Friday, March 02, 2007

"Is the Ancient Church the First Example of Emergent Christianity?"

This is the questioned asked at the 16th Annual Wheaton Theology Conference.

This is a perfect example of more Emergent infiltration:

"This year’s conference is intended as a time of reflection on how the modern church might learn from the life and practice of the early church. This concern is a central concern of the Emergent Church. So, while this is not a conference about the Emergent Church, we see Tony Jones and those involved in the movement as valuable conversation partners from whom we can learn a great deal as we reflect together on the resources offered by the ancient church."

"One of the most promising developments among evangelical Protestants is the recent “discovery” of the rich biblical, spiritual, and theological treasures to be found within the early church. We are witnessing a renewed enthusiasm to reach back behind the European Enlightenment for patterns and models of how to faithfully read Scripture, worship, and engage a religiously diverse culture. The Wheaton Theology Conference for 2007 seeks to enrich this conversation by focusing upon the life and thought of the ancient church with a view toward the future of contemporary Christian life and witness. We shall focus attention upon the questions that ask, for instance, is the ancient church the first example of emergent Christianity? How do we appropriate the riches of the ancient church in a way that is both faithful to its own world and relevant to ours? In what ways do the ancient practices of spiritual life and devotion inform and sustain a vital contemporary spirituality and practice of reading the Bible? What does the emergent Christianity hope to find in the ancient faith and how does it represent a vital catalyst to the development of faithful community and witness?" (emphasis mine)

Is there anyplace safe anymore?

22 Comments:

Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Kenny,
Sad. I have an ex-student who goes there and he says some of the students are into the Emergent. Robert Webber use to teach there and he is a full blown Emergent heretic who makes fun of the literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic and any attempt to find authorial intent.

In Christ,
Phil.

10:59 AM  
Blogger tony said...

good to hear from you again, kenny.

:-)

Tony

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony (Jones I believe),

This is Keith here, Kenny's twin brother.

I'm sure you're a nice person and easy to get along with. But I see a split coming in the evangelical church in America. Don't you?

I believe this is a bad thing. I also believe that you and Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and Tony Campolo and others in this movement will be responsible for this division. Doesn't that bother you?

Haven't you heard the interview that Phil Johnson had with John MacArthur about the Emergent Church? You need to stop leading this movement.

-Keith

2:42 PM  
Blogger tony said...

Hey Keith, great to hear form you. No, there is no split coming. The evangelical church in America is a very diverse entity, and it always has been. And, across the landscape of evangelicalism, a small minority would embrace John MacArthur as their spokesperson. You may not like to hear it, but MacArthur is on the far right of the movement -- evangelical is a spectrum, not a left vs. right thing.

BTW, I'd like you to find one place where I have ever referred to myself as an evangelical.

Peace to you.

5:33 PM  
Blogger Hank said...

The saddest thing I saw in this article was what missing. I never saw the name of Jesus once and yet if I am to address the central concern of the early Church it was to place Christ at the center of it all. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind there is no Christianity without Christ at its center and needs of man can not and must not be the reason to evangelize. One can not for the sake of convenience assume he can alter God's prescriptions for man by an incorrect understanding of who man or who God is. Our understanding of theology or doctrine is not what saves the soul. The finished work of Christ is and what is sadly missing so often in the realization that God can not and does not lie nor can He do wrong. Sometimes I believe in the rhetoric I hear a confusion of what is of man, ie. European history or any history and what is of God, Scripture. I do believe the debater must center of why Scripture as apposed to mans' opinions.

6:19 AM  
Blogger DennisS said...

As I look at the other questions included, it seems an over-reaction to jump out against something just because it has the name "emergent" in the conversation.

I don't read what was posted as saying the early Church was emergent, but they are asking the question of how we are similar and how we are different from the first generation in the Church.

The Church isn't static, but is continuously being formed, and reformed. We will always have people calling us back to our roots, and we will always have people calling us to be incarnational - to be Good News to the people of this time and place. There will always be some who put emphasis on Mt. 28, and some who will emphasize Acts 2.

That which disturbs me the most is when we compartmentalize our faith. We might be hospitable and loving to those outside the faith, but once they join the church then the tables are turned and they are put on the defensive.

I see emergent as stretching the Church. Time will tell if those in this movement will have an impact on Christianity.

Look at it this way - If the RCC had listened to Luther, rather than considering him a heretic, he wouldn't have begun the reformation. But the Church was so smug in how it handled that situation. We are in danger of doing the same thing.

So, don't automatically write off everything that includes the word "emergent", and it just might be that we learn something and even change a bit in order to fulfill the Great Commission.

5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Denniss,
Your comparison of the RCC to Luther and the Church to the emergent "church" is right if the emergent church is the RCC and the Church is Luther.
But I don't think that is where you are coming from.

11:39 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Dennis,
There are three real problems with what you said.

First, you said, "I don't read what was posted as saying the early Church was emergent..."

ANSWER: No, they didn't say so, but why the question. If you know your Bible and you understand even the basics of the Emergent you will know the two contradict.
The refusal of the Emergent to be bound by Scripture makes it heretical, no matter what their current doctrinal leanings are at any one point in time.

Second, you said, "The Church isn't static, but is continuously being formed, and reformed."

ANSWER: Yes, and no. Yes, the church changes and sometimes has to be reformed. No, that isn't good. What you miss is the fact that truth does not change. When the church changes it is either changing toward or away from the truth. Change in the church is a sign of ill healt. Change toward the truth is recovery. Change away from it is illness coming on. The healthy church is static in doctrine.

Third, you said, "...it just might be that we learn something and even change a bit in order to fulfill the Great Commission."

ANSWER: This is wrong in two ways. First, read the great commission. It has a clause in there in verse 19 that says, "...teaching them to do all things I commanded you..." Not exactly the Emergent model. The Emergent model unhooks from biblical commandment.

Second, the great commission is not being carried out because no one is witnessing. Paul said folks get saved by hearing the gopsel, not by being relevant. The Great Evangelical Lie is that the Great Commission is not being carried out because we are not like the world. The Bible says it is for lack of workers.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

2:53 PM  
Blogger DennisS said...

Thank you for the response, Phil.

In regard to the Great Commission: You mention an "Emergent Model". What do you understand to be the Emergent Model? I'm thinking it would be very helpful to the discussion to have some kind of basis or agreement as to what Emergent really is. Is there a previous post somewhere on this blog?

In regard to the second objection related to the Great Commission: We might agree - though we say things differently.

Yes, it is the Gospel message - not "relevancy" which leads to salvation. What happens in the event that you are sitting next to a person who only speaks Chinese, and you are witnessing to this person in English? Have they received the Gospel message by what you shared?

No. They didn't understand one word of what you said. If they received the Gospel message, it was through the work of the Holy Spirit - and that is truly the same way they receive faith - even if it was an English speaking person.

The point I really want to make here is that sometimes it is necessary to speak the language of the other person. This might mean that for the Gospel to be truly heard, you need to be able to bench press 400 pounds. It might mean that you are willing and able to drive a tractor, or a motorcycle, or a camper. It might mean that you need to be able to speak Mandarin.

If you are willing to do this to win a brother or sister to Christ, aren't you actually being "relevant"?

I'm saying that being able to present the Gospel in understandable terms might be something that you do in order to feel good about yourself. But what if you were challenged to reach a bunch of people different than you?

I'm not suggesting that we must be all things to all people - that we would need to take up drugs in order to be heard - obviously that would be a contrary message (becoming a drug addict) to the Gospel.

I am suggesting that for some people you must have their respect and attention before they will give a serious listen to the message you bring.

I'm suggesting that people aren't going to be automatically attracted to our message because of the way we live. They may have made a conscious choice to live another way, or they may be following a certain crowd. But we need a connection with them before we can be heard, and through those words that the Word is received.

5:49 PM  
Blogger DennisS said...

Phil, you said -

When the church changes it is either changing toward or away from the truth. Change in the church is a sign of ill healt. Change toward the truth is recovery. Change away from it is illness coming on. The healthy church is static in doctrine.

Change is a sign of ill health in the Church?

Again, we might agree, but perhaps we say things differently. The Church is the people - which includes individuals who are brought into the fold, grow in faith, and physically die. Thus, the Church is constantly changing. In this, I am speaking of the visible Church.

If we look at this in the spiritual realm, perhaps the Church is relatively consistent - but I don't know that we can claim that unchanging doctrine is necessary for the health of the Church. Maybe I'm looking too far into the past, but I see significant change in the first few hundred years of Christianity. It took a while to establish the creeds and the canon of scripture.

If we assume that the Holy Spirit is not active today, then truly we must remain static in doctrine. But I believe it is possible for new revelation. I understand that it will not contradict Scripture. I'm simply saying I believe it possible that to be faithful our grasp of doctrine may change a bit.

Maybe you think I'm too open to the work of the Holy Spirit, and the possibility of what God may be seeking to have us understand in this time and place?

6:26 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Denniss,
If my neighbor speaks Chinese, I'll get an interpretter. Until then, I'll just keep speaking the gospel.

Phil.

9:58 AM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Denniss,
You said, "If we assume that the Holy Spirit is not active today, then truly we must remain static in doctrine. But I believe it is possible for new revelation. I understand that it will not contradict Scripture."

Actually, any new doctrine will contradict the Scripture simply because it is new. I Cor. 15:1 "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you redeived, in which also you stand..."

Jude 3 "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints."

II Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching , for reproof, for correctionc, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work."

The Scripture says it is all we need and it says the gospel is static. If someone brings a new doctrine, we are to shun him/her, according to II John 10-11.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

10:24 AM  
Blogger DennisS said...

Phil - Thank you for your patience and persistence - as well your way of being direct without being rude.

You say - "If my neighbor speaks Chinese, I'll get an interpretter. Until then, I'll just keep speaking the gospel."

Using this analogy then, couldn't we see the emergent folks as a translator? Maybe they speak with watered down milk. But won't some people seek more and better milk, and then go after the meat?

Perhaps we could look at emergent as somewhat of a Kindergarten. They teach the basics of what it means to be in school. Sometimes we must listen, and not talk whenever we want. We hang up our coats here. Listen to this story. Okay, time for naps.

Mark 9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us. 41 For truly I tell you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ will by no means lose the reward.

I see emergent as going after folks who wouldn't step back into my congregation after the first time. I don't see us as in competition. When folks are ready, perhaps they will seek out your finishing school.

11:24 AM  
Blogger DennisS said...

In regard to changing doctrine...

We may be speaking past each other a bit. I'm looking at the edges of doctrine - not the core, that of "first importance...that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures...If Christ has not been raised, your faith is fuile and you are still in your sins..." (1Cor 15:3-4, 17).

If we rely on our ability to receive, understand, and transmit doctrine, then it will likely be imperfect. We must rely upon the Holy Spirit to effect and affect our belief and faith. What I'm speaking of is grace. God uses our imperfect attempts to achieve His perfect will.

It's not quite the same thing, but a little later in 1Cor. 15 there is the analogy of the grain. It is perishable, sown in dishonor and weakness. Yet it is raised in glory and power into the imperishable.

Isn't it faith in Jesus Christ (resurrected & atoning for our sins) which is required for salvation? Has emergent done away with this core?

The frequency of sacraments, number of sacraments, belief in transubstantiation or that it is only a remembrance, using musical instruments or not, buildings or not, multi-media or not, meditating or not, wearing clothes or not, etc - Will any of these items keep a believer from salvation?

We have got to rely upon God's grace - not on our man-made understandings (and misunderstandings).

We dare not teach another (core) doctrine. Yet how it is understood and lived out may change ever-so-slightly over time. The doctrine of the Trinity varies from place to place and time to time. Is the filioque clause an issue of salvation? Certainly it is an issue of doctrine, and doctrine does change in the Church - ever-so-slightly over time.

I don't know your understanding of what emergent says or does, so perhaps I shouldn't be posting here. What I've seen does seem orthodox on core undertandings of what is necessary for salvation.

12:08 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Denniss,
You said, "Using this analogy then, couldn't we see the emergent folks as a translator?"

No, it wasn't analogy. It was irony meant literally. All the Emergents I know understand English just fine. Just go evangelize them. Their rejection will not be for lack of understanding. It will be because they do understand it and don't like it.

As to the Emergent, I don't use them at all. I evangelize them. They are not Christians. I will give this caveat. It is possible for someone to be in both camps because of unclear thinking or simply not yet realizing the difference between Christianity and the Emergent. But once that difference is understood, one is left with a choice. "Believe and repent" contradicts, "we don't really believe too much at all because that would be arrogant." Which one will you follow? Emergent Christian is like Socialist Businessman.

And incidentally, I have found that once someone has gone into the Emergent, they are pretty much damned. They seldom repent and believe the gospel. It just doesn't work to put someone into heresy and then try to move them over to the truth. You're converting them twice.

If you think I'm being too simplistic, read the Great Commission. It has one command with three modifiers on how to carry out that command. The command is to "make disciples" of all people groups. The modifiers explaining how to do that are these: 1. "Go." Well, if America is the target, we're here. Just go next door and tell the gospel. 2. "Baptize." So go and let your hearers know about all the requirements of the gospel. Tell them to repent and be baptized. (Faith makes for action.) 3. "Teaching them to do all the things I commanded you." Again, teach them.

Notice all that is NOT said about relevance and cultural accommodation. We are only told to make disciples in all the groups. Those new disciples know their own culture just fine.

Here is the core of the Emergent: Postmodernism. There is either no absolute truth or we cannot know it or it makes little different.

Brian McLaren has denied the substitutionary atonement, eternal hell, and the exclusivity of the cross. And he says we can't be sure homosexuality is wrong. Donald Miller has said that any insistence on believing certain things is "heresy." John H. Armstrong denies that we can be certain of doctrine. Leonard Sweet says we can't say the truth, becaue it's personal, not propostitional. Rovert Webber denies that the actual meaning of the Scripture is of any importance.

Interestingly, for just about every instance and author I just cited, you can find in their work the opposite of what I just told you. This is a trick they use. They will state both positions. For instance, Robert Webber did an e-interview on theooze.com. In it he called for biblical worship. Sounds good, huh. BUT in that same article he poo-pooed the idea of using logic and sound historically-informed, linguistically-informed, and culturally-informed hermeutics and exegesis to ascertain the author's intended meaning.

So that is a deception they use that may have confused you.

If you can live with a core like what I just set out for you, you need to ask if you're orthodox. Sorry to be so frank, but these are the facts. Souls are at stake.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

1:50 PM  
Blogger DennisS said...

Phil - I appreciate the way you write clearly and purposely. Your tone is matter of fact, but not condescending. Thank you.

No, I cannot abide with the emergent core as you have defined it - "no absolute truth or we cannot know it or it makes little difference".

I am surprised to learn of what you have written about these leaders - especially Webber. If true (not calling you a liar - just that I would like to check into it further), then I can understand a lack of patience with that which carries the banner of emergent.

5:09 PM  
Blogger DennisS said...

I found this interesting, and don't know where to start in refuting it...

http://www.oldcovenant.com/

Any thoughts? It seems possible to me, but I would certainly have to think about it some more.

5:25 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Well, Denniss, check it out. It is not a good thing. God bless you in your research. Just remember to dig, because these guys are crafty.

In Christ,
Phil.

6:16 PM  
Blogger Marcia said...

Deniss, great series of comments. I especially like this:

it seems an over-reaction to jump out against something just because it has the name "emergent" in the conversation.

Yes, because there is such a broad range there.

10:39 AM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Marcia,
Yes, there is a broad range, but here is my question. Where is there a church that calls itself "Emergent" that is orthodox? I have never found one.

Or where is one person who calls him/herself Emergent and is orthodox? I have never found one.

And finally, even if I can find one person who calls himself "Emergent" and he turns out to be orthodox, why does he call himself "Emergent?" I can call myself Roman Catholic. The problem with that is I am identifying myself and giving approval to a heretical movement.

The Emergent is heretical. If you doubt me, name an Emergent author who is not heretical.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Marcia,
Yes, there is a broad range, but here is my question. Where is there a church that calls itself "Emergent" that is orthodox? I have never found one.

Or where is one person who calls him/herself Emergent and is orthodox? I have never found one.

And finally, even if I can find one person who calls himself "Emergent" and he turns out to be orthodox, why does he call himself "Emergent?" I can call myself Roman Catholic. The problem with that is I am identifying myself and giving approval to a heretical movement.

The Emergent is heretical. If you doubt me, name an Emergent author who is not heretical.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Phil Perkins said...

Marcia,
Yes, there is quite a range in the Emergent. However, I don't think you could name one Emergent author that is orthodox. If so, I'd like to know.

And, that being so why would an orthodox congregation and pastor call themselves after a heretical movement? Why should I just call myself "Roman Catholic?"

Approval of the Emergent is approval of heresy.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

1:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home