakes of the European church and adjust. That's common thread between the two groups. As usual, the movement is split by conservative and progressive povs. That's human nature and bound to happen.

very good description.

[George]

Originally Posted by pelathais

All due respect Geo - to me you sound like someone who is parroting that "Open Letter to Kenneth Haney" concerning the "Emergent Church" with all of its insinuations. The author of that letter seemed to have a gripe about a neighbor of his being used to preach a GC sermon. There were a lot of stones thrown, but last time I looked that fellow had taken his "open letter" down from his website.

Maybe we should all follow his good example?

I've never seen any open letter to Haney and haven't conversed this topic with any UPC people. I came to my own conclusions through my own research. I'm not throwing stones at anyone and I stand firm in my belief that emergent church is false doctrine. I'm not here to argue with you, prove a point, just stating my opinion in which I am entitled.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by George

I've never seen any open letter to Haney and haven't conversed this topic with any UPC people.

Yes you did.

Originally Posted by George

I came to my own conclusions through my own research.

No you didn't.

Originally Posted by George

I'm not throwing stones at anyone

Yes you are.

Originally Posted by George

and I stand firm in my belief that emergent church is false doctrine.

Maybe you might.

Originally Posted by George

I'm not here to argue with you, prove a point, just stating my opinion in which I am entitled.

... and finally, yes you certainly are.

[Romans 14:22]

Sorry for any confusion regarding relevant vs emergent. I thought they were one and the same. The gist I think I was trying to make is are we (me being upc) heading down that road? Is the future going to be no standards and house meetings with Rock concert Sundays?

My dilemna is that one side of me wants to hold onto tradition while the other side says hey let's get to the brass tacks of the gospel. Seeing people I know firsthand involved scares me because I am confronted with my traditions being challenged and I don't know what side to take.

The 3 choices I see are:

1) Holding to my traditions completely
2) Compromising somewhere in the middle
3) Leaving my traditions, calling my Pastor by his first name, wearing flip flops to church.

I can handle jeans and tee shirts. But to see my sisters cutting there hair, wearing make up and donning pants freaks me out. It is a cultural shock and cause me much inner turmoil.

Can anyone relate to these feelings? My beliefs are being shaken and tested.

[Innocuous]

Originally Posted by George

I've never seen any open letter to Haney and haven't conversed this topic with any UPC people. I came to my own conclusions through my own research. I'm not throwing stones at anyone and I stand firm in my belief that emergent church is false doctrine. I'm not here to argue with you, prove a point, just stating my opinion in which I am entitled.

Perhaps it would be more precise to say that you have a disagreement with a particular doctrinal position that a particular person(s) who identifies themself with emergent movement than to say that 'emergent church is false doctrine'. Your characterization is too broad and as such is simply not sensical in that there is no such thing as 'emergent church doctrine' per se. To say so is akin to saying "the statement of faith of Burger King is false doctrine", there is no such thing.