“What is the emerging/emergent church movement?”
Liberalism repackaged for the current generation of Evangelicals.
What is the emerging/emergent church movement?
_______________________________________________________
Richard Land...
What Glenn Beck did on his stage in DC..
Holding hands with the Islamics and other non-Christian Bible believers..
Whichever one God has planned to emerge.
Maybe I should call fire down on them?
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
“What is the emerging/emergent church movement?”
A good way to empty out a church. Look at the churches where the pews are full and the donations are strong. Chances are it will be a church that preaches traditional theology. Once churches start watering down the doctrine, people stop showing up and stop giving money.
The emerging, or emergent, church movement takes its name from the idea that as culture changes, a new church should emerge in response.
I wonder if someone was also thinking of the philosophical concept of emergence. To philosophical for their own good.
Interesting that the word, Catholic, did not even appear in the article.
As much as the news stories like to downplay the growth in the Catholic Church — I believe it is growing. At least in my area.
Those who are less interested in this author's biases, and instead want to actually understand the thinking behind the emerging church movement, should probably start by reading Donald Miller and Rob Bell.
Forget the mechanics of an emerging church service for the moment, and let's look at the context in which they're operating, as opposed to the context of more traditional denominations.
Traditional denominations are very much rooted in the idea of "Christendom," that large swath of the world in which everybody was Christian and basically believed the same things.
Christendom lasted from about 300-1500 AD. The Reformation, and the wars that followed, split Christendom in two -- there were Protestants and Catholics, both groups claiming the mantle of Christendom, and each viewing the other as heretics or worse.
Nevertheless, if you look at what differentiates one traditional denomination from another, you'll note that it's basically a matter of refinement of some doctrine or other; or some difference in style or emphaisis; or some different theory of church organization. But all denominations are in basic agreement on the Creeds ... and all assume that most people within the culture basically agree on the Creeds as well.
Christendom began to crumble in earnest, in the aftermath of the World Wars. Most of Europe is post-Christian now, and America is headed that direction. Christianity no longer defines the culture here, as it once used to do. Cultural mores are generally defined elsewhere, now.... and promulgated by the entertainment media. Not everybody believes what the Creeds say, and many people are turned off by the church, or it's not relevant to their lives.
All that to say, the underlying assumptions of traditional denominations are no longer true. That doesn't make the traditional denominations non-viable, but it does put them out of step with the unchurched people they want to reach.
In reality, we live in a culture that is much closer to that of the Roman Empire, than that of Christendom.
And the emergent church movement sees today's Christians as being in much the same position as those in the early church. They realize that we, as Christians, cannot assume that the average guy on the street is a Christian, or that he knows anything about what Christianity really is, but he undoubtedly knows a lot of things about Christianity that aren't true.
We understand the vital importance of bringing that guy to Christ. Well ... how do we approach him? How do we teach him what Christianity is really all about?
Do we, by our behavior, demonstrate to him that Christianity is about nothing more than correcting some other denomination's false doctrine, as the author of this piece seems to believe? Or, perhaps traditional denominations somehow lost the point -- which is a big reason why we're now living in a post-Christian culture.
What if, rather than forcing our battles on the guy in the street, we instead meet him where he is? That brings us to the underlying idea of the Emergent Church movement, which might be summarized as follows:
You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39-40)
The Scriptures are wonderful, but what use are they to a guy who doesn't yet care about them? They're not going to bring that guy to Christ. He doesn't care about the Bible, or being a Christian at all; he's even less interested in untangling the finer points of Doctrine. And he's just going to run away from our theological squabbling.
To start with it is sufficient for him to know just one thing: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The emerging church movement no doubt has its doctrinal problems -- as do we all. But they realize something that the author does not: folks can wait to hear about "true doctrine." Right now, that guy on the street is like the Samaritan woman at the well: he just needs to know about Jesus.
What the author calls "watering down" says that he cares more about his own theological battles, than about reaching the guy who knows nothing at all about Jesus Christ.
The Church has been emergent and emerging for 2000 years.