The "emergent church" movement

[Christ_†_Alone]

There is a movement among Christianity – that as of this writing (November 2004) most Christians haven’t even heard of yet. There have been a few prominent publications, pastors and teachers, authors and speakers , that have publicly addressed this movement, and yet it’s still rather unheard of. While I don’t fancy myself a prophetess by any stretch of the imagination, I believe the “unheard of” status of this movement is about to change – by the end of February 2005. Keep reading to see why I say that.

Allow me to give a little background on how I came into this information myself. Our church belongs to the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada . This association puts out a magazine called The Evangelical Baptist, 5 times a year. In the November/December issue, there is an article called The Missional Church

I’d never heard this term before, and that label caught my attention. When I read the preface of the article and saw this: “Mark Naylor turns the traditional understanding of church on its head and challenges Christians to rethink how they do ministry. No doubt he is right, the Canadian public square pays little attention to the evangelical church something many first-century Christians would find curious. These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here (Acts 17:6), sounds very unlike 21st century evangelicalism in Canada. Mark's solutions will seem too radical for some, even contrary to sound biblical exegesis, while others will readily embrace his thesis. Wherever you find yourself on the question, this critically important issue warrants genuine engagement.” It really caught my attention.

As a result of reading this article, and the ensuing discussion about it at the forum provided, I began to do my own research on just exactly what a “missional church” is. As it turns out, a missional church is just another name for an “Emergent church”. While not all churches that call themselves missional, would subscribe to the label emergent - it's interesting to note that the same influences (authors, speakers, pastors, etc.) that have made an impact on missional churches, in many cases are the very same people who are promoting the "Emergent Church". Clearly there is indeed a connection - how deep the connection goes would depend on the church calling itself missional.

So if you’re asking yourself at this point “what in the world is an emergent church?”, allow me to explain, using the movement’s own words. Oh and by the way, they’re not comfortable being called a movement, most prefer to use the term ‘conversation’.


What Do They Believe?

This is where things get a little more complicated. Some of the churches identifying with this movement, appear to be solid, Bible preaching churches - while others are blatantly unBiblical in their theology. While reading through a short list of churches on one list, it didn't make alot of sense to me why the churches that seemed sound, would align themselves with this group at all. With that said:

It’s a bit hard to nail down an exact definition of what these churches hold to, so below is a summary of statements from one pro-emergent site. Important questions to take into consideration, after each statement, in red.

Friendship
We believe that friendships change the world. We believe that Jesus welcomed the original disciples into a warm friendship with himself and one another, and we believe that the church through the centuries has, at its best, been an extension of this friendship through space, time, and transition.



While I have nothing negative to say about friendships, how does the Bible define a friend? Does our friendship with a lost person become jeopardized when we share the gospel with them? Do we risk losing that friendship in order to proclaim the truth of the Bible to them, that they are dead in their trespasses and sins, and if they die that way, they will be eternally condemned, and the only true way to forgiveness and eternal life is through believing on the finished work of the cross of Christ? Do we value friendships with the lost, more than we have a passion for proclaiming the gospel? Does the Bible tell us go and make friends, or go and make disciples? Just some things to think about.



Growing

The spirit of emergent is inclusive. We seek to welcome all those who wish to journey with us and enter into a friendship around our shared mission and vision and voice, expressed in our rule. Emergent is intentionally cross-confessional. We hope to bring together Christians from varied confessions and traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox). In addition, emergent seeks to grow in diversity in terms of race, class, gender, culture, language, nationality, and ministry setting.Believing as we do that national boundaries are becoming less significant, and that global realities are becoming increasingly important to all local faith communities, we believe that our relationships must increasingly bring people together from around the world.



This is (or should be) a large, flapping, snapping, bright red flag, for Christians. This movement is intentionally cross-confessional, aka, 100% ecumenical. Which church is correct? Which confession is Biblical? Apparently it doesn’t matter. If you are identifying with, or aligning yourself with an emergent church, you are placing your stamp of approval, or lending credibility to, the ecumenical teaching that it doesn’t matter what church you’re in, as long as there is plenty of talk about Jesus, the Bible, God & heaven… you’re okay. I wonder where emergent churches draw the line? I do not address this lightly. One of my closest friends for many years, is Orthodox. Friendships aside - the question comes down to this:



If RC and EO are true Biblical churches (and I do not believe they are - a study of church history proves this out, the origins and doctrines of both churches), what about the JW’s and the Mormons? Christadelphians?



While we shouldn’t be seeking to intentionally divide, or be divisive for the sake of being divisive, the Bible is our standard for what is Biblical, and what isn’t. Biblical doctrine divides – it always has. There is one way to the Father, and it is by Christ alone. If any church teaches any other doctrine, they are teaching a false doctrine, a false way.



Generative

The growing friendship that constitutes emergent is more than a matter of valuable interpersonal relationships. This friendship is intended to be generative: to generate new thinking, new art, new dreams, new conversations, new discoveries, new action – in many places and forms, among many people inside of emergent and beyond.



There is certainly nothing wrong with generating new friendships and fresh creativity. At the same time, there is something very wrong with intending to use that approach when it comes to sound Biblical teaching, and preaching. The word of God does not change – it means the exact same thing now, as it did a generation ago, 15 generations ago, and 15 generations into the future. The gospel does not change. The way to eternal life, does not change. GOD does not change. Indeed this is part of the problem with rampant false teachings in such abundance today. The idea that God is doing a new thing, or has a new message that only THIS group of people can understand and grab hold of, is the very thing that many cults are built upon!



Ecc.1: 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.



Missional

The leaders brought together in emergent are missional leaders. The term missional is significant for two reasons. First, it expresses our belief that God intends Christianity to be more than a system of belief or even a way of life. As we understand it, our beliefs are intended to foster a way of life that in turn sends us into the world to serve God and our neighbors, so that God’s will may be done on earth as it is in heaven, and so that God’s kingdom may come. This missional focus on God’s kingdom tells us that the church is never to be the withdrawn or isolated end user of the gospel; rather, we receive the gospel so that we may be equipped and sent into the world to love our neighbors and serve “the least of these.” Second, the term missional implies a narrative way of looking at the Scriptures. In other words, for us, the Bible is not primarily the repository of abstractions or propositions which need to be extracted and systematized from its stories and poetry; rather, we see the Bible as the record of the story of God’s emerging mission in human history. This record conveys the trajectory of God’s work with which we seek to align and into which we seek to invest our lives.



No true believer would have any issue with part 1 of this missional statement. Part 2 however, should trouble any serious student of the Word. I submit a highly respected source definition for what the Scriptures are, and what they are not:



Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.

In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word "evangelical." In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the "solas" of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word "evangelical" has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion of Authority

Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church's life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.

Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church's understanding, nurture and discipline.

Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliches, promises and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God's truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God's provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher's opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God's grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

From: The Cambridge Declaration - A Statement by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals



Christian

Emergent draws leaders together around the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are beginners ourselves – imperfect but growing men and women who are learning to live life with God in the way of Jesus. As our rule makes clear, we represent a generous orthodoxy, rooted in the Scriptures and consistent with the ancient creeds of the church.



Once again, pure ecumenicism – unity at the cost of truth, for the sake of unity. No true believer should desire to have any part of this. This is compromise in it’s most blatant form.

For more information on this, go here: http://members.tripod.com/carla_b/em...ent/index.html

[lionovjudah]

Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.

J.C. RYLE

This in post modernism with a new name. We are in the age of Sentimentalism in our Churchianity world..... WOE, WOE, WOE, WOE, WOE, WOE, WOE!!!!!

If I had to choose between putting a saloon or a liberal church on a corner, I'd choose the saloon every time. People who drink up the pay check in the saloon are less likely to become Pharisees, thinking that they don't need the Great Physician, than those who weekly swill the soporific doctrine of man's goodness. And all of Gods people said ..AMEN!!!

Grace and Peace

Lion

[ashamoun]

Funny you should bring this subject up. I am a fairly new Christian. I grew up in a Catholic home, and it wasn't until I decided to leave the Catholic church for a Protestant Church that I consider my relationship with Christ to have truly begun. I can't believe what I was missing.

That being said, I decided to subscribe to Christianity Today recently. I know that this publication is frowned upon by many conservatives, but I thought it would be a good way to gain general information about items that were effecting Christianity. My first issue was the October issue which had a huge article on the Emergent Church. I couldn't believe what I was reading. The emergent church is not only 100% ecumenical, but the "pastor" they interviewed Biblicaly justified their ecumenical position by citing the Great Commission and their emphasis on missions and outreach. What good is outreach if you don't preach the true Word?? This particular "pastor" also admitted that he didn't accept the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God, but rather a collection of writings by man about God. So to this Church, the Bible is simply a guide book.

Try to find a copy of the October issue of Christianity Today. I will try to dig it up here, but I believe that I discarded my copy. It's a scary read, but something we should all be aware of.

[Christ_†_Alone]

They have plenty on this... read it for yourself: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctm.../emergent.html

[wildboar]

The emergent church movement makes complete sense from an Arminian perspective. If in fact all are capable of believing we ought to market the church in as many ways possible to get as many people into heaven. Unfortunately many Calvinists approach evangelism as if they were Arminians. Maybe this logical conclusion of their methods will cause at least some of them to see the dangers in what they are doing. Unless the Lord builds the church the workers work in vain.

[Brandan Kraft]

Unfortunately many Calvinists approach evangelism as if they were Arminians. Maybe this logical conclusion of their methods will cause at least some of them to see the dangers in what they are doing.

You're right Charles. After coming out of the evangelistic calvinist movement, I can tell you exactly why the "calvinists" approach evangelism as if they were arminianis. It's because they share the same presupposition - they see the Gospel is an "offer" that one can accept or reject. They think all men are in a "savable" state. They're peddlars of the same false gospel.

I'm not opposed evangelism one bit - BIBLICAL evangelism that is. I believe in itinerant preachers spreading the word. I believe in proclaiming all of Scriptures to all men that the Lord sends my way - not as an "offer" - but as a matter of historical record. The Armininan expression, "Let go and let God" comes to mind!" Seriously, Christ will come in power in the life of every one of His elect sheep. All will hear this glorious news, and it will be "glad tidings" for them. Those that don't believe, it is a savor of death unto death. True calvinists and hyper-calvinists can rest in the Sovereignty of God and trust Christ for the increase. It's the reason that true calvinistic and hyper-calvinistic churches are usually small - they're not filled with proseletyzers like you find in the neo/hypo-calvinistic and pelagian churches.

Again, hypos/neos are no different than arminians/pelagians because they share the same assumption that salvation is dependent upon a sinner's "free-will" or "ordained-will" decision. The basis of salvation is faith instead of Christ. Both spring from the same root, and are damnable.

Marc Carpenter is given a lot of heat because he's so hard on arminians and so called "tolerant calvinists". I've found that most "tolerant calvinists" are not genuine believers - not because they are tolerant of some other soteriological position - but because they are truly conditionalists in every sense of the word. I think it's a shame that Mr. Carpenter has made this his hobby horse instead of criticizing the conditionalism found in the neo-calvinistic movement.

Brandan

[ashamoun]

I believe in proclaiming all of Scriptures to all men that the Lord sends my way - not as an "offer" - but as a matter of historical record.
Brandan

How is this different than how an Arminian proclaims the Gospel? I am not challenging you, just looking for more of the distinctions you draw between how/why a calvinisist or arminiast share the Gospel.

[Brandan Kraft]

How is this different than how an Arminian proclaims the Gospel? I am not challenging you, just looking for more of the distinctions you draw between how/why a calvinisist or arminiast share the Gospel.

The Arminian / Free Willer / Pelagian / Modern Calvinist will say to such sinners that Christ died for everyone (frewillism says EVERYONE / Modern Calvinist says sufficient for all efficient for elect) - that God desires everyone to be saved and that today He is sincerely offering you salvation and wants you to be saved if you would only believe. This is a lie and NOT the Gospel.

Classical calvinism and hyper-calvinism teach that the Gospel is a proclamation of the historical facts of Christ's death and resurrection for His SHEEP. That's it! When the sheep hear this news, it is a sweet savor, good news to their ears and they walk away happy and justified as God grants them faith to see that Christ has made satisfaction for them. When the goats hear this news, it is a savor of death unto death. They walk away even further condemned as they scoff and count Christ's blood of the Covenant as nothing.

[wildboar]

A true Calvinist presentation of the Gospel is always God-centered. It tells about what God has done through Christ. Christ died for sinners. God justifies the ungodly.

The Arminian Gospel is man-centered. Christ died for YOU. All YOU have to do is accept him. Christ is knocking on the door of YOUR heart and hoping you'll let him in. Jesus loves YOU and died for YOU. You won't find any of the Arminian statements in Scripture. Paul never says any of these things when he brings the Gospel.

[disciple]

i didn't read all of the posts, but from what i read, it seems that there are a lot of misconceptions about this movement. as i understand it, it is not arminian at all (for it isn't meant to directly address soteriology), but it is basically a realization that the purpose of the church and christians is to reach the lost (i.e., be missional) and an understanding that we do this in a post-modern context. for example a church doesn't fulfill the great commission just because it has a missions program or gives to foreign missions. a church fulfills its mission as it becomes like Christ who loved the unlovely and wanted people to be saved. so basically, it is just helping the flock become missionary minded in their own lives and not just lazily expect someone else to do that job for the church.

many of those writing on this movement seem very deep and thought-provoking. it seems like a restoration of the church to be like Christ.

anyway, here is a link and a book that may provide some help in getting acquainted with this idea:

www.acts29network.org
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

also, i recently went to a conference concerning church planting in urban areas and such. john piper was the speaker. the conference was a real eye-opener for me. the messages will be posted at the following link as they become available:

http://www.reformission.com/

[Brandan Kraft]

i didn't read all of the posts, but from what i read, it seems that there are a lot of misconceptions about this movement. as i understand it, it is not arminian at all (for it isn't meant to directly address soteriology), but it is basically a realization that the purpose of the church and christians is to reach the lost (i.e., be missional).

And that is why I disagree with it! The church does not exist in order to reach the lost. Christ gathers His people into the church. The church exists to meet together and edify one another in worship of the Lord. Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to preaching the Gospel to those that the Spirit leads me and gives me opportunity to speak; but I'm vehemently opposed to modern day proseletyzing and trying to convince people to join a church.

I'm reminded of the Apostles who "preached the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews," (Acts 13:5), at the Areopagus, and at Ephesus, they "disputed daily in the school of one Tyrannus." (Acts 19:9). Wherever God opened a door to proclaim the truth, the Apostles spoke. They answered to no committee, received no directions from a board, not even from a church and didn't have knowledge of stuff like associations, or "movements". They travelled to wherever the Holy Spirit sent them. They went WHEN the Spirit told them to go. And they proclaimed the Gospel to those that the Spirit led them to speak. They wanted to go into Asia, but the Holy Spirit forbade them. No gimmicks were used whatsoever - all of it was the Lord's work.

I'm reminded of Lydia whom The Lord opened her heart. No gimmicks were used by the disciples to convince her of the truth. They didn't try to "meet her needs" and try to convince her to accept the truth so that she would be saved. No sireee, they preached the word and the Lord opened her heart so that she might understand the things spoken of by Paul and she was CONVERTED!

Further, you cannot separate being "missional" from a soteriological perspective. Even going to the website you posted, they have a statement of faith that is inherently soteriological.. - under the heading "Doctrine"

"Salvation (Reformed View)

A person becomes a child of God by trusting Jesus the Messiah to forgive his sins and save him from eternal condemnation and by acknowledging Jesus as his Lord and putting himself under His authority.

God desires a relationship with His creation and mankind specifically. In love, God chose and predestined some to come to a knowledge of Him and have faith in Him so that they might be restored to a proper relationship with Him. Justification and salvation are by faith alone. All those who believe and confess Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord are saved by their faith."

There is a lot wrong in this statement alone - faulty soteriology leads to a faulty understanding of "church" and "missions".

Brandan

[wildboar]

disciple:

As most of you know, I work in a Christian bookstore and so I have come into contact with a good number of these people who are part of the movement. Certainly, I believe people should be concerned for the lost. The problem with the emergent church movement is that it has lost all confidence in the foolishness of preaching. And so people have services where they play video clips and talk about how you can find God in the movies. They bring in couches and practice eastern forms of meditation on some type of visual image. It's pure marketing. It's the same problem that exists with seeker services. They are trying to water down Christianity enough so that they can get people in the building. The question is how much you can water it down before it ceases to be Christian. The fact is that God will gather His people through His means and we don't need to pretend to be wiser than God and try to trick people into coming to church.

[Christ_†_Alone]

i didn't read all of the posts, but from what i read, it seems that there are a lot of misconceptions about this movement.

disciple,

what boar posted in reply was dead on accurate, from all I have studied. There are indeed misconceptions about this movement, and I would strongly encourage anyone involved in it, or considering it, to PLEASE study carefully, the personal beliefs and the teachings of the leaders of it.

I spoke with Steve Camp yesterday about an review he did of Brian McLaren's book A Generous Orthodoxy. For those of you who dont know, McLaren is one of the leaders of emergent. Steve Camp is a musician, fairly well known in the Christian music industry. Whether Steve and I agree 100% on doctrine is neither here nor there, although he does hold strongly to the 5 points, which is good. With Steve's permission, I've posted his review (from his site) onto my site, and I do not think he'd mind if I reposted it here. I'll post the link to his site at the bottom of this article.

Reinventing Calvinism
The Gospel According to Brian McLaren

by Steve Camp

I entitled this article: “Reinventing Calvinism - The Gospel According to Brian McLaren" for he attempts to completely redefine John Calvin's concise theological acrostic T.U.L.I.P. representing the biblical Doctrines of Grace, through the onion skin of his postmodern blended-faith. An appropriate subtitle could have been (please sing alone) “he don’t bring me tulips anymore.”

Brian McLaren is the latest guru of evangelicalism's "search for significance movement" which he and others have coined as “The Emerging Church.” This is the new "flavor of the month" in Christian circles. He is featured currently in the cover article of CT (Christianity Today) on the theme of "The Emergent Mystique." More about Mr. McLaren and what I like to call, “The Submerging Church” later.

Let's begin by taking a walk together through Brian's spiritual garden and see if you can spot "the tulip" among the postmodern hybrids in his "new" (key word in "McLareneeze") kind of being Christian horticulture. He refers to it as the "Church on the Other Side," "A New Kind of Christian," and now "A Generous Orthodoxy." At its roots, there is a seemingly strong foundational influence of Kantianism (Kant coined the phrase ‘categorical imperative’, a test whereby we judge our moral principles at the bar of reason, to see if they are indeed universal rules valid for all people. He discussed questions concerning divine commands, grace, the nature of Christ's redemption, the atonement, and the Church, stressing the primacy of the rational moral judgement and often criticizing, challenging and rewriting traditional doctrines.)

McLaren's brand of Christianity seems to be a blend of several components in varying degree: Kantianism, Open Theism, The New Perspective of Paul, Inclusivism, social activism, an emphasis on "the self" in serving others, with just a touch of biblical truth. Make no mistake about it Mr. McLaren is a smart winsome man, compelling author, gifted communicator, and enticing wordsmith. But what makes this man dangerous is his obvious lack of Scriptural authority and foundation in what he propositions us to believe. His books are really his "therapy"--only he bills us for the time.

Listen, I understand his wanting a different kind of church today. Evangelicalism is in crisis and in no greater place than what's happening in the local church. I alos understand how easily it is to be scarred from a bad local church situation. It can make us all cynical, skeptical, and hopeless in feeling like we will never see real faith lived in a real church environment in our day. Granted. But the solution is not to reinvent the faith, but to reclaim it; and hold the pastors, elders and church leaders accountable to its standard and truth.

Mr.McLaren is not to be taken lightly--his words are smooth and well crafted; but at the same time, he is not to be taken seriously. Why? Again, his words are familiarly vacant of genuine biblical truth and principle. What he represents does sound new--mission accomplished, but sadly, it is not Christianity. (I am not saying these things in a flippant way. I have read several of his books in the last few weeks and multiple articles by him and others in this movement on their various websites.)

Reading "McSharin'" (I call him that for he doesn't communicate truth from a biblical world view, but he likes to emote and share from the well of his own experiences, lost expectations, and personal dreams. That's fine if you're writing fictional novels, but not if you are representing the Lord. Thus the name "McSharin' really seems to fit) resembles the same sensation of having fallen asleep in a meadow of poppy flowers on your way to see the Wizard; waking up only to realize it was just a bad dream after all. He speaks not from the veracity of Scripture (again he seldom mentions or even quotes it), but from the reprocessed pablum of an infantile jaded faith needing maturity, clarity and solidity. Brian was created in the image of God; and now he has returned the favor by recreating God in his own image. In other words, he is a “postmodern babe” in sheep’s clothing.

When it comes to the five points of Calvinism, better known as TULIP, here is Brian’s “Generous Orthodoxy.” (Generous Orthodoxy... translation? he makes up faith as he goes. There are no rules, no models, no denominational walls; no truth constraints; no theological grids; no ecclesiastical structures; no polity; no historic faith; no seemingly observance of hermenuetics for properly interpreting Scripture; no common meta-narratives; and not even any agreed definitions to common biblical terms and truth. It's just him learning, growing, evolving, experiencing, left unfinished kind of Christianity.)

You may review and learn of the original Doctrines of Grace on the main page of AudienceONE. Just click on the "Doctrines of Grace" banner on the right hand column to see what Calvin really wrote and more importantly, biblically meant.

TULIP according to Brian McLaren:
1. Triune Love – Sovereign Judge is too ominous a view of God for McLaren. He says, "God as Judge seems so predominate over all other metaphors, and the divine attribute of sovereign will is favored over all other attributes so that God's relation creation is seen primarily in terms of legal prosection (as judge) and absolute control (as naked will)." None of God's attributes is "metaphor" -they are actual. He is Judge. He is also Sovereign excercising His absolute power, authority and will over all His creatures driven only by His free will, divine purposes and holy pleasure. He does not consult His creatures before He acts--He is no respector of persons.

"McSharin'" prefers the use of “community” in describing the One Triune God: “a Divine community of Father, Son and Spirit." Preexisting in an "eternal, dynamic, glorious and holy fellowship of love.” What? Why not a divine village? A quaint township? A beautiful nook in the eternal woods where they (the Trinity) communed in a gentle mutually beneficial spirit of harmonius love and holy nurturing relationship? See how utterly foolish this is to describe the eternal Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in such sentimental transient terms?

-McLaren's model has no Scriptural support whatsoever. Just as important, McLaren's model offers no transcendence of God. His view of God is way to human. It is arrogant to even assume that any man could know definitively how the Trinity completely functioned in eternity past. Scripture does not say--it remains a glorious mystery.

-But Scripture does say,
"God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day" -Psalm 7:11.

"The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity" -Psalm 5:5.

"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" -John 3:35-36

"As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" -Romans 9:13-15

And praise be to God Scripture also says, "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life" -Titus 3:4-7 (see also Eph. 1:4-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10; Titus 1:1-2; 2 Cor. 13:14)

2. Unselfish Election – McLaren doesn’t believe in a God who elects for “exclusive privilege” or a church that thinks so. He prefers a God who elects primarily for “missional responsibility.” He defines election as “a gift given to some for the benefit of others.” To "be chosen" in his lexicon means to be “blessed to give a blessing; to be enriched to enrich; to be healed to heal; to be taught to teach.” He compares the biblical view of election “like a prominent credit card offers elite privileges to its possessors.” We are to benefit others “unselfishly.” But what McSharin' fails to comprehend, or admits, is that there are elect and non-elect; there are vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath; one is prepared for eternal life, the other prepared for distruction. And in both cases, God will be glorified (cp, Romans 9:13ff).

The doctrine of election properly understood does not make one proud, but humble; does not make one silent, but sharing; does not make one arrogant, but grateful. This doctrine is pride crushing, joy producing, Christ exalting, hope promising truth. Of course we are to faithfully serve one another by the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10) and we are to into all the world and proclaim His gospel of grace: "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness (sorry McLaren) by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30-31, emphasis added). But the primary reason, above all, for our election is for His glory, not our "missional responsibility" in service to others. And that is not selfish- "exclusive privilege..." that is worship!

Here is the balance: "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another" -1 John 4:9-11.

That is why Paul says, "Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" -2 Tim. 2:10

Scripture says,
"just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" -Eph. 1:4-14 (emphasis added).

We are elected by the Father; redeemed by the Son; and sealed with the Holy Spirit for the chief reason for praise of the glory of His grace. Out of that flows a burden for the lost and to share His gospel.

3. Limitless Reconciliation – Not content with the terms or truth behind "particular redemption or limited atonement," he seeks to redefine reconciliation and thus the atonement (under the postmodern banner of what he calls a Reforming Reformed faith) as that which “never isolates the divine from human relational healing...” (more poppies). The emphasis for "McSharin'" is “the others” not God. He says of God: “Because God’s heart moves God to come to us in Christ, as neighbor to all...” God is my neighbor? I don't think so. (This is the gospel according to Mr. Rogers)

Reconciliation is not a biblical term the Scriptures uses in an arbitrary relational sense between people to heal troubled race relations; mend broken marriages; restore fractured church relationships; or settle disputes between others. If used in its biblical context, it speaks of man being reconciled to God. This is salvation. Therefore, the "ministry of reconciliation" that we have been given by the Lord is the proclamation of the gospel--not the rhetoric of a relational seminar.

Scripture says,
"Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" -2 Cor. 5:18-21

4. Inspiring Grace – McSharin' says, “Rather than picturing God’s grace as a dominating, almost mechanistic force that cannot be resisted, a Reforming Reformed faith would view God’s grace as a passionate, powerful, personal desire to shower the beloved with healing and joy and every good thing” (lots more poppies).

Scripture says,
The reason that God's grace cannot be resisted is precisely what makes it grace--it is His unmerited gift to His elect in sslvation (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 2:11). Until we come to know Him we are hopelessly "dead in our trespasses and sins; ...sons of disobedience; ...by nature children of wrath" (Eph. 2:1-3). "No one seeks after God..." (Romans 3:11). We were walking corpses needing regeneration. Salavation is not co-operation with grace--that is Romansitic works righteousness--semi-Pelagianism. A false gospel. Listen, unless God "draws me" to Christ, literally in the Greek "drags me"; I/we have no eternal life. "No man may come to the Me unless the Father draws him." That is grace. Anything less than that is works and not the gospel. McSharin' wants to elevate man to not being completely sinful, not being completely lost, not being completely depraved; but as "almost..." so that grace becomes this "passionate showering" not complete life regeneration. This is nothing less than Arminianism on steroids.

Beloved, read John chapter six-- it is the rich account of God's wonderful divine "dominating, almost mechanistic force [of grace] that cannot be resisted." It is His imposing "grace-centered-eternal-will" on His chosen creatures for new life in Christ Jesus our Lord. And aren't you glad? "We love Him because He first loved us" -1 John 4:19.

5. Passionate, Persistent Saints – In his final attempt to rewrite Calvinism, McLaren defines the perseverance of the saints as a “grim endurance” rather than one of grace-filled obedience--the fruit of regeneration.

Scripture says,
"And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" -1 John 2:28f.

"For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance" -Romans 8:24-25.

Once we are saved then we live by the grace which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (2 Tim. 2:1; Titus 2:12). That same grace that saves us now sanctifies us. But though we do not participate in our salvation, we do in our sanctification. And it is not a grim endurance, but one marked with hope, joy, and promise.

In Conclusion:
The one reoccurring concern in all of McSharin's definitions (frankly in most of his writings) is that he seldom, if ever, mentions any Scriptural context or foundation to declare, defend or define his positions. This is what makes him evasive, slippery, and hard to pin down. He speaks well and appeals through "spiritual language" but not through biblical truth--which to remind you, does not change with the tides and transcends any cultural peculiararities, religious or philosophical movements, or any mystical meanderings one might drift to. Therefore, what are you left with...? his "opinion." Truth in McSharin's world has to be spelled with a small "t" for the message must be free to adapt, change, evolve and become--as with the methods.

Because of this fact there is very little of the "eternal" in McSharin's writings. In his paradigm objective, absolute, immutable truth does not take priority; but rather "conversations" about ones spiritual journey. When you read his "stream of conscience" tomes, it’s almost like you are peeking in on one "pondering" religious things after he's had a "spiritual make-over" with Dr. Phil; or appeared on Oprah to become "healing" for anothers needs; then it's as if he went to a Minirth/Meiers' clinic to obtain some "meds" to help manage his obvious uncontrollable restless inner child; finishing off with an excursion to “The Peter Kreeft Theological School of Mystical Faith and O.B.E. Training Center for the Reinvention of a New Kind of Vintage Christianity.” This is tragic and I want to invite you to pray for him and all associate with him in this "new" movement of The Emerging Church.

We must remain hopeful and positive through the malaise and quagmire of these aberrations representing themselves as biblical Christianity. Truth will always prevail ladies and gentlemen--it always has and always will. Be not afraid. But we must guard the truth, contend for the faith and defend His gospel against all attacks from within or without the church. And may we do it with boldness, love, compassion, grace, and truth.

I will be addressing more about this new leader from “The Submerging Church” movement sweeping under the evangelical rug all across America, in future weeks to come. Until then, always remember: you don't go liberal by reading your Bible--or in McLaren's world, "letting the Bible read you."

Guard the Trust,
Steve
1 Tim. 6:20

(portions of the above quoted from p. 195-197, “a Generous Orthodoxy”, by Brian McLaren, Zondervan, 2004)

http://a1m.org/index.php

[doctr_of_grace]

Carla,

What an amazing display of lack of knowledge and understanding on McLaren part. He like many other "arminians" have missed the point of the Bible completely.

Thanks for showing me the article by Steve Camp. I must concur that this "movement" is just a redressing of postmodernism and a denial of God's sovereign will. If the Gospel is an "offer" and salvation is a "plan" then the power of it belongs to man. If it is something that is granted only from God then it is no longer an offer or a plan.

Yep ... I am amazed and grateful to God for the knowledge and truth that he has bestowed me.

Out for now ... Jan

[disciple]

Certainly, I believe people should be concerned for the lost. The problem with the emergent church movement is that it has lost all confidence in the foolishness of preaching. And so people have services where they play video clips and talk about how you can find God in the movies. They bring in couches and practice eastern forms of meditation on some type of visual image. It's pure marketing. It's the same problem that exists with seeker services. They are trying to water down Christianity enough so that they can get people in the building. The question is how much you can water it down before it ceases to be Christian. The fact is that God will gather His people through His means and we don't need to pretend to be wiser than God and try to trick people into coming to church.

believe me wildboar, i share your concerns. and i despise any form of evangelism and christianity that markets Christ, that waters down the message, and that conforms the gospel to the culture. the seeker sensitive movement results in a terrible perversion of the good news of Christ.

also, my familiarity with all corners (or perhaps even the center) of the movement is very limited (actually, it's nonexistent). i can only attest to that little piece to which i was exposed (to which i provided a link). i know nothing of mclaren or any of the other leaders of the movement so i cannot discuss or defend them (nor would i want to or think that i have to). but that which i am familiar with of the movement (if indeed they really are even advocates of the movement itself...because i don't really know), the major concern seems to be for christians to "become all things to all men to win some." it's not allowing our hangups with nonessential cultural things (music, dress, food, etc.) obscure the message and our love for them. it's avoiding the temptation to convert people to Christ and our particular subculture or tradition (e.g., fundamental Christianity and all its hangups with drinking, dressing, music, etc.).

and the group that put on the conference was very careful to discuss the boundaries in regards to syncretism (dumbing down the message, perverting the gospel by allowing culture to form it, etc.), anti-intellectualism (debunking doctrine), and antinomianism (reacting against legalism). they also said that willow creek was the "dark side." anyway, all that to say that i can only speak to that conference i went to which used such terms as postmodernism, emergent church, etc. so that's all i commented on. just take it with a grain of salt.

[Prakk]

Offhand, they seem to be a little like the "Vineyard" movement or the early "Assemblies of God."

Hugh McBryde

[lionovjudah]

The modern Churchianity of today has the same issues as it always had. Just wearing a different hat. Extremism on either side is perpetrated throughtout the body at large. One camp waters down the Gospel of Christ soo much, Christ is actually not part of it, it is 100% man Centered. Others make the Gospel impoosible to understand. And people like a religion they cannot understand. The Gospel or "Good News" is simple. "Look to me and be saved, I am God and there is no other!" Christ said Himself, He came into the world to seek and save those who are lost. He does the seeking and saving. We tend to argue about "words" Offering Christ as the great Physician is truth. offering Christ dependant upon mans will is false. The emergent church or whatever title we give it has created a churchianity based on survey. Lets give them what they want and have and they will come. I have realized that people end up not coming anyway because we have to give them something they dont have and want. If we look at Peter in Acts 2, we have to notice his "sermon" was nothign of eloquence. No big words, no special doctrines, no survey. I have read many sermons that are "better" than Peters. but what made Peter to differ? Distinguishing grace did. The power of the Spirit was present. These new revivlas, emergent churches, moderninsm are all style and no substance. A buffet table of churchianity. When was the last time any of us have witnessed the power of the Spirit like that? When is the last time any of us have heard throngs of people asking"WHat must I do to be saved?" I have witnessed it once. Just once in 5 years.

Our hope lies in God to dothe gathering and increase... Not some special new way to hawk Christ as hotdogs at a ball game.

God did the Dispersing (Gen 11) God will do the Gathering (Matt 25)

Meeting time

Grace and Peace

Joe

[disciple]

Offhand, they seem to be a little like the "Vineyard" movement or the early "Assemblies of God."

Hugh McBryde

who is they? honestly, i don't think the movement is denominational or monolithic in any sense. perhaps someone has evidence otherwise. if so, let's discuss.

[Prakk]

"They" are the "emergent church" movement as described by the author of this thread in the first several posts. Such movements claim not to be organized, but generally are. They claim not to have doctrines, but generally do. They claim not to be denominational, and pretty much become one. The lack of formal "organization" is the cachet used to attract followers.

Hugh McBryde

[disciple]

"They" are the "emergent church" movement as described by the author of this thread in the first several posts. Such movements claim not to be organized, but generally are. They claim not to have doctrines, but generally do. They claim not to be denominational, and pretty much become one. The lack of formal "organization" is the cachet used to attract followers.

Hugh McBryde

so what denomination is the they? are you proposing that all of them are vineyard or assemblies of God? what would the justification for this be? would you say that this was also true of the link i provided?