• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Are you Emergent?

G

glfredrick

New Member
DaChaser1 said:
Think that the Emergent church is attempting to find a "compromise" bewtween they perceive as conservative/liberal wings in Christiandom...

So they rtry to mediate a stance, but problem is that they do redefine chriatian terms/theology to be "easier' for people to digest, such as eliminating hell pretty much, refinelifestyle choices, and have the bible as saying some good things, but NOT inspired/infallible, so we take out what matters to us, and redefine it when it sounds wrong to us for today!
Click to expand...

Not really... They are actually doing a completely new thing based on THEIR understanding of the Scriptures and ancient church practice, which may or may not fall in line with anything done before. In a sense, they align more closely with the "non-cal" camp than anyone else, save that they also incoroprate a lot of Protestant liberalism, Catholic mystery and sacramentalism, and a heavy dose of new-agey sort of "religiosity" into their practice. Doctrines are "fluid" in that they change according to whom, when, situation thereof, etc., one talks to or observes. In a sense, they are akin to quantum mechanics where quantum forces are said to change merely by observing them. The one most valued prize is utter and complete (Pelagian) libertarian free will, for it is the freedom of the indivual that drives the doctrinal shifts.
 
G

glfredrick

New Member
annsni said:
If the pastor is in jeans, it must be!!!

;)


But then again, it was my friends' church before they moved to Illinois and I know they are solid so.....
Click to expand...

They say the same things about Sojourn, yet most posting against that church could not even fulfill the membership covenant. :thumbsup:

Oh, and the pastor there preaches in blue jeans also, as do I. I am weaning my current congregation off of suits and ties. First, they do NOT do them well (1970s suits are not that attractive) and second, no one that we would potentially attract as future congregants is likely to even own a suit, nor speak Mississippi or Texas (core group who started the church 30 years ago), or care.
 
A

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
glfredrick said:
They say the same things about Sojourn, yet most posting against that church could not even fulfill the membership covenant. :thumbsup:

Oh, and the pastor there preaches in blue jeans also, as do I. I am weaning my current congregation off of suits and ties. First, they do NOT do them well (1970s suits are not that attractive) and second, no one that we would potentially attract as future congregants is likely to even own a suit, nor speak Mississippi or Texas (core group who started the church 30 years ago), or care.
Click to expand...

Yep. Our home campus was suits-only for the pastors. Then it was suits-only for the pastors who had any responsibilities and they could take a step down if they had none that Sunday (either no tie or no jacket). In the summer, the youth pastors could go with no jacket AND no tie. At our campus though, our congregation is more working class guys so we're a little more casual. Hubby wears polos and khakis. We did even have one pastor come out in jeans. :) As long as they are neat and appropriate, I don't care what they wear - just preach the Word!
 
G

glfredrick

New Member
Earth said:
Guy, How would you grade this "Liquid" Church that I previously posted.
Click to expand...

Don't know... I've heard of them but not looked into their doctrines. They could be quite sound or they could be off-the-wall. Can't tell by observation.

I'll look into it, for my own curiosity as much as any other reason -- same with Rob Bell's Mars Hill, which was widely regarded as sound until we discovered otherwise, though some who followed Bell's teachings gave warnings long ago.
 
righteousdude2

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Is this emergent???

Pews filled with Secret Service Saints....

Pews filled with *Lady Clairol Christians (only God knows for sure it they are believers)...


*Lady Clairol used to advertise that their hair color products were so good, only the persons hairdresser knew for sure, if they colored their hair. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
DaChaser1 said:
Think have to realise that the Emergent churches seek to accomodate Christian to a post modern cultutre, so they seek to reinterprete bible based on current contemporary views!

So they tend to "water down" greatly concepts such as jesus ONLY way to be saved, that there is Hell, and that that the Bible infallible inspired word from God!

basically, they seek to rewrite theology based on how they view it would had been down if Bible just wriiten today!
Click to expand...

What is "post modern" culture?
 
Q

quantumfaith

Active Member
glfredrick said:
Not really... They are actually doing a completely new thing based on THEIR understanding of the Scriptures and ancient church practice, which may or may not fall in line with anything done before. In a sense, they align more closely with the "non-cal" camp than anyone else, save that they also incoroprate a lot of Protestant liberalism, Catholic mystery and sacramentalism, and a heavy dose of new-agey sort of "religiosity" into their practice. Doctrines are "fluid" in that they change according to whom, when, situation thereof, etc., one talks to or observes. In a sense, they are akin to quantum mechanics where quantum forces are said to change merely by observing them. The one most valued prize is utter and complete (Pelagian) libertarian free will, for it is the freedom of the indivual that drives the doctrinal shifts.
Click to expand...

You couldn't stand it, could you GL, just had to get that "jab" in. :)
 
G

glfredrick

New Member
quantumfaith said:
You couldn't stand it, could you GL, just had to get that "jab" in. :)
Click to expand...

No, I'm not just jabbing, and I actually thought about that line several times before I clicked submit just because I KNEW it would come back up.

The truth is, that certain tenets of the emerging church ARE IN FACT aligned with certain tenets of the non-cals on this board, whether they know it or not. THAT is why I said what I said.

Quantum, I know that you do not always agree with my doctrine, but by now you should know that I strive to be as accurate in my descriptions of other's doctrines as I can. I have nothing to fear and so I strive to defeat the strawman argument -- on both sides. Truth is God's and I strive for it, even if that means changing my mind, something that I've done multiple times in my life.
 
1

12strings

Active Member
It is true that there are several strands of emerging/emergent churches out there:

-Some see a need to change the methods to fit postmodern times, but stay committed to the message: Sojourn Church, Dan Kimball in CA.

-Some feel that the message itself needs to change: Brian McLaren, Doug Pagit, Rob Bell. It is this group that is mostly connected to emergentvillage and it is this group that is the primary problem.
 
Gold Dragon

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
SolaSaint said:
I heard someon say once that trying to define Emergent is like try to nail jello to the wall. It's all over the place.
Click to expand...

glfredrick said:
i would suggest that none of what you propose above necessarily makes up an emerging church. Additionally, things have changed since 2004 in the movement. Part of being "emergent" is radid change for the sake of change.
Click to expand...

It is true that those four characteristics I picked out are not necessarily reflective of all who identify with the label emerging church. And it is also true that each person or church or identifies with the label "emerging" may have a very different definition of what that means.

It is very similar to the label Baptist. To say that one person or church or convention has exclusive claim on the label and definition of Baptist is obviously not true. And Baptist churches have divided since the 1600s over that very definition and label. Additionally, to judge all Baptist churches based on the weird theologies of a single Baptist teacher is also not fair. So the emerging church, like Baptists and all non-hierarchical Christian groups have a difficulties with definition.

The emerging church is more difficult than baptist churches in this regard because they often choose not to be defined (the idea of conversation). Even the very act of defining something is a very modernist concept. (I'm using modernist here in the usage that emerging church folks tend to think of when they discuss modernism and postmodernism. More below.)

quantumfaith said:
If that is the "defining" criteria, then I am close. Don't understand either, what "postmodern" means. I attend a "contemporary" church. I do see my role as a believer as "missional" where ever I am. I do see "narratives" in scripture, scripture is bigger than both being a narrative and being a set of properties from which to design any systematic theology. Not sure about the "conversation" thingy.
Click to expand...

One of the confusing things is that the terms modern and postmodern have multiple definitions depending on the context you are working in (ie literature, art, philosophy, history, emerging church).

But the usage I have found most common among emerging church circles refers to a general shift in our philosophy of knowledge and authority over the last few centuries.

The paradigm of knowledge and authority most commonly used is pre-modern, modern, post-modern.
1. Pre-modern usually referring to the Middle Ages when tradition and superstition reigned the domains of knowledge, religion and social constructs with religion and Kings holding authority.

2. Modern referring to the period Post-Enlightenment to WWII where science and rationalism ruled knowledge and authority, pushing out tradition and superstition. Scientists as well as corporations and governments who are able to apply scientific knowledge held the authority. This is epitomized in World War II with the atomic bomb being the ultimate symbol of scientific power.

3. Post-modernism refers to the period after modernism which is often associated with disenfranchisement with science, rationalism and their ability to deal with the world's problems. Authority is also seen as more individual and local and has lead to a re-emergence of tradition and superstition. I won't go into the implications of that except in the context of the emerging church.


The emerging church was generally a response out of evangelicalism (there are obviously exceptions) with disenfranchisement with the rigidity of forms of church like organizations structures, worship styles, music, fashion, etc. They are often interested in re/discovering the forms found other traditions in space (other denominations or countries) and time (in history) while also adopting new styles of doing things. However, if it was just about form, I would say they really just evangelical churches with a face-lift.

I think the more profound disenfranchisement of emerging churches is their response to the perceived "modernistic" paradigm of knowing God and the bible found in things such as apologetics, systematic theologies and statements of faith. These things imply that the knowledge of God and the Bible can be encapsulated in a few "scientific" statements and answers handed down from the religious elite of our church/denomination and are closed to differing views on those topics. In contrast, the emerging church values things like conversation with Christians and non-Christians of differing opinions, authentic personal narratives and the Bible as God's story to mankind.

I think there is a tendency for any new group finding their identity to demonize the concepts they are disenfranchised with and that is often expressed as hostility towards "evangelicals" or "conservative-right Christians". I believe this attitude is counter to the original intent of the emerging church but may end up become a defining characteristic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

glfredrick

New Member
Good response, Gold Dragon. But, I think that you left some stuff about the emerging church unsaid -- i.e., their actual doctrinal stance -- and suggesting that because they are post-modern and cannot be pinned down, while true in a meta-narrative sense, is not at all true when it comes to actual practice determined by a belief system. They hold several values (they would reject the word "truths") in common, and those values set them apart as truly emerging versus emerging in apperance and culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top