Emerging Church Debate Casualties

Since last April when I was first introduced to the emerging church, I have read hundreds of pages, engaged in hours of conversation and have built an impressive notebook of material on the emerging church and the missional church.

 

In issues like these that focus on Christian worship and lifestyle, the first casualty seems to be common sense. My definition of “common sense” consists of what people in common would agree on, that which they “sense" as their common, natural understanding. I have found a major lack of common understanding of the issues related to the emerging church and the missional church.

 

Why is this? I think because of a misunderstanding over semantics and the written resources available to us.
The term “emerging” is for me a neutral term, most commonly related to the biological sciences and is descriptive of a process. But in the context of current conversations, this term and all that is associated with it is viewed in one of two ways: a useful ministry tool or a tool of the devil to corrupt Christianity.

 

It is very difficult to have a viable discussion if the individuals engaged in the discussion do not have some common understanding about terminology. This difficulty is made more significant when authors predefine the words, phrases and concepts to be studied in their writings in a manner that favors the conclusion that the authors wish to impress upon the reader.

 

We must find new words or at least come to agreement on what the term “emerging” means. It does not help that there is a formal organization with the name Emergent Village, and that this group represents a distinct set of elements that appear to me to be quite divergent from my Christian beliefs.

 

If we really believe that the emerging church model is a good one for spreading the gospel in today’s culture, why do we allow writers like Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, Tony Snow and many others of the Emergent Village organization to become the principle spokesmen for the model? The emerging church model needs new voices.

 

Meanwhile, the literature from opposition writers warns us of the dangers presented by the Emergent Village writers and speakers and the emerging church model for ministry and the missional church movement. Writers like Ray Youngen, author of A Time of Departing, and Roger Oakland, author of Faith Undone, name individuals who are supportive or at least sympathetic to emerging and missional ministries and are therefore enemies of the gospel.

 

Many of the people mentioned by these writers are familiar to me as writers, speakers and ministers whose works I have read, messages I have listened to and ministries I thought were good. Youngen’s list includes Rick Warren, Max Lucado, Charles Swindoll and Mother Teresa, and Oakland adds Roman Catholicism. Am I so blind to the deception of these people that I could not recognize apostasy right in front of my eyes? There are too many enemies!

 

So what is a solution to this inability to come to consensus on the emerging church and missional church models of ministry?

 

Our response should center on the answer to Jesus’ question to Peter: “Who do you say that I am?” If we lack consensus on this question we can hardly hope for consensus on any other questions about the message of the gospel.
When we move from the individual answer to an answer about how we should do ministry as corporate Mennonite Brethren churches, I propose the following:

 

Let us commit ourselves to preaching and teaching the Scriptures as they are written in the many translations and paraphrases today, obedient to the request of Paul to Timothy: “What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

 

Let us revisit and reaffirm the absolute nonnegotiable truths that we believe define the Christian faith for our house. Let us declare that any departure from these truths does not represent our Christian faith and is to be set aside. The Bible gives clear instructions to enable believers to develop a worldview and lifestyle that is pleasing to God.

 

Robert F. Lewis lives in Reedley, Calif., and is a member of Reedley MB Church.


Posted on Friday, March 6, 2009 by CL Staff Member filed under

4 comments (Add your own)

1. Joyce Creed wrote:
Amen. When we return to God's Word instead of mixing a doctrine compiled from "Christian books", we will regain our vision for who He is and what He calls us to do.

April 7, 2009 @ 9:38 PM

2. Debra Milton wrote:
You can't mix oil with water without separation occuring. Therefore watch as the Body of Christ separates from the Church and chooses to cling to Christ. What made the church ever think it could seek out the sinner and reform them outside their desire to serve Jesus and His word. Why was there a desire to make the truth more palatable and entertaining to the non believer as the lack of truth poisoned the believer. They (Church) sacrificed the believer for the non believer in creating this movement, so let them have it, it's dead any way. Love to all, Debra Milton
"will Jesus find faith on the earth when He returns?"

September 4, 2009 @ 9:10 PM

3. Bonnie Klaassen wrote:
You make this statement, "Many of the people mentioned by these writers are familiar to me as writers, speakers and ministers whose works I have read, messages I have listened to and ministries I thought were good. Youngen’s (sic) list includes Rick Warren, Max Lucado, Charles Swindoll and Mother Teresa, and Oakland adds Roman Catholicism. Am I so blind to the deception of these people that I could not recognize apostasy right in front of my eyes? There are too many enemies!"

My question is this: What if you have not taken the time to do the hours of research that authors like Oakland and Yungen have? I have been studying the "emerging/emergent" movement for almost three years and have come to many of the same conclusions they have. Oakland and Yungen understand that authors, speakers, etc. who endorse those in the emerging/emergent church movement and its proponents are unwittingly leading their readers and listeners into contemplative spirituality (CS), the Trojan Horse of Eastern spirituality. The introduction of CS into the evangelical church was PLANNED by the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue (MID) in the 1970's. If you are willing to do your homework you can find statements verifying this information online on MID's own website. The emerging church is the primary conduit of this mystical spirituality in the evangelical churches. This doesn't mean that everyone reading/listening to them will take the bait, but doesn't it behoove those who have studied the movement to warn believers about the dangers of this movement? We are to have no fellowship with darkness; witness to them, yes, but not fellowship. The associations and promotions of those you have mentioned (Warren, Lucado, etc.)result in spiritually dangerous, and I believe, illegitimate liaisons. This also doesn't mean that these men have erred in other areas of their teaching ministries (most of their teaching is fine, but it only takes a little leaven to leaven the whole lump!.

The emerging/emergent movement has many subgroups or roads, including the theologically conservative but culturally liberal groups. What many fail to recognize is that these roads, if they once were divided, are now once again converging into one. At the least, the thing they all end up having in common is contemplative spirituality or mysticism, since they all promote authors who are contemplative, even those who claim to be theologically conservative (Mark Driscoll, for example).

A return to plain Scripture and the simple way of the cross is a fine antidote to these obscure and nefarious movements. We are commanded in Scripture to test all things. Paul warned the churches over and over again in order to protect them from error. If the emerging/emergent movement is promoting practices that come from outside of Scripture, why are we not examining them more carefully? And why aren't people being warned about the errors in these groups. Have we become spiritual pacifists?

I put forth the challenge to you and all those in positions of spiritual leadership to take your responsibility to protect the flock from wolves and from doctrinal and practical errors (such as contemplative prayer) of the faith seriously. Much of the New Testament is written to warn and protect the flock in order to preserve "the faith once delivered". In our desire to be considered relevant and world-friendly we have failed to do so, putting the flock in grave spiritual danger.

September 22, 2009 @ 6:15 PM

4. Bonnie wrote:
I always try to back up what I say with concrete evidence. From what I understand Driscoll's book "Confessions of a Reformission Rev", reveals a record of his practicing "contemplative disciplines". I have not read the book myself, so maybe someone who has can comment on whether this is true or not. At any rate, Driscoll has a crude and foul mouth and a love of the world, disqualifying him from the ministry. If there is no repentance, it would not surprise me if he begins to make other spiritual compromises in the future, including a tolerance of the erroneous emergent movement.

Further, just as I was writing this I found the following book available on Mars Hill website: "Ancient Disciplines for the Church" by Phyllils Tickle, contemplative and emergent author and speaker:(http://www.marshill.org/cart/index.phpmain_page=product_info&cPath=57_38&products_id=458.

For a plethora of other contemplative spirituality resources at Mars Hill, go to: http://www.marshill.org/teaching/other.php. These include Rob Bell and others. The description of the resources is as such: "Here's something worth checking out from days and years gone by. Below are links to audio files of some of the classic teachings that have helped shape our Mars Hill community." (Source same as previous link). Obviously,by this statement, Mark Driscoll considers these resources valuable formative teaching for his congregation.

For further evidence regarding the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue, you can link to my name and read the post called "My Response to the USMB 'Emerging Church Debate Casualties' Article". Although the MID's first order of business was to reach other "monastics" in their own "Christian"/Catholic faith and other spiritual pagan traditions, their literature and the publication of books by authors (by popular Christian publishing houses) who caught on to the movement have spread this spiritual madness far and wide, including the Christian church and its institutions. If Satan is going to succeed in producing widespread apostasy in the church (the falling away described in the last days in Scripture), what better way could one think of than to introduce a form of meditation/prayer that could fit within every spiritual tradition, and in essence uniting all faiths by producing a worldwide spiritual unity, while enabling people to remain within their own spiritual traditions. It will be a spiritual compromise in its highest and most deceptive form, recreating a postmodern tower of Babel, the prime Scriptural example we have of a worldwide spiritual rebellion against the Most High. Satan is the craftiest of all the creatures God created. We should be so naive to think he is above this type of deception as his "grande finale", knowing his time is running out.

September 24, 2009 @ 10:18 PM

Add a New Comment

Enter the code you see below:
code
 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.