# Is the Emerging movement Christian?



## shackleton (Aug 27, 2007)

Is this even Christian, or just a bunch of man centered people rebeling abainst authority of any kind? Was Jesus the ultimate hippie? Did Christ need to die for anything these people are saying?

http://www.monergism.com/shaping_jesus_into_our_own_ima.php


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 27, 2007)

It seems I recall hearing and seeing much of the same tripe back in the 60s. This is not new.



> All things are wearisome;
> Man is not able to tell it.
> The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
> Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
> ...


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 27, 2007)

This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. 

There were statements made by people showing that they ARE NOT christians. One women even stated that "if Jesus were walking in the flesh, what would Jesus have on his mind.... racism, feeding the masses... these kinds of things." Christ WOULD BE PROCLAIMING HIMSELF WHO IS THE GOSPEL!!!!


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 27, 2007)

Yeah, dudes, the bible isn't, like, stagnant or sumpin' - it, like, changes. Making sure the Bible's authority is never questioned is a real waste of time... ARGH!

The ranks of the false prophets grow yet again.

By the way, do you have to have a tattoo to join one of these 'communities'? That would seem to be the case.

It reminded me of one of the emergent posters from a previous thread: "Who cares whether we know how it's _supposed_ to work? We're going to take a crack at fixing it."


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 27, 2007)

kvanlaan said:


> It reminded me of one of the emergent posters from a previous thread: "Who cares whether we know how it's _supposed_ to work? We're going to take a crack at fixing it."


Exactly. Also, the guy saying what Jesus would be interested in smacks of the "What would Jesus do? I'm pretty sure he'd do the kind of stuff I think is cool." one.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 27, 2007)

Doing Communion like a house party???

I showed this video to my wife and her very first response was, "I'd be afraid of lightning striking or something!"


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 27, 2007)

Emergin*g* = mostly Calvinistic/Reformed theology, contemporary worship

Emergen*t* = the stuff described on this thread


----------



## Ivan (Aug 27, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Emergin*g* = mostly Calvinistic/Reformed theology, contemporary worship



Mostly Calvinistic/Reformed? Really? I'm not being sarcastic. I didn't think "most" were.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 27, 2007)

I wouldn't say mostly. I wouldn't even say a third of emerging churches are Calvinistic.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 27, 2007)

Okay, this may be a stupid question, but I have to know.

What are they supposed to be "emerging" from?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 27, 2007)

Wythe County Calvinist said:


> Okay, this may be a stupid question, but I have to know.
> 
> What are they supposed to be "emerging" from?


Depends on who you ask


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 27, 2007)

wiki - obviously caveat emptor - Driscoll is Calvinistic


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 27, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> wiki - obviously caveat emptor - Driscoll is Calvinistic



Thanks for the link.

But check this out.... They know about us.....



> Critics of the movement are often conservative, evangelical theologians and pastors who disagree with the movement's embrace of postmodernist philosophy, believing such a worldview leads emergents to unorthodox theology, relativism, antinomianism, universalism, and syncretism.



Curses upon Wikipedia. They know about everything - even the Puritian Board.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 27, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> wiki - obviously caveat emptor - Driscoll is Calvinistic


I'm very familiar with Driscoll, however, I'd definitely say that he is the odd one out. He is the only emerging pastor I know of who really uses the emergent/emerging dichotomy (well, him and the guys at the Resurgence blog.)


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 27, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > wiki - obviously caveat emptor - Driscoll is Calvinistic
> ...



oy - I was hoping it would be nice and clear...  - oh, well...


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 27, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > jdlongmire said:
> ...


Don't worry, I'm quite the dullard. I was just reacting to this assertion:



> Emerging = mostly Calvinistic/Reformed theology, contemporary worship



If I missed your point, I'm sorry


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 27, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > Exagorazo said:
> ...



no worries, my brother - my bad - I thought I had it figger'd out!


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 28, 2007)

Driscoll is a high point in the emerging camp? That's sad.

Sorry, after reading selections out of his book and the thread on him and his book a while back (see review here: http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/confessions-of.php) I have no desire to hear, see, or have anything to do with his 'work'. Remember, the quotes from the book are his own words, it is character assassination by his own hand.


----------



## PastorFaulk (Aug 28, 2007)

"I see the bible as changing, I don’t see it as stagnant”


----------



## jawyman (Aug 28, 2007)

It is a shame hippies did not go the way of disco


----------



## Covenant Joel (Aug 28, 2007)

While I am not supporting the Emerging/Emergent movement (indeed, I just read "How (Not) to Speak of God" by Peter Rollins, a new big emerging book, and was thoroughly disturbed), it seems to me that rather than simply mocking their views, we ought to listen to what they have to say and answer them biblically. Additionally, you will find that in the emergent/ing literature, they do raise many good (even necessary) questions that Christians--espeically Reformed Christians--ought to consider. From my limited reading on the subject, I find that Emergent folk are particularly good at pointing out some big problems in modern churches (sometimes even Reformed ones), but they are not so good at giving the right answers. That's where some solid Reformed thinking comes in.


----------



## A5pointer (Aug 28, 2007)

".....every person has the right to speak for God..." sounds familiar. "Each one did what was right in his own eyes" This idea of no dogmatism and the idea of each individual sharing their own(valid) opinion is a well known technique used by large employers to achieve unity and retention. Now the church is using it to the same goal. However this unity is no unity at all.


----------



## tewilder (Aug 28, 2007)

The Emergent movement is one of those things that is destined to split up into opposing groups as people become more aware of the implications and consequences of various ideas and practices.


----------



## goretorade (Aug 28, 2007)

the movement is just the same old liberalism with a new name. Machen's book "Christianity and Liberalism" speaks almost directly to this movement...funny how he wrote this about the liberals in his day.


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Sep 11, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> While I am not supporting the Emerging/Emergent movement (indeed, I just read "How (Not) to Speak of God" by Peter Rollins, a new big emerging book, and was thoroughly disturbed), it seems to me that rather than simply mocking their views, we ought to listen to what they have to say and answer them biblically. Additionally, you will find that in the emergent/ing literature, they do raise many good (even necessary) questions that Christians--espeically Reformed Christians--ought to consider. From my limited reading on the subject, I find that Emergent folk are particularly good at pointing out some big problems in modern churches (sometimes even Reformed ones), but they are not so good at giving the right answers. That's where some solid Reformed thinking comes in.




They are not so good at giving answers because their view of scripture is weak, emerging and emergent alike. Being SBC i was invited to a book study for Pastors at the Associational office and the book by Reggie McNeal "The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church" was presented to us. In 14 Chapters scripture was mentioned one time and that was to criticize how Paul handled things on Mars Hill. They rely largely on philosophy in place of scripture as is seen in the video. They cerrtainly emulate the greeks of pauls time "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Anyone can point out error. Nothing is impressive or valuable about the criticism of the emerging folks.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Sep 11, 2007)

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> They are not so good at giving answers because their view of scripture is weak, emerging and emergent alike. Being SBC i was invited to a book study for Pastors at the Associational office and the book by Reggie McNeal "The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church" was presented to us. In 14 Chapters scripture was mentioned one time and that was to criticize how Paul handled things on Mars Hill. They rely largely on philosophy in place of scripture as is seen in the video. They cerrtainly emulate the greeks of pauls time "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
> 
> Anyone can point out error. Nothing is impressive or valuable about the criticism of the emerging folks.



I don't disagree about them. I agree that they focus on philosophy too much. I agree that they have a low view of Scripture (generally, as a "conversation," though there do seem to be pastors/people in the movement who do have a stronger view of Scripture). 

But I disagree that we just categorize them as unimpressive=ignorable. They criticize some things that perhaps Reformed folk should work on. But again...is that enough? No. Should we hear what they have to say and then come at from a robust Biblical, Reformed worldview? Yes.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 11, 2007)

2 Tim 4:2 said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> > While I am not supporting the Emerging/Emergent movement (indeed, I just read "How (Not) to Speak of God" by Peter Rollins, a new big emerging book, and was thoroughly disturbed), it seems to me that rather than simply mocking their views, we ought to listen to what they have to say and answer them biblically. Additionally, you will find that in the emergent/ing literature, they do raise many good (even necessary) questions that Christians--espeically Reformed Christians--ought to consider. From my limited reading on the subject, I find that Emergent folk are particularly good at pointing out some big problems in modern churches (sometimes even Reformed ones), but they are not so good at giving the right answers. That's where some solid Reformed thinking comes in.
> ...


Ken Silva has some extensive critiques of the Emergent church movement here: 

Apprising Ministries: Emergent Church Archive


----------



## No Longer A Libertine (Sep 11, 2007)

There are Christians seduced by the movements self-proclaimed "good intentions" and "accessibility" but the movement itself is not of the gospel, does seldom teach the gospel and is regretably overwhelmed by men who know not the gospel so the fruits are case by case but rarely have they produced sound biblical results.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 11, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Okay, this may be a stupid question, but I have to know.
> 
> What are they supposed to be "emerging" from?



Enlightenment epistemology.


----------



## B.J. (Sep 11, 2007)

*Just a little rant on Emergent freaks*

In my experience with Emergent/Emerging guys, which is limited, they seem to think that unbelievers today are somehow different than say the Greeks in Acts 17. They abandon almost any notion of an Antithesis in exchange for "story telling."

I personally think the only difference between being Emerging and Emergent is that those who are Emerging are not tough minded. They stop short. They should be emergent. 


Does thjis seem strang eto anyone else when someone says," you need to be missional." What?! Where does this word come from. Or incarnational.......When you read wha tit menas to be missional you will learn that Emerging guys think that the so called Post Modern society should be reached in manner different than Paul at Mars Hill. It comes from a lack of knowledge in the History of Philosophy. They think Post Modernism is something new. Its ancient Greek skepticism plain and simple. How did Paul address skepticism? Did he play pattie cake-pattie cake bakers man with unbelievers? NO! He told them how it was, and they hated him for it. And whatda you know.....Thats the same thing that happend to Jesus.




I have little patients for these "Christian" deconstructionist.


----------

