The Young and Foolish
I do not know who this guy is but I DO AGREE with his analysis of the Emergent Church.
I am not in 100% agreement with his take on music but he is right on about carnality, rebellion, and what the Emergent Church stands for.
Check it out! He slams Emergent- calls it what it is- Rebellion!
I am not in 100% agreement with his take on music but he is right on about carnality, rebellion, and what the Emergent Church stands for.
Check it out! He slams Emergent- calls it what it is- Rebellion!
posted by kennyo at 10:12 PM
12 Comments:
He is right on !
It is good to someone speak clearly about the emergent false church.
I like that guy. He didn't address the doctrinal specifics, but he really hit two important points hard. He was spot on with the spirit of rebellion and he was spot on to blame the older Christian leaders for not putting a stop to this nonsense we call the Emergent.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Kenny and Keith,
I just remembered. If you read The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus, that is the theme of the book. He doesn't say "Rebel against your fathers and pastors," but pretty close. The whole book is about not letting the older folks "domesticate" you. In fact, on page 28 or 32, he says the gospel is no good because it domesticates you too much.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Absolutely dead-center. He captured the very essence of our postmodern culture which is that right is wrong, wrong is right. When expressed that the Emergents are trying to do church through the flesh, rather than through the spirit, he so accurately analyzed the heart of the problem.
Isn't it neat the way the British can be sarcastic and not sound mean?
He is dead on about the 'foolishness' of the young. I heard a pastor call them the companionship of the foolish.
Lindon,
I particularly liked, no I laughed at him repeatedly saying "young and styoopud...young...styoopud young...styoopud." We Americans would get fried for saying that.
Phil Perkins.
Wait a minute!
Isn't this British guy over 40? He doesn't know anything.
He's a "fundie" (fundamentalist). LOL.
I get the idea that he would be one to keep the children from coming to Jesus.
He sounds a bit like Paul before the confrontation on the road to Damascus..."I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors..." (Gal. 1:14b).
If the "emerging" church has no substance, it will quickly fade. At the moment, it's difficult to pin down what it means to be emerging, or to be emergent. Yet there is a significant element there that we need to hear - and that is authenticity. The message and how we live as Christians must match, or the emerging church will have more than enough gleanings to fuel the movement.
This isn't the 1930's, or even the 1950's. Passively sitting by and being drilled with the doctrine of a previous generation - without speaking to what's important in the context today - well, it's just plain dumb!
I am not suggesting a watering down of Scripture, nor a dumbing down of Worship.
But we can't lump everything called emergent together as if it all is hog-wash. There is some real deep theology and faith in some emergent worship gatherings.
Yes, there is an element of rebellion. But that rebellion is primarily against the passive acceptance of traditional Christian teaching - without actually living it.
We are on the cusp of a spiritual awakening, and emergent is but one small part which is adding fuel to the fire of deep orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The Holy Spirit is moving - will you turn your face away and not be moved (like an old-time windmill which is shut down and unmoving)?
Dennis:
The Emergent Church (EC) movement is mostly a rebellion against God-ordained structures of authority in the church (male authority). In addition, for ones like Rob Bell, Campolo and McLaren, it is a rebellion against the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.
This movement would have been better accepted if it would have respected the leadership that conforms to the criteria written in 1 Timothy 2, 3, Titus 2 and 1 Peter 5. The EC should have, in respect and humble submission, called out unbiblical leadership for what it is. Instead those now involved in this EC movement got mad, took their ball and went home and started their own little way of doing "church". It's cool, hip, rebellious, edgy and just the way they want it.
But the Emergent church too often looks more like what we see in 2 Tim. 3., i.e, lovers of self, proud, boastful, ungrateful, having a form of godliness but denying its power, etc. It also often embraces hollow and deceptive philosophies taken from human tradition and the world's basic principles rather that on Christ (see Colossians 2:8) [And yes, I am rushing to proof-text from scripture.] This is evident in the EC's embrace of contemplative spirituality, being promoted by Richard Foster, Rob Bell, Leonard Sweet and others.
-KCO
If Emergent is primarily a rebellion against males in positions of power, why is it that all the names mentioned are male?
And why just slam Emergent? Why not Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples, etc?
You don't mention Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill.
Do you distinquish between "Emergent" and "Emerging"?
And since we are reading mail from the first century, sent from one person to another person, what are we to do with statements like "I urge...(1Tim 2:1), "I want..." (1Tim. 2:8), "...I do not allow..." (1Tim 2:12), and the like?
Is this a Word from God, or the desires of Paul? Would Paul believe these statements of his were intended for all contexts and all times? This is especially an interesting question since Paul states in 1Cor. 7:12, "To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)..."
It is first person singular which is primarily used in "1 Timothy 2, 3, Titus 2 and 1 Peter 5". In those passages there is no mention of what the "Lord" desires. 1Peter 5 has no mention of subjection of women to men - it's basically only in the "pastoral" epistles credited to Paul.
Suppose we look at Ephesians 4. "The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith..."
Is there any passage which says the saints are only male? Aren't saints intended "for the work of ministry"?
If a woman tells a man about Christ, and the man believes - is he less saved because it was a woman who shared the Good News?
Now, I will grant you this - If men everywhere would live up to their potential in Christ, then there wouldn't be the question of women in ministry. Yet, even if men and women both fail to share the Good News - even then, God is able to raise up the stones to be children of Abraham, the people of God.
Are we to be threatened by the correct teaching of women? If so, why was it that, until I left home, all my Sunday School teachers were women?
Gee Dennis, I'm not sure where to start. Umm, lets see,... Emergent (EC) is a reactionary movement against institutionalized evangelical church authority, which is mostly male led. The EC leaders I mention are all male because all of the leaders are male.
Let's see... I did not slam Emergent. I criticized it for it's error. The other's are in error in some ways, but they do not try to hide their beliefs in clever packaging and tricks designed to lure youngsters unawares. The other denominations you mentioned have been dealt with sufficiently by people like Walter Martin and John MacArthur. You should read some of their writings.
Ken Silva knows a lot about Mark Driscoll. (apprisingministries.org).
Emergent or Emerging, maybe you would like to clarify. Splitting hairs is not my cup of tea.
What we are to do with phrases like "I urge", I want", I do not allow", is to take them very seriously. Especially because it is coming from God's Holy Scriptures as the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to write, in order to let us know TODAY how God's church, His bride, should look, act and live.
This is a word from God given through Paul. The question is better pondered, not in what is the command but what is the principle of the text?
May I skip down to the touchy male/female issue of roles in the church? No where in the scriptures will you find a woman in a permanent spiritual headship position in the church or over the Israelites. No where. At times, women were used in an ad-hoc role as a leader or prophetess or other. Never in headship position. That's all I'm saying. Of course, it would be foolish and "stuuupid" to believe that women have no role in the church or that God rarely uses them to some high divine calling. I do not believe that. I just know that according to the precedents set in scripture, God's desired will is that godly, mature, spiritual MEN lead the church. Not women. Women are to submissive to their husbands in the Lord, or as unto the Lord. The husband is the head of the wife, he is to love her and give himself for her as Christ did the church. Christ is the Head of the husband and Head of the church. Ephesians 5:22-33. (inspired by God, given to Paul, for us today).
Dennis, try and teach this doctrine at your average Emergent type of church setting and just wait for the fireworks before they run you out of town on a rail.
-KCO
I'm not going to be teaching anything "at your average Emergent type of church setting". If it's truly "Liberal" theology in faux wool, then I won't get any closer to it than I am currently.
I've been reading a couple of blogs by those who claim to be emergent/emerging. I've listened to a couple of sermons (one was over an hour long and seemed to have very conservative values and significant preaching in regard to Christ), and I've thumbed through a couple books.
What I've seen is a desire to be authentic - to truly worship God, to put faith in action, to truly love neighbor. Now, truly loving God and neighbor might seem rather Liberal - but it is what Jesus COMMANDED (multiple times in the Gospel of John).
On the other hand, I've seen my denomination continue to decline by trying to do things as they've always been done, and not try to truly reach out to others without quickly judging them (and thus withdrawing the love we are to have toward sinners).
Some people take years to repent. Some need an authentic person they can relate to. Some need someone who speaks the same language - not have meanings which aren't understood clearly.
Rather than anathemitize the EC, why not try to "reverse engineer" it? Then build a better one. Or why not try to redeem it, transforming it - by infiltrating it. For those who have Christianity in our heads, it's hard to deal with settings where they are trying to deal with Christ in the heart. We need a balance, of course, and that is why I don't outright dismiss EC.
The EC, from what I've seen, doesn't really have a hidden doctrine - because it isn't at all a collection of like-minded churches. It has many different expressions, with most all of the theology based upon the beliefs of the lead pastor.
I'm suggesting we learn what we can from EC - because, whether you believe it or not, they have something to teach us. If they can reach the unchurched by meeting in a coffee shop, then great. If they aren't teaching correct doctrine, then help them - in a loving way - to see the error.
I don't like the us vs. them mentality though. Let's seek to redeem - rather than sit back and destroy with words.
I would like to put this into action - especially since EC gatherings generally aren't at regular Sunday morning times - but there aren't any within 2 hours of me.
Post a Comment
<< Home