The emerging church
 I
call it “The Lite, Bibleless, Non-Offensive, Non-Controversial,
Doctrine-Free, Buffet Church — Everything You
Ever Wanted In Religion And Less”. What this describes
is the current cutting-edge philosophy in western religious
thought, and it is having a hay-day among some former
evangelicals and new converts looking for a nicer and
less offensive gospel. It is called “The Emerging
Church” and is basically stale, warmed-over multi-cultural
religion that would make Norman Vincent Peale and Robert
Schuller proud.
While doing the background reading
for this article I came across some interesting descriptions
and comments about the emerging church movement. Reading
most of them was like reading an extremely wordy and
complex description of a very simple process. Emerging
church adherents use words that are hardly ever used
in common speech, so we are forced to read between the
lines in order to understand what ever it is they are
trying to say. But, even the fancy-schmancy wording
can not hide the truth from one who knows the Bible
— the emerging church movement is heretical, plain
and simple. Sort of like trying to camouflage the sight
and smell of a hog pen with silk flowers and dollar-a-gallon
perfume. It won’t work.
The following is a description of the
emerging church movement word for word:
“Proponents of the emerging
church movement embrace postmodern epistemology and
values. They seek to de- construct and reconstruct
Christianity in order to engage post-Christian Western
culture in a two-way conversa- tion rather than proclaim
a message that is alien to that culture.” Did
you like that?
How about this: “Proponents of the movement
advocate ecumenical, non-dogmatic view of doctrine
in which they embrace a continual reexamination of
and flexible approach to theology which causes them
to see faith as a journey rather than a destination.
Emergents claim to hold in tension even radical differences
in doctrines and morals...Emerging church participants
are thus true to the social constructs of their local
narratives rather than to any absolute, ahistorical,
cross-cultural authority.”
In case you are wondering, this theo-babble is from
the on-line Wikipedia Encyclopedia on the subject of
“The Emerging Church”.
No doubt most of us can read this and
figure out what is being said, but we might ask why
do they not speak in plain language about who they are
what they believe? One reason is they wish to sound
very refined and stylish because they understand basic
religious marketing techniques. They know quite a number
of “seekers” out there are interested in
a certain level of sophistication in a church, and they
make their choice based upon who attends, where they
live, etc. “Emergents”, as they are called,
understand if they are going to reach the “beautiful
people” they must get rid of bloody crosses, broken
and contrite hearts and all that other stuff that goes
with gut-level repentance and sorrow for sin. The only
emotion they want to see in the assembly is when people
joyfully greet each other and talk about portfolios,
politics and vacations. You see, tears of contrition,
public rededications and especially public immersions
(baptisms) are too passé. Emergent sermons are
inoffensive, politely delivered and leave people with
a glowing sense of “Yep, I’m doing it right.
Isn’t God glad to have me!” Jeremiah, Amos,
John the Baptizer, Jesus, Paul, Jonathan Edwards, etc.,
would be totally out of place in an emergent church.
A second reason they blunt the sharp
edges of their heresy by using this kind of jabbering
nonsense is they understand most people are so spiritually
shallow they would not even attempt at getting beyond
the icing to see what is really in the cake. Noble Bereans
(Acts 17:10,11) are never found in emergent churches.
It is amazing how many church-goers are present on Sunday
mornings for the sole purpose of fulfilling what they
see as a religious obligation. What is said from pulpits
is unimportant — “...just check my name
as being present and let me go home…after, of
course, I confirm the tee time with my friends.”
The word “heresy” has been
mentioned a couple times. What does that mean in context
of the emerging church? Three overlapping eras of time
must be understood first. These definitions are somewhat
broad for the purpose of this article. Modernism:
period from about 1850 to 1950 when man thought he had
the answers to the questions and, because of growing
technology, did not need God. Post modernism:
when man lost faith in technology and leaned toward
“feel good” philosophy and socialism. (The
hippie movement of the ’60s grew out of this era.)
Post-Christian: from about the 1920s when the
biblical worldview began to be replaced with the secular
worldview. The secular worldview is essentially humanism
plus multiculturalism which means everything is relative
to everything else and there are no absolutes to be
found anywhere. This is precisely where our world is
today. Evolution was tailor-made for this era.
Basically, biblical heresy is any doctrine
that is not from God, and God’s sole written revelation
of Himself is the Bible. Beginning with the modern period
the higher critics have done everything from placing
the Bible in doubt to outright rejection. In a nutshell
these three eras give us a broad view of the whole process
of rejecting God.
They seek to de-construct and re-construct
Christianity in order to engage post-Christian Western
culture in a two-way conversation rather than proclaim
a message that is alien to that culture.
The Bible is the word of God, and no
man has the right or authority to add or remove anything
from it (Revelation 22:18,19). Emergent churches do
just that in order to make the Bible more palatable
to those offended by the truth. In this way, you see,
people can get religion with multi-cultural affirmation.
Powerfully proclaimed truth with accompanying Holy Spirit
conviction are left out. Too crude and unrefined, of
course.
Emerging churches accept about anybody
with about any religious belief system. Doctrine is
meaningless to emergents because they believe most all
moral and religious systems have equal value and truth.
When they talk about a “two-way conversation”
they mean that any man can disagree with God and that
God must accept that man’s belief system as a
good, valid and perfectly acceptable alternative to
biblical truth. God will negotiate truth with humanity
when pigs fly.
Ecumenical and non-dogmatic doctrine...continual
reexamination of and flexible approach to theology.
This means salvation is not exclusive to biblical teaching,
and Christians must not be so unbending and narrow in
their belief of the Bible. In essence they mean what
you believe today might not be what you will believe
tomorrow because “truth” changes. Further,
Christians must be willing to not only consider all
points of view, but to give them spiritual equivalence
with the Bible.
Emergents claim to hold in tension
even radical differences in doctrines and morals...This
takes the above statement to an even lower level. Not
only do emergents give credence to some very outlandish
and heretical doctrines, but their standards of morality
are sometimes no different from those of the world.
Ever been to a Bible study party where along with pool-side
food and a copy of the New Living Bible you will find
booze, bikinis and sexual innuendo everywhere? At these
get-togethers, usually hosted by college-age students
and young couples, you will encounter informal discussions
of “the Bible” by people with slurred speech,
showing lots of cleavage and derrière and enough
hormones flowing to float a ship. If you ask somebody
there why this kind of thing is going on you will probably
be told, “We must make the gospel relevant to
those with no religious background and who would be
terribly offended by Bible doctrine.”
Emerging church participants are
thus true to the social constructs of their local narratives
rather than to any absolute, ahistorical, cross-cultural
authority. This is probably one of the most visible
of the emerging church attributes. Said in plain language,
social customs and inclinations are more important than
God’s absolute authority. Put even more succinctly,
“It’s my life and what I want to do with
my time, talents, money, influence, etc., is of far
greater importance than what God wants to do with them.
All I want is for God to save me then stay out of my
business. And don’t preach to me about it, either!!”
Michael Edward, writing for the emerging
church movement in his article “An
Emerging Christianity” *(cited 11 June 07)
gives clear insight into this emerging church heresy.
He said, “Would it not be a wonderfully inviting
proposition to suggest that God is love and the rest
is mystery? Would that not bring together the atheists,
agnostics, deists and theists into a creative dialogue?”
So, that is it. All we have to do is love everybody
and we will then be able to have “creative dialogue”
(another term for a compromised agreement) with atheists,
etc. I don’t see God going to the table with an
atheist to discuss His position on His existence.
Even more appalling is what Edward
says about what he calls biblical “myths”.
He said, “And what of Jesus? Does Jesus really
stand or fall on whether he was born of a virgin, appeared
in a vision with Moses and Elijah, or physically rose
on the third day? Or were these stories a creative attempt
to help convey the incredible impression that Jesus
made on his followers.” To Mr. Edwards and all
those like him in the emerging church movement or anywhere
else: Yes! It does matter what a person believes about
miracles. In fact, to be extremely clear: a person cannot
be a Christian (and thus go to heaven) if he does not
believe in the virgin birth, transfiguration, bodily
resurrection, etc. Why? If Jesus was not born of a virgin,
transfigured and bodily resurrected then He is not God
in human flesh. That is why. And if someone needs to
ask why that is important then we need to talk face-to-face.
By the way, a bodily resurrection is
the only kind of resurrection possible. Spirits are
not resurrected because spirits do not die. And Jesus
did not appear in a vision with Moses and Elijah...see
Matthew 17:1-8.
What does all this mean? It means we
and our children must be on a short tether to the Bible.
That is the only place where truth is found. Though
they are very real dangers, most Christians do not worry
so much about the influence of satanic cults, the Moonies,
etc., because their heresies are so evident. However,
when it comes to the emergent church and other such
movements we must be extremely vigilant for two major
reasons. First, what is presented for public consumption
looks good, smells good and goes down easily. Second,
and most unfortunately, many Christians have somewhat
of a stunted spiritual maturity and would not recognize
some of these heresies so easily.
As each year goes by it becomes easier
to see how Revelation 17 and 18 will be fulfilled. Things
are looking bad for the world and for those who claim
it as home. But, for those who are here as ambassadors
things are looking good. That is, we are soon to be
recalled by the King. DLM
|
