relientkguy
01-07-2006, 07:10 PM
Hey, I'm back, it's been a while. Like a year.

Ok, so this is something I'm really into. The emergent church. There's a new church movement (seen mostly on the coasts) that really puts an emphesis on the roots of christianity, both in tradition and ideology. If you know anything at all about it, do you think it stacks up spiritually? Also, do you like the idea of a church like that?

I'll hit up a bigger post explaining the emergent church a little later... but if you want to know right now, www.theooze.com is on the forefront of this stuff, and "The Younger Evangelical" is an awesome book on it.

relientkguy
01-07-2006, 07:26 PM
Ok, when writing this second post, I found it really hard to boil down the emergent church to a simple thing that can be explained... books have been written and still haven't totally captured it. But here are the core principles:

1. The emergent church is about sharing responisiblity and growing tight knit communitities. In regard to this, churches often remain small, and when they grow too big, they split and form seperate churches. Church is seen not as a group of individuals, but as one unit, one body of christ. In accordance to this, evangalism is more focused on the body of christ loving one person, not one person trying to convince another.

2. The emergent church is about reviving tradition long ignored. Things like liturgys and creeds are encouraged in the emergent church. Traditions help remind of where the church has been, the history that unites 1st century christians with modern christians. Also, worship (while not ignoring modern worship) focuses on hymns and other classics of the christian faith. Also, there is an emphesis on symbolism.

3.The emergent church is about asking questions and diversity. One of the main themes of the emergent church is that we do not know all the answers, but we're looking. Its about conversation, and talking about God and spiritual things in a normal, relative way. Its about combining people from every walk of life and every manner of upbringing together as one voice. In my opinion, one of the most damaging things to the current church is the segregation. While not official, you see churches that are predominantly one race, and that is a travesty.

4. The emergent church is about meeting emotional and sensory needs. There isn't much to say about this. The church's goal is to not only truly connect people with God and the community, but also to help them feel connected.


Wow, I didn't even scratch the surface, but thats enough for now. Feel free to expand on that.

skilltroks
01-13-2006, 11:36 AM
I go to an emergent/mega church. I find it amazing, and feel like the emergent church is what the Bible is about. [yes, my opinon maybe biased.]

bob
01-13-2006, 11:53 AM
I don't like their doctrine, so, i'm not really into that. I don't find their practice sound and it sounds too ear tingling to me.

skilltroks
01-13-2006, 02:33 PM
Also, Christnity Today has a plethora of articles on the emergent. Go here (http://www.ctlibrary.com/11412) Also, Bob specifically what don't you like about it?

amodman
01-13-2006, 02:55 PM
Ok, when writing this second post, I found it really hard to boil down the emergent church to a simple thing that can be explained... books have been written and still haven't totally captured it. But here are the core principles:

1. The emergent church is about sharing responisiblity and growing tight knit communitities. In regard to this, churches often remain small, and when they grow too big, they split and form seperate churches. Church is seen not as a group of individuals, but as one unit, one body of christ. In accordance to this, evangalism is more focused on the body of christ loving one person, not one person trying to convince another.

2. The emergent church is about reviving tradition long ignored. Things like liturgys and creeds are encouraged in the emergent church. Traditions help remind of where the church has been, the history that unites 1st century christians with modern christians. Also, worship (while not ignoring modern worship) focuses on hymns and other classics of the christian faith. Also, there is an emphesis on symbolism.

3.The emergent church is about asking questions and diversity. One of the main themes of the emergent church is that we do not know all the answers, but we're looking. Its about conversation, and talking about God and spiritual things in a normal, relative way. Its about combining people from every walk of life and every manner of upbringing together as one voice. In my opinion, one of the most damaging things to the current church is the segregation. While not official, you see churches that are predominantly one race, and that is a travesty.

4. The emergent church is about meeting emotional and sensory needs. There isn't much to say about this. The church's goal is to not only truly connect people with God and the community, but also to help them feel connected.


Wow, I didn't even scratch the surface, but thats enough for now. Feel free to expand on that.

There's an incredible amount of thinking that this line of thought is possible to open up and, quite frankly, I don't like where it's going. I don't participate in religion because it's what meets my particular emotional and sensory needs. That sounds entirely humanistic and self-caring, if not evil in it's own right.

This whole we don't know all the answers but do what feels right thing seems like a copout for actually doing what you know is right. In a sense, almost anything can be explained away. It's an easily extreme liberal standpoint on how to serve God.

Furthermore, "reviving tradition long ignored" sounds extremely uninformed and, for lack of a better word (not to rip on any who believe that particular denomination ;) ), methodist (side note, it also sounds contradictory to their following ideas). As long as you follow things in a certain code you're doing it right? Hmmm, sound good to anyone? Especially considering the fact that they, IMO, are only reaching back to the beginning of the organized church. Not exactly, IMO a breeding ground for Godly centered ideas. Pre-uh, "that" is what I'd rather reach back to. You know, the time when believers were literally shaking the ground of every city they resided in. When the disciples of Christ spread the word and miracles were seen every day. This, IMO, just paints a picture of the majority of the church having lost sight of what God is, not to mention incorporated (if unkowingly) many secular doctrines into their teachings and goings about.

This may sound a little overly harsh, but I'd like to state I am critiquing the doctrine (as stated here) itself, and not the people who believe it and/or how they utilize it. Also, this is not to say I agree with the majority of major denomination doctrines either (did I sayy majority? I probably meant all). But, as the question was asked, ^^^ my thoughts.

lamb_servant72
01-13-2006, 03:16 PM
The Bible's "church" is the church as described in Acts, which I think is what Mod is saying.

I haven't found that, yet.

That's not to say that many people and many "churches" are not striving for that, and realize we are not there, yet.

bob
01-13-2006, 05:09 PM
Also, Christnity Today has a plethora of articles on the emergent. Go here (http://www.ctlibrary.com/11412) Also, Bob specifically what don't you like about it?

I read an article on pbs.org and it showed kids sitting around tables holding hands and chanting, and then Rick Warren came on and started talking about how we should all "find our own way to God" and it sounded really odd . . .

asparagus
01-13-2006, 05:38 PM
I think one aspect of the emergent church is that it is not seeking people who are already Christians, but people who aren't Christians. In doing so, it often takes the sayings, phrases and beliefs of non-believers and points out the truth in them to draw them to Christ.

I suspect Rick Warren's phrase on PBS was not directed toward you or me, but to non-Christians.

Popular phrase: "There are many ways to find God."
The lie often implied: "All gods/religions are the same" or "it doesn't matter what you believe."
The truth of the matter: All of us have been called to God through his creative ways, so in one aspect, we all agree that no to callings are identical; God called each of us through unique methods and at the perfect time. I agree with the phrase (and probably so do most of us), but what we don't agree with are the popular implications of the phrase, and rightfully so.

In building bridges with non-believers, we can agree on common truths and guide them to Jesus by building on what we both agree is true.

bob
01-13-2006, 06:00 PM
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/emergingchurch.htm

asparagus
01-15-2006, 01:08 PM
Do you actually believe what that site says?
It criticized everything from Bill Hybels to Rick Warren to Willow Creek. Do you really think the author of The Purpose Driven Life is "an enemy of the cross?"

This extremist site, just like av1611.org and GodHatesFags.org. They all have similar themes and use similar methods. They accuse any Christian leader/movement that is more popular than them of "compromising the gospel" and not having a backbone. They follow up these attacks with misleading quotes (some of which have turned up to be completely false) along with out of context Bible verses. Oh, and somewhere in there they also accuse the leader/movement of being pro-gay. In all of this, they're fighting against something, whether it be gays, Disney, TV, Venezuela, Palestine or what have you. Their fight against something consumes them. They no longer define themselves as fighting for something, like winning souls, following Jesus, worshipping God, but rather as fighting against something.

I'd rather be fighting for, not against.

I'd rather keep Jesus as the center of my life instead of gossipping about every successful Christian leader.

But that's just me...though I probably "don't have a backbone," right?

We can do three things here:
1) Judge everthing in sight without experiencing it ourselves (which non-Christians love to accuse us of)
2) Suggest that everything in Christianity that is remotely successful or popular in bringing people to Christ is a tool of the devil, or
3) Reserve our judgement (as Jesus did), assume the best in people (as Jesus did), and not jump to conclusions (as Jesus did).

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm choosing #3. But I'm an "enemy of the cross," right?

bob
01-15-2006, 01:19 PM
I never said I judged them, in fact, I just posted the link to the site. I never commented on the validity of that, because I wanted you to make that up for yourself. All I know that is when Joel Olsteen was on Larry King Live he was asked "So are you saying that if you don't believe in Jesus you're going to hell?" and Olsteen dodged the question and never gave a straight answer.

bob
01-15-2006, 01:30 PM
I really don't care what the religious leaders think, Religion flat out sucks in my opinion. I care about Jesus, not religion. I was just saying that those are some of the reason that i'm skeptical of the Emergent Church, which is why I don't attend one.

asparagus
01-15-2006, 01:34 PM
I never said I judged them, in fact, I just posted the link to the site. All I know that is when Joel Olsteen was on Larry King Live he was asked "So are you saying that if you don't believe in Jesus you're going to hell?" and Olsteen dodged the question and never gave a straight answer.

I think you made my point for me. You even included the out-of-context attack.

If I said to you that I don't gossip about people or judge people in one sentence and then in the next tell you (without even being asked!) that "all I know" is that John Doe doesn't have a backbone, wouldn't you be confused?

bob
01-15-2006, 01:36 PM
Well, I kind of figured since he's the leader of the megachurch that that would be the person who'd be setting the example of the church, unless of course you're suggesting that it's okay for Pastors to be politically correct.

bob
01-15-2006, 01:37 PM
here's the PBS article I found in July, make what you want of it:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week845/cover.html

amodman
01-15-2006, 02:40 PM
That sounds even more ridiculous. Must we redefine God everytime he doesn't suit our needs? (And I say this under the belief that that is exactly what has happened throughout history with Christianity and the church, but I digress) Like I said, what they're doing can be taken the wrong way and the right way by people trying to carry out the doctrine, but still both considered "right". "What feels right," or, "What makes sense in our culture today," does not equal right.

skilltroks
01-15-2006, 06:00 PM
I think you have to be there and exprience to understand it. Also, alot emergent churches give off a bad reputation [I think]. I don't know, I wish you could understand it.

somasoul
02-05-2006, 06:55 PM
I attend an emergent church for 20 somethings. (www.SoulHorizon.com)

What do I think of it. On the one hand, it's nice to be free creativly in so many ways. Is the teaching solid? Most definetly. I probably wouldn't attend a normal church. Doctrinal issues are very conservative, perhaps more conservative then many churches that proclaim a conservative viewpoint. At the same time when asked our core beliefs we point to the Nicene Creeed and advise people to read that. We aren't bogged down in details but in loving and extending love.

Of course, taking a stand to not take much of a stand leads to feeling of being watered down a bit. Often it comes down to "What do you believe?", especially on issues like drinking, calvinism, predestination, gambling..........all those details that churches tear themselves apart over are suddenly non-issues........anything goes. It creates a place where the core is Christ but a feeling of foundation and structure and theological firmness is definetly lacking.