Logan City, Queensland, Australia
| Scary quotes from the Emergent Church|
[i]Critical towards supposed modernist influences upon contemporary churches[/i]
"We see modernity with its absolutism's and colonialism's and totalitarianism as a kind of static dream, a desire to abide in timeless abstractions and extract humanity from the ongoing flow of history and emergence, a naïve hope to make now the end of history (which actually sounds either like a kind of death wish or millennialism). In Christian theology, this anti-emergent thinking is expressed in systematic theologies that claim (overtly, covertly, or unconsciously) to have final orthodoxy nailed down, freeze-dried, and shrink-wrapped forever." [b]Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, pg 286[/b]
[i]Relativistic view towards theology and doctrine[/i]
Because theology is connected to real life, answering particular questions, concerns and opportunities of the day, it will be ever-changing. If it is not so, then it may well not be theology - it may be dogma, history, or a collection of random facts, but not theology. Theology is the living understanding of the story of God in play with the story of our lives. [b] Doug Paget, Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five views. Pg 121[/b]
"Ask me if Christianity (my version of it, yours, the Pope's, whoever's) is orthodox, meaning true, and here's my honest answer: a little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian understanding of the world and God, Christian opinions on soul, text, and culture I'd have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open! To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall." [b] Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 293[/b]
I am learning that my tradition includes the rabbis and reformers and revolutionaries and monks and nuns and pastors and writers and philosophers and artists and every person everywhere who has asked big questions of a big God [b]Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, Rob Bell, p. 14.[/b]
(Except for very few exceptions, rabbis do not embrace the biblical gospel, and neither do most
monks and nuns. The great majority of monks and nuns throughout church history have fought against justification by faith alone. Rob Bell either has an extremely naïve view of Church history, or else he believes that people can be a part of Gods Kingdom who do not believe the biblical gospel.)
[i]Denial of the Bibles sufficiency and clarity[/i]
Everybodys interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective.
Several years ago I was an intense meeting with our churchs leaders in which we were discussing several passages in the Bible. One of the leaders was sharing her journey in trying to understand what the Bible teaches about the issue at hand and said something like this: Ive spent a great deal of time studying the issue. Ive read what people on one side say, and Ive read what the people on the other side say. Ive read the scholars and theologians and all sorts of others on this subject. But then, in the end, I decided to go back to the Bible and just take it for what it says.
What was she really saying?
Now please understand that this way of thinking is prevalent in a lot of Christian churches, so I dont mean to single her out. But this view of the bible is warped and toxic, to say the least. The assumption is that there is a way to read the Bible that is agenda and perspective free. As if all these other people have their opinions and biases, but some are able to just read it for what is says.
Think about that for a moment: This perspective is claiming that a person can simply read the Bible and do what it says unaffected by outside influences.
But lets be honest. When you hear people say that they are just going to tell you what the Bible says, it is not true. [b]Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, Rob Bell. Pg 53.[/b]
How do I know the Bible is always right? And if I am sophisticated enough to realize that I know nothing of the Bible without my own involvement via interpretation, Ill also ask how I know which school, method, or technique of biblical interpretation is right. What makes a good interpretation good? And if an appeal is made to a written standard (book, doctrinal statement, etc.) or to common sense or to scholarly principles of interpretation, the same pesky I who liberated us from the authority of the church will ask, Who sets the standard? Whose common sense? Which scholars and why? Dont all these appeals to authorities and principles outside the Bible actually undermine the claim of ultimate biblical authority? Arent they just the new pope? [b]Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy pg133.[/b]
(How many time have you sat in a small-group Bible study where you open your bible and rather than do a proper exegetical study, the emphasis is What does this verse say to you?, during you all share and hopefully can come up with an interpretation the whole group can agree on?
[i]16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
19And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.[/i] [b]2 Peter 1:16-21[/b]
Scripture on its own trumps any form of subjectivity simply because it has its origins in an objective source. No word of scripture ever came forth from subjective interpretation, and hence neither should it be read.)
[i]Essentials of the Gospel Message openly questioned and denied[/i]
This is one of the huge problems with the traditional understanding of hell, because if the Cross is in line with Jesus' teaching, then I won't say the only and I certainly won't say ... or even the primary or a primary meaning of the Cross ... is that the Kingdom of God doesn't come like the kingdoms of this world by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes thru suffering and willing voluntary sacrifice right? But in an ironic way the doctrine of hell basically says no, that's not really true. At the end God gets his way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination just like every other kingdom does. The Cross isn't the center then, the Cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God. [b]Brian McLaren[/b]
[i]Pluralistic view towards non-Christian beliefs[/i]
We claim the beautiful and the good and the true wherever we find it, because all things are ours. Several years ago, I was hanging around after one of our church services, and a young woman named Yvette walked up to me and told me she had been listening to me for the last few weeks and hated everything I was saying and totally disagreed with my teachings and the whole time she just wanted to stand up on her chair and yell at me.
I immediately liked her.
She went on to say that she was studying witchcraft and was totally opposed to the things she heard me saying.
I responded, But you keep coming back. And then I told her I was thrilled that she kept returning to our gatherings. I hoped that our community would continue to be a safe place for her to question and study and discuss and hear that God loves her just the way she is. [b]Velvet Elvis, pg 89.[/b]
I dont believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, I agree. But frankly, its not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many Christian religious contexts either. [b]Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy pg260.[/b]
So as a Christian, I am free to claim the good, the true, the holy, wherever and whenever I find it. I live with the understanding that truth is bigger than any religion and the world is Gods and everything in it [b]Velvet Elvis p. 80[/b].
(If we follow Robs views out to their logical conclusion, then we ought to embrace "truth" found in the Quran. Why stop there? According to Rob Bell, we ought to embrace "truths" found in the Hindu vedas, and the book of Mormon. Why not? Rob Bell says truth is bigger than any religion. Furthermore, when weighed against the Great Commission, Why bother with missions and evangelism?)
| 2008/5/21 7:26||Profile|
| Re: Scary quotes from the Emergent Church|
"Now please understand that this way of thinking is prevalent in a lot of Christian churches, so I dont mean to single her out. But this view of the bible is warped and toxic, to say the least. The assumption is that there is a way to read the Bible that is agenda and perspective free. As if all these other people have their opinions and biases, but some are able to just read it for what is says. Think about that for a moment: This perspective is claiming that a person can simply read the Bible and do what it says unaffected by outside influences. But lets be honest. When you hear people say that they are just going to tell you what the Bible says, it is not true."
Duh! Imagine the OT prophets taking this attitude after God spoke to them!
These guys are so full of themselves they cannot see the forest for the trees! So wordy, I wonder whether they understand what they say? Or, maybe they are purposely wordy to impress folks, making others believe they actually know what they are talking about! Reminds me what Bro. Jude tells us in verse 16: These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great [i]swelling words[/i], having men's persons in admiration, because of advantage."
| 2008/5/21 8:41||Profile|
WOW! Their ideology is not even subtle.
I agree that we should not make disciples of the 'Christian' religion. That has become a religion like all the others. Rather we seek to make disciples of the the Lord Jesus Christ. He says, "If any man will be my disciple, he must deny himself, take up his cross and follow Me."
But, as far as this stench goes, it is as Isaiah says in the 44th chapter verse 9-20. I will not write it entirely here but rather read for yourselves.
In verse 20 "[i]He feeds on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside. And he cannot deliver himself, nor say, "Is there a lie in my right hand?[/i]"
| 2008/5/21 9:37||Profile|
| Re: Scary quotes from the Emergent Church. Jesus wins.|
I always try to comprehend the [b]how[/b] when trying to comprehend why, when staring into the dark eyes of this sweet faced fairy called emergence.
It's really not emergence at all, but re-emergence would be more appropriate. A great ,great, ancient and great grand-daughter of secular humanism, spitting on the sacrifice of Christ, and the WAY.
I believe the influence of this movement, at least theologically, will be of little, or no consequence in harming the true remnant of Christ, because it is ecumenical in nature. They have no strings to directly bind the strong man,[the true church] only a loosely strung web of the ancient arguments that man is good, and finding god makes him better overall.
The real issue here is experience, for in today's theological thrust, experience trumps theology [doctrine] every time. [to the foolish].I think the strategy here is to lull the church into numbing, sensual and self-seeking experience, only to [b]validate[/b] the experience with the so called theology, if necessary.
It is really no theology at all, but an all encompassing philosophy, a "do as you will", mentality, with jesus thrown in for a little salt, and the liberal, wide open mind set embracing any religion, and their practices, for the pepper. It is displayed in intellectual and complicated terminology on purpose, so that there are no absolutes. You touch it, and like mercury, it squirts away, winking as it glides, onto another crevass or crack....
Apostolic preaching,and holy shepherds in the true church will keep these wolves out, and the true lambs of God will hear His voice and follow Him only. "When I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto me."
We need voices led by God, who can address these issues in [b]simple[/b] terms, so that the youngest can comprehend. Living in a selfish way, and untrusting way unto Jesus alone, will kill you. This is the simple gospel that all of the poor and unlearned of the world [3 billion] can comprehend.
If holiness, and His presence validating that holy church is evident, they will come, and the true prodigal will return.
| 2008/5/21 12:25|
Amen Brothertom. Amen.
| 2008/5/21 12:33||Profile|
It's Christianized New Age. Thats all it is.
| 2008/5/21 12:35|
| Re: new age. same Devil.|
New Age, same anti-christ.
Let us learn to love and stand for the truth, for we are watching the great falling away, as we speak. I want to catch as many as I can, and I know you do too.
| 2008/5/21 12:44|
I think I liked emergent theology better when it was called liberal theology.
| 2008/5/21 13:27||Profile|
Logan City, Queensland, Australia
Here's some stuff from Doug Pagett:
[url=http://podcast.wayofthemasterradio.com/audio/podcasts/1007/WOTMR-10-22-07-Hour1.mp3]Interview on Way of the Master Radio[/url] (keep your ears open to his response to Todd Friel's use of the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics!)
[url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=oVdLZlBYseg]CNN debate between Paget and John Macarthur - "Should Christians do Yoga?"[/url]
Here's one more thing: These Emergent leaders will boast that scripture cannot be interpreted objectively, yet whenever their own work is misquoted and/or taken out of context by critics and reviewers, they are noticably quick to anger. Can anyone see the fallacy?
| 2008/6/12 21:01||Profile|
Interview on Way of the Master Radio (keep your ears open to his response to Todd Friel's use of the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics!) - earlier post
I just listened to his interview.... I don't know what to say. Doug is...... I don't know... Doug...what's his view of salvation??? If it's as unbiblical as his views in this interview...Where does he get this stuff??? i am serious i want to know
| 2008/8/7 17:38||Profile|