The Narnia 3 Blog

The movement was started when leaders saw the 20 to 30 year old group leaving the church at alarming rates, because of their disillusionment with the way the evangelicalism is being practiced today. I agree that the way evangelicalism is being practiced today, by most churches, is very disillusioning to those of us who are seeking the Truth. Too many preachers today get the title of their sermon from the Bible and then fill in the rest from the lifestyles section of the newspaper. The common goal of the ECM leaders seems to be to spread the Gospel by teaching people how to be more Christlike. The common approach seems to be to create an "experience" through comfortable chairs, candles, contemporary music, etc., with very little, if any, focus on the Bible. I believe their goal is exactly what God wants all Christians to do. The question is, "How do we go about it?" The answer is the same for the Emerging Church as it is for the Evangelical Church, "Preach the Word." (2Timothy 4:2) You can change from hymns to contemporary music. You can change from pews to sofas and recliners. You can change from lights to candles. But the only thing that will change you is the Word of God.

Here's another thought to ponder. I have noticed that when the leaders of these movements (Emerging church, charismatic, etc.) write a book, to bring God the glory, they usually put their picture on the front cover.

The movement was started when leaders saw the 20 to 30 year old group leaving the church at alarming rates, because of their disillusionment with the way the evangelicalism is being practiced today. I agree that the way evangelicalism is being practiced today, by most churches, is very disillusioning to those of us who are seeking the Truth. Too many preachers today get the title of their sermon from the Bible and then fill in the rest from the lifestyles section of the newspaper. The common goal of the ECM leaders seems to be to spread the Gospel by teaching people how to be more Christlike. The common approach seems to be to create an "experience" through comfortable chairs, candles, contemporary music, etc., with very little, if any, focus on the Bible. I believe their goal is exactly what God wants all Christians to do. The question is, "How do we go about it?" The answer is the same for the Emerging Church as it is for the Evangelical Church, "Preach the Word." (2Timothy 4:2) You can change from hymns to contemporary music. You can change from pews to sofas and recliners. You can change from lights to candles. But the only thing that will change you is the Word of God.

Here's another thought to ponder. I have noticed that when the leaders of these movements (Emerging church, charismatic, etc.) write a book, to bring God the glory, they usually put their picture on the front cover.

From what I have read of the movement, it seems that it exists for two reasons. The first is a reaction against the rigidity found in modern thinking, and the second is a concern for true faith. Many “emergents” think that the Church (it is probably most accurate to say the Western Church) and her theology have been steeped in modern thought that highlights absolute truths, and therefore the necessity of doctrine and conformity to doctrine. They seem to believe that among other things, these absolute doctrines have caused a stagnant faith. While I appreciate their concern in and of itself, I disagree that modern thought has led to stagnant faith. I believe it would be more accurate to say that wrong views of doctrine – specifically that affirmation of doctrine signifies true faith – causes that stagnant-ism.
At this point in time the best view to take of the movement is to recognize that it is still in its infancy. Opinions, practicalities, and the like are still being worked out by those who are leading the movement. The late Stanley Grenz said, “…what we need right now is a number of mature voices who can assist them in the process of sorting things out.” (Modern Reformation; July/August 2005) I think that the best attitude to take towards the Emerging Church at this point is to be in prayer that this movement, when it has grown-up, will uphold orthodox faith and will not be conformed to this world, but rather to Scripture.

The emergent church has become a big deal in contemporary Christianity the thinking and ideals have become part of many churches and movements. Some of the methods used by the emergent church are used by many others including some of the largest Para Church ministries in the US. It would be hard to argue with the sincerity of most of those in the movement but it is possible to be sincerely wrong. The Emergent Church is highly critical of both modern thought and Evangelicalism. They also embrace postmodernism. Some of their critiques of the evangelical church are well deserved and their desire for reaching the lost is laudable.
There are some problems however. While they criticize the evangelical church for how it is embedded in modern cultural they are equally embedding themselves in postmodernism. Particularly concerning is the rejection of absolute truth that marks postmodernism. By not taking a hard stance on Biblical truth (“Thy word is truth”) the emergent church will become yet another irrelevant church movement. It is the claim to truth that makes the church relevant. If the church does not have the truth (the truth of the gospel, the truth about God, the truth about man…) it is not relevant. Doctrinal clarity is in desperate need. The Emerging Church is still emerging but if some change in direction is not made it will sail off into fallacy and irrelevancy taking many with it.

My research took me to several web sits and other blogs in an attempt to get a handle on how to define this movement.
Apparently, that was the wrong approach. The better approach is to say; there is no such thing as a “movement,” an “emerging church,” or anything from which to emerge.
It appears that this movement is seeking to be similar to an atomic particle called a Quark, it has a very peculiar characteristic – it exists as long as you don’t try to find it, all we can do is see its influence on the particles around it.
The “emerging church movement” seems to believe it can be all things by being nothing and everything at the same time. Reality is what you are making it at this moment and the rigid labels of right and wrong are just constraints used by the arrogant to control others.
We need to love, and include, and be relevant to this moment. We need to let anyone and everyone speak. All opinions are equal and truth is what you need it to be for your needs today. What is important is who you are, not what you believe.
This is worse than nailing jell-o to a tree because there isn’t a tree, a nail, or jell-o.
This movement is a tragedy. The answer to life is to see Jesus as the Truth, not side with Pilate wondering what truth is. Death, hell, and eternity beckon and I do not think God will be so easily redefined.

One of the fundamental similarities within these churches is the application of culture into their church services. This application stretches beyond contemporary music and tends to reflect the culture that surrounds it. For example, a church might be a converted coffee shop with a coffee shop atmosphere but the main reason for being there is to “worship” Christ. One of the main problems presented by some of these churches is that churches do not go out into the culture to “meet the people.” They reference the fact that Christ went out among all the people, especially those who were not culturally accepted. There is no problem with wanting to address this issue, but that is evangelism. A church service is meant to glorify God and edify saints; it is a place where we believers communally worship through song, the Word, and preaching. A church service that exists for the culture, to reach out to the culture, is probably not going to have the depth in their messages to edify its members because by nature it is going to have to be more evangelistic which in essence makes it “seeker” sensitive. In fact, by making the cultural environment of your church the driving point behind everything it does, the church does not put God at the center. A true Christian should be seeking to evangelize as they seek to obey and glorify God. They should be able to rely on the church to worship in truth and spirit.

There is some question as to whether or not the emerging church is actually still emerging. That is, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if—by the time of next semester’s faculty lecture series—the movement has already begun to submerge (really, in how many books can MacLaren say the same thing?). So, there’s a chance that this whole thing will come and go, like countless other church movements. Or perhaps it will become a permanent fixture, like the Charismatic movement.

The question is will they really be able to do this? Will people really think differently about Christians—not seeing them as close-minded and unintelligent (personally, I think the emergent church comes across to everybody as trying much too hard to be intellectual)? Will they really be able to meet the true, spiritual needs of families while trying so hard to avoid giving off the impression of dogmatism? Will they really be able to devour the meat of God’s Word while remaining so sharp to the needs of the unchurched (intellectual and non-intellectual)?

If the answers to these questions are “yes”, then those of us “irrelevant” believers need to stand up and take notice. But only time (not MacLaren’s books) will reveal whether the movement can accomplish its lofty goals. Let us wait and see…

I need to raise some important considerations before seeking to establish the particular rights or wrongs of the “Emerging Church Movement”.
You rightfully state “the leaders of these churches seem to be sincere”. Would we expect anything less? What relevance does sincerity have when seeking to determine right or wrong? We all know of those who have been sincerely wrong or insincerely right.
You also ask what I think about ECM and conclude by saying it may not be for you.
Both statements would appear to go to the important issue of how we avoid making the wrong choice of church to attend. Should that choice to be governed by programs, met needs, expression of individuality or, should it be the churches view of God, His Word, man, his need and God’s solution to that need?
We should ask which Christ they want to share. I became concerned when leading ECM proponent, Brian McLaren, stated, “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.”
A further consideration would be how we determine whether God is using ECM. Is it by numbers attending, the press reports of its attendees, the fact that people disgruntled with mainline churches are finding somewhere to go? How does God define success?
Jude 3 instructs you and me to contend earnestly for ‘the Faith’. Surely we need to investigate if ECM affirms orthodox biblical doctrine.

To be truthful I am not sure I know enough information about the emerging movement to comment on it. But I will say this: Webster’s on-line dictionary defines emerge as “to come into being through evolution.” This definition implies that the church is emerging or evolving. When taken to its logical conclusion, this suggests the church is somehow flawed and is in need of improvement. Therefore, the church must adapt to an ever changing culture in order to reach people. There is no absolute and the church will always find itself “evolving” to meet needs. This is in direct contrast to the nature and character of God and His Word. Psalm 19 is an excellent exaltation of the sufficiency of scripture to meet any need, at any time. Did not Christ give us a clear definition of what a true church should look like? Pastor MacArthur even mentioned what he believed the “7 Foundational Elements of a True Church” are according to Christ in Matthew 16:13-28. A true church must teach: (1) A biblical understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. (2) God’s method of communicating to his people through is through His divine revelation (His Word). (3) A life that is lead in contrast to the ways of the world. (4) All themes in the bible can be traced back to what Jesus did at the cross. (5) There is a spiritual battle going on in the lives of people. (6) A life of self denial and self sacrifice in order to meet the needs of others. (7) A life that is ultimately focused on the hope of heaven. This gives me great hope in one day becoming a pastor. I do not have to evolve with the culture in order to reach people for Christ. It is not a program or an event that will reach people. It is only the word of God boldly proclaimed and back up by a holy life lived in obedience to the Holy Spirit.

Jack Holbrook

Anytime that Christians encounter an attempt at reform from within its ranks, it is the duty of believers to evaluate the situation. In my opinion there are two main issues that need to be addressed in dealing with these so-called “church movements.” The first issue to address is the upholding of the true Gospel of Christ. Secondly, we need to address the issue of the integrity of Scripture being honored.

It is easy to admire the motives of the emerging church movement. Its participants might have a heart for Christ and for His name to be proclaimed. The problem is that in their efforts to draw people in, including the previously mentioned contemporary music, dancing, painting, and candlelight setting, the Gospel is placed second behind the style and setting of worship. With emphasis being placed on these things, the unbeliever attending this church might possibly feel “spiritual” coming away from it and therefore having a false assurance of salvation.

The emerging church movement attempts to strike a middle ground between an absolute, modernist approach and a subjective, post-modern approach. In doing so, they sacrifice the authority of the Word of God. By changing interpretations based on the culture of the times, the timeless truth of Scripture is sacrificed for the sake of relevancy. Without the Word of God being taught properly, spiritual growth is hindered if not severed for the true believers attending.

Although appealing, the emerging church movement when put to the test downgrades the priority of the Gospel and downplays the authority of Scripture, and therefore discerning believers need to continue to observe this trend.

I believe that the Emerging Church Movement is dangerous because it seeks to reinvent Christianity without basing it on the Bible. Whereas the Reformers looked to the Bible to change what Rome had done for the previous millennium, the Emerging Church seeks to change evangelicalism by looking to unorthodox theologians. The movement’s biggest flaw is the failure to trust in the full sufficiency of Scripture in the areas in which Scripture claims to be sufficient. The example given about adding (in addition to preaching) dancing and even paintings as part of “worship” typifies what distinguishes the Emergent Church: biblical instructions for corporate worship and how to know God are simply ignored.

Influenced by New Age “Christians” like Richard Foster, Brian McLaren – “the de facto spiritual leader for the emerging church” (CT, 11/2004) – has himself influenced others into embracing the concept of his book entitled "A New Kind of Christian". As the name suggests, this is not a call to go back to the Reformation or the New Testament, but rather a call to move forward, as if embracing modernity and “progress” is some kind of virtue. It is certainly true that there are myriad flaws in contemporary evangelicalism that need correction. The Emerging Church, however, minimizes truly correcting concepts like sin, judgment, righteousness, holiness, faith, and repentance and instead abandons one worthless ideology for another. Until it is committed to pure exegesis of the Bible, the Emerging Church will remain adrift in the sea of man’s theological inventions.

The “Emerging Church Movement” was born in an effort to counter the rigidity of the modern evangelical movements. The ECM is drawing young evangelicals looking for a church that is unlike the traditional church. The underlying danger with this movement is their denial of absolute truth.

Although the Emerging Church claims they desire to hold on to the truths of the Christian faith, the leaders of the ECM are on a mission to redefine Christianity. Their teaching undermines the timelessness of absolute truth that is found in the Scriptures. These truths, specifically, the Gospel, is meant to cross every cultural groups (Gal. 3:28) regardless of when it is proclaimed in history.

I can appreciate their sincerity to share Christ with people who may not go to a traditional church by engaging with their culture through dancing, contemporary music, coffee shops, and even pubs. However, if they reject absolute truth, then they have no Gospel to share. Christ’s claim of being “the way, the truth, and the life” is absolute. Because a culture views the claims of Scripture as rigid, does not mean that the church should change her message.

The Emerging Church seeks to proclaim the “truth” in a humble way without expressing absolutism, but how much more arrogant to claim that, God was somehow short sighted because He did not see the truths of Scripture as applicable to all cultures.

I would suggest reading D. A. Carson’s book Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church for a thorough analysis on the subject.

The biggest issue I have with the “Emerging Church Movement” is that it takes the focus away from God and places it on man. Worship should not be about us but about God. Therefore we must look at the Scriptures to see what God has to say about how He wants to be worshipped.

There are three biblical principles we ought to consider in our corporate worship. First, we must be aware that not all worship is acceptable to God. In Leviticus 10:1, Nadab and Abihu offered “strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them.” This act of disobedience led to their immediate deaths.

Second, worship should be done in an orderly manner. In the latter half of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul lists off some forms of worship such as singing psalms, teaching, prophesying, speaking in tongues, and interpreting tongues. These all seem to be acceptable forms of worship in themselves but Paul gives the caveat that they must be done in an orderly manner.

A third principle is that biblical worship centers on the Word. In the OT, you can find Ezra spending large amounts of time reading and expositing the Scriptures before the people. In the NT, you can find Paul exhorting Timothy to “give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.”

The “Emerging Church Movement” seems to be heading away from these principles. Those involved ought to take a close look at them and re-evaluate their methodology.

There seems to be one idea that lays the foundation for the emerging church movement. I realize that sometimes it is hard to boil an entire movement down to its most basic element, but in reading about this movement, the philosophy of postmodernism is driving it at its core. A postmodern truth is something that is discovered by a particular individual and is authoritative only for the one who discovered it. Based on that concept, truth is no longer absolute. It can’t be authoritative. So in the emerging church you may have as many different methods to “be real to yourself and God”, as you have people. This accounts for the huge variety of practices that make up the movement known as the emerging church. You may go into one church and find the lights dim and people painting pictures in an effort to find God and be true to themselves. While in another church you may find people dancing in a nightclub type atmosphere. No truth is binding, and when truth at the doctrinal level is not binding, it gives great freedom to mimic the surrounding culture in an effort to make God more appealing to the masses. As believers we have to evaluate all our beliefs and practices by the authoritative and eternally binding Word of God.

What I have learned of the Emerging Church is that it is a movement of people inside of average, evangelical churches away from traditionalism and towards a refined postmodernism. Yes, there are the peripheral, but more visible, issues of relaxed worship, candle lighting, dancing, etc. However, the root cause of this movement is a reaction against the dead, traditional, irrelevant status of many contemporary churches. For this, the “emergents” should be applauded. They have recognized the problems many churches possess including minimal involvement in their immediate community, externalism which fosters legalism, and a lack of passion which comes from a delight in the world more than Christ.

However, the Emerging Church, and any other movement for that matter, should be extremely careful when it finds itself originating out of a reaction. The tendency is to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other bypassing the Word of God and losing all sense of balance. Yes, there are problems with the modern church. Yes, we need to seek solutions. Yes, something must be done. But, NO, we should not look to the world and its foolish philosophies to solve a problem that God has already given us the answer to in His Word. “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem (Tertullian)?” Instead, we must recognize the disease (We can thank the “emergents” for their diagnosis) and then run to God’s Word for the cure. It is then and only then that we will find true healing!

The emerging church movement seems to be the latest in a long (and growing) line of attempts to win the lost for Christ by becoming like them. They seem to have two key buzzwords – relevant and new. Their ideology, ostensibly, is to become relevant to the postmodern world by doing everything they do, but with a thin veneer of “christianese”. So church is adapted to the culture, instead of the other way around. The result is that drama, PowerPoint or other forms of entertainment replace preaching. The irony is that in fighting postmodernism with absolute truth (or so they claim) they will do exactly what postmodernists do – switch definitions (one church sang “Bridge Over Troubled Water” – a song about drugs - in its service, saying it refers to Jesus). The message is that Christians are exactly like the world. There is no inner transformation being manifested by them. This is all done under the banner of doing ministry in “new” ways to keep up with the times. Ministry needs to evolve with the times in order to meet the needs of the people. There are two problems here, first the human soul has only one need, the forgiveness of sin, which is accomplished by the preaching of the gospel, and faith and repentance by sinners. Second, it’s not ministry that saves people, it’s the Word of God.

I checked out a link claiming to be affiliated with the Emerging Church movement and I found 8 references to a “new” way to do things.

“new ways of being followers of Jesus … new ways of doing theology and living biblically, new understandings of mission, new ways of expressing compassion and seeking justice, new kinds of faith communities, new approaches to worship and service, new integrations and conversations and convergences and dreams” (http://emergentvillage.com/Site/Explore/EmergentStory/index.htm).

I would tell this individual to be leery of anything new, popular, or different. Christ’s Church is not new, it has been with us for 2000 years and it is His job to build it, not ours. Our charge is to preach the Gospel. That Gospel, by its very nature, is offensive and repels ALL demographics, not just one. The Emerging Church leadership may be sincere in their attempts to lead people to Christ by using things that appeal to them or make them feel more comfortable, but they are in fact doing them a greater disservice by leaving the centrality of Christ and His word. It’s not about the method, it’s about the message. I just came back from a wonderful service in which Pastor John MacArthur spoke about being the called of God. We are called by God out of darkness into His marvelous light. We do not need to appeal to people with methods and gimmicks to “reach” them nor do we need to change our approach to preaching Gods word.

And the more I read about this, the more it concerns me.

Frankly, I think is all boils down to the Word of God and His word having a preeminent part in the worship service. If the Word of God is our rule of 'faith' and 'practice' then we believers should allow the scriptures to give us our marching orders.
A recent chapel speaker alluded to this question after having visited a 'non-traditional' church in his area. From his view, he noticed that there was no sense of eternity. I believe that has to do with the diminishing time spent in the Word of God. I think it is wrong to ignore God, or trim back on time in His Word in order to make unsaved, or saved people feel comfortable. Where there is Bible preaching, there will be some conviction, where there is conviction, there will be some discomfort.
I don't have a problem with some of the contemporary music, and there are some innovative things that can happen in churches while staying on target, but the problem is the tendency to spend excessive time (and money) trying to 'entertain' the unsaved, rather than preaching the Gospel, and grounding the saints in the Word. Some one once said, "'sermonettes' are preached by 'preacherettes' and they breed 'christianettes'". I think there is some truth in that saying. God only responds in favor to His Word in worship. When we invent things that do not find any basis in the Word, we start drifting away from God's intention for His people.

First, I can appreciate the desire to get people to come to church. I am youth director at the church I attend and I am always trying to challenge my mind on how I can get the teenagers to be drawn into following the Lord. There are many ways to appeal to their "flesh", things that would naturally draw them because it's fun and excting. I plan monthly events that will hopefully be something that they can really appreciate and that will help them during this time in their lives to keep God in the front of their minds. Wednesday nights and Sunday mornings are a commitment for all of them and their parents which sometimes, many times, will be pushed aside if something else comes up. The direction that the Lord has lead me in this area is to disern the purpose God has for us getting together. A special event would allow more opportunity as far as using entertainment,music, games, food, etc... to draw the kids into being more relaxed and mabey not feeling intimidated in any way. Wednesday nights I use for a more relational time between the kids, encouraging directed discussion groups, but on Sunday morning we are coming for corporate worship. We direct our attention on the study of the Bible, honoring Him and His Word. There needs to be a balance of the activities in the body of Christ as the Bible clearly shows as an example for us to follow. Still, we always need to be encouraging the Body of Christ to follow Jesus in all areas and activities. All of life can be worship to the Lord. There is nothing wrong with following creative ways to minister to the church as long as Christ is lifted up in all things. It's not about us and what we like, it's about God ordering our worship of Him.

At a distance, it would appear that the Emerging Church Movement is a new and creative way of reaching out to the un-churched while discarding the traditional forms of church structure, leadership, and practice. Leaders from this new movement would suggest that traditional orthodox churches and even modern seeker-sensitive churches have lost touch with the new generation and post-modern culture. It would also appear at a distance that this new movement compared to the more traditional approach to church is merely a difference of external form and appearance, while still retaining the non-negotiables of orthodox Christianity or more precisely, not explicitly denying them. However upon closer scrutiny, the difference is substantially bigger than the Movement might have many believe. Basically, the Emerging Church Movement is another expression of liberal Christianity disguised in a new outfit with a bad face-lift. The common denominator that this movement and all liberalism share is not a commitment to what the Bible teaches but selling out and conformity to the culture of the day. The only distinguishing mark the Emerging Church Movement would seem to have is that the new culture in which they desire to be dictated by is not the same culture previous liberal movements have accommodated to in the past.

Much could be said about the Emerging Church’s (EC) mission, view of truth, view of the church, and their view of the gospel. Any casual reader of their material can instantly pick up a strong desire to be evangelistic, which is admirable. The EC discusses making disciples and being sent into the world with a “missional” focus on the postmodern world (echoes of Matt. 28:18-20 and John 20:21), while claiming to hold to the central Christian doctrines and to the sacred Scriptures. However, one is hard pressed to discover exactly what gospel they intend to use to reach the world. The EC commits to and invites Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Churches to join their discussion. This position shows that at a minimum the EC is unclear as to what the gospel is. One of their critics has stated that some EC leaders deny the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death and that they will not contend for Christian doctrine. If one does not fully understand the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, then the movement can only be used by God in spite of what they preach, rather than because of what they preach, if they preach at all. While their evangelistic focus is a sorely needed rebuke to many in the evangelical community, the EC, once postmodernism has run its course, will find itself irrelevant because of its pragmatic approach to engage the postmodern culture and failure to be firmly rooted in Biblical authority and guided by its principles. If they do not take a firm stance on truth and the gospel, despite their sincerity, I have to wonder how effective they will really be in their “missional” goals.

I have heard many disturbing reports about the Emerging Church. I could respond quite heatedly to the things that I have heard, but to be fair, I should base my response on what I have encountered first hand, which isn’t much.
On the positive side, it seems like many of the leaders of this movement have a desire to reach this generation with the Gospel. They seem to be responding to some of the same things in present day evangelicalism that bother me, namely, a neat and tidy, comfortable and convenient form of Christianity that often manifests itself in suburban megachurches that are deaf and blind to the fact that the rest of the lost world doesn’t live in the Disneyland that they do. I speak harshly, but I am also guilty of the same sins.
Having said that, I do believe there is the potential (and the reality) of overreacting. It seems like the movement is too focused, hypersensitive even, to cultural relevance. To effectively reach the lost around us do we need to be experts in cultural analysis? I don’t think so. It doesn’t have to be that complicated.
My greatest concern is that the movement is so closely tied to postmodernism, which gives rise to the issue of faithfulness to God’s word. If the Emerging Church begins to meddle with relativism and subjectivism when it comes to the Scriptures, then the only course of action is to reject the movement. There’s no room for belittling God’s word.

Let me give two concerns I have with the emerging church:

First, the emerging movement has a distorted view of who the church is. The church is not just an age group. The church is a body. The church needs young adults, older adults, families, and children. This idea that of building churches targeting a specific age group is insane. The body of Christ is then severed. The diversity of the body of Christ is eliminated. The church is a body of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ from every tribe tongue and nation, even different age groups. To target only one minor aspect of the world’s population misses the purpose of Christ’s command in Matt. 28. Not to mention eliminate the picture of the church being the body of Christ with many members.

Second, the emerging church is a “movement.” Movements come and go. In another 15 yrs there will have to be a new movement to keep up with the culture of the time. The problem is that nothing lasts, nothing endures. However, if you look at churches that are faithfully preaching God’s word and equipping the saints for ministry, you will see these churches lasting and making disciples with roots to withstand the storm. They are building on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets with gold, silver, and precious stones. The emerging church and every other movement that has come and will come are building with wood, hay, and straw. It will not last!

When I hear the term or phrase "Emerging Church," I really don't know what to think. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church and we have incorporated dancing (at times) and contemporary music to our morning worship services. These emerging churches I have heard and read about attract the younger generations and focus mainly on reaching people in this post-modern era. The danger in reaching people with activities like dancing and contemporary music is that the sinner is being entertained and not convicted by the teaching of the Word of God. I really don’t know what they teach or what their philosophy of ministry is, but I believe that if they are going to call themselves a church then they should have sound biblical teaching from the pulpit. People who are post-modern do not need a mixed bag of stimulus activity seasoned with truth. Rather, people need the truth of the Gospel first and then something to enhance or magnify our Lord and Savior.
I wonder if what we are seeing from this movement is truly the work of God. Or is God just being patient? I think that John MacArthur’s message on “What to Look for in a Church,” is an excellent measuring stick for what should be found in the local church. If these characteristics are not found in the emerging churches, we should lovingly defend the biblical standard of a church. The true test to this new movement will be time, and in the future we will see if this is truly a work of God.

I think that this new emerging church movement needs to evaluate the purpose of the church prior to creating their philosophy of ministry. If the church is the living organism into which God calls His elect out of the world, and prepares for service in His kingdom, by the preaching and teaching of His Word, one can plainly see that this particular movement is not making strides in that direction. This movement is wrong in their efforts to share Christ with people who might not go to a traditional church. Their motive for evangelism should be to win lives to Christ, not to win tastes for a particular church. This intention is man-centered, and thus every aspect of their service will have its focus on the desires of man versus those of God. The purpose of music in worship is to exalt Christ, assist in the word dwelling richly in believers, and prepare the heart to hear the Word of God. Not to be legalistic, but to replace hymns, which have stood the test of time, with contemporary music does not seem like a logical way to compliment the teaching of Scripture. Their idea of dancing in worship service could potentially attract the wrong audience, and distract minds away from God. I believe creating paintings in worship service trivializes the importance of the Word of God. For it is the power of the gospel, not gimmicks, that changes lives. So overall, I don’t agree with this movement.

In researching and reading a little bit about the topic of the emerging church movement I have come to the conclusion that the emerging church truly does have a heart for the lost. However I believe they go about spreading the Gospel the wrong way. It seems as though the emerging church movement uses candles and paintings and many other events in order to attract more people to their church, and seemingly seeking success through numbers in the church rather than the truth being preached. In doing so the new movement puts an emphasis and focus on these entertaining events and fails to achieve the purpose of spreading the Gospel. It appears that the Gospel plays second fiddle to the circus of events that make up the emerging church service. Putting the Gospel behind these events results in a man - centered service, and essentially brings a false sense of salvation in the idol that is “the emerging church movement.” Compromising the Gospel for the culture of today takes away the authority and truth found in it, and results in a failure of the emerging church to achieve their goal. And the end result of all this is that the lost stay lost, and the saved are not fed.

From what I understand of the 'emerging church', it is a
term being used to refer to a particular
subset of Christians who are re-thinking Christianity
according to a postmodern foundation. D.A. Carson has
recently released a book titled, "Becoming Conversant
With the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and
it's Implications." If you have not purchased this book, it would do you well to do so. It is my belief that this movement to the extent
to which it has been applied, will manifest itself into generation of undiscerning, shallow, shoddy, exegetical christians with little or no discernment when it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth, especially concerning the nature of Christ. I think it's fair to say that we are close, if not already, undergoing a downgrade of the words of
scripture that is being replaced with a 21st century pop culture Christianity without any teeth. What good is a lion without his powerful teeth and claws? It's absolutely useless! What good is the word of God if it does not cut through the very division of soul and
spirit because it is being peddled, tampered, and trampled underfoot by men who think they are doing God's service? I say these things by reason of postmodern thinking and how it is applied to all aspects of thought, not just biblical Christianity. According to my assessment, the very underpinnings of this 'emergent' church is governed by this brand of ideological thought. Moreover, this kind of thinking will unavoidably lead to a denial and eventual divorce from God's word. I do not believe that pure biblical Christianity can be loved by an unregenerate world. Christ said, "Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you" (I John 3:13) I believe that the perveyors of this 'movement' are essentially trying to make Jesus more palettable for unbelieving tongue's in hopes that they will swallow. In closing, John Macarthur states in his book, "Why One Way", these words that I believe deal specifically with the issue at hand : "Evangelicalism seems to have been hijacked by legions of carnel spine doctors, who are trying their best to convince the world that the church can be just as inclusive, pluralistic, and broad-minded as the most politically-correct worldling. The quest for the world's approval is nothing less than spiritual harlotry."

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon and we will talk face to face. John said it best in 3John 13,14 when he comments on the value of communication in written form vs. face to face. If ancinet wisdom like that could help the email and blog-soaked generation get over fear of real life interaction, what else might it hold for the Emerging Church Movement? My answer to the question is two pronged; First, if I were speaking face to face to someone I'd question, challenge, and preach in a way that would either harden or soften toward Christ. Second, since this is a blog and I know what you mean by answer the question with imagination because it's not real, I will.
So, if it were face to face I might say, "what stuff have you read on the E.C.?" "Did you know there are some leaders who are more doctrinaly sound then others?" "Did you know that candles, dancing, and CCM doesn't send one to a Christless-eternity, a false gospel does?"
"Did you know the Lord has "seemed" to have blessed some of the worst movements in History(i.e."Lutherns" praising "God's" providence in the leadership in Nazi Germany). "Did you know that the Religious Rulers in the the Gospels felt threatened by the poularity of Christ? "They even worried that they would lose their place and nation if popularity of passionate believers continued?" "Do you want to hear the gospel according to Jesus according to me?"
So, if I were writing a blog I might say; When has the problem of "in it not of it" ever not been a problem? Contextualization has been problem since Adams Son's tried to evangelize Cain's line. Since that resulted in Noah's Ark perhaps it is best to refrain every thought of the heart being evil all the time. So, should we drop Trinity because it is a Mystery, or change Son of God in order to reach Muslims? No! We operate form truth. So neither should we change the Gospel when it comes to being relevent to younger generations. Specifically, one Beloved Pastor has said that "Mark Driscoll and McClairin are like oil and water. McClairin is like mercury, every time you question doctrine he scoots away. ...To which I say get a life! Driscol is Reformed." So, to me Driscoll may have a brewery near Mars Hill, but he seems to be Reformed in doctrine and personally after being at Golden Gardens Park in Seattle I am encouraged to hear they have baptized repentant people there.
WHAT WE NEED IS A RADICAL REFOR-MISSION! "But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkeness and cares of this life, and the day come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all... (Lk.21:34)

The “Emerging church” is such an ambiguous creature and therefore very difficult to define. It is a movement born out of protests against the traditional churches, and a wish for Christianity to be more relevant to people, meeting them where they are, instead of bringing them to us. It desires to impact communities for Christ in a post modern culture. The alarming fact is that the culture becomes the driving force and the unyielding context in which this outreach take place. A valid argument is that all of life is lived out in the context of the culture, but the danger lies in the nature of the post modern culture. It is defined by pluralism and relativism, which is totally unacceptable to biblical Christianity.
The emergent movement is so culture conscious that the culture becomes the unspoken, yet central message. The clear life saving message of the Gospel and Scripture is sidelined and diluted to an unpalatable mixture of mystical experimentation, medieval liturgy and iconic meditation.
In our eagerness to impact our world for Christ we should not so easily disregard or dilute the didactic teaching of the Word of God, our most powerful weapon, in favour for a more cultural approach. Instead the question we should ask is: What is our definition of a Christian? Someone who signed a card or said a prayer? Or someone whose life has been transformed through the clear and accurate teaching of the Word of God? Such a life impacts any culture

It is true that these emerging churches have large numbers, but numbers don’t always indicate that God is at work in a place. Look at the example of Jesus in his ministry. In John 6, Jesus was preaching to large crowds, but when they heard the severity of his message, the Bible says that they withdrew from him.
Was His ministry ineffective? I would say no, but because He preached the whole truth from God, people were turned away because of their own sinfulness. This movement is based on tolerance, allowing all views to have equal representation. However, in Ephesians 4, Paul told the people that they needed to build up His church so that they would not be “blown about by every wind of doctrine.” But this movement does not have a standard or authority. They don’t believe that God, or the Bible, are infallible. That is why they have these numbers, because they edit what they want out of the Bible (if they even use it) to tickle peoples ears and make them feel accepted. Rick Holland was right when he said that pastors are not editors, but deliverers. It is not our job to include all views equally, but to proclaim what God has said with the authority of His Word.
Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.” There is no debate; God’s word is the only truth which can cause a church, or a movement, to become more like His son.

My first impression of the emerging church is actually favorable and I affirm their strong desire to live authentic Christianity. Their vision statements openly reject the cool religiosity of people going through the motions without meaningfully connecting with God or fellow believers. But have they set a course to really meet God in a biblically life changing way?
To make this happen they have adopted core values that challenge much of what they experienced in their parent’s churches. With music and creative arts leading the way, experimental forms universally emphasizing a personal experience of God, authentic community, relevant methods, diversity, and a focus on impacting the future have pushed aside what they see as inadequate practices of the modern church. Orthodoxy is retained in the trappings of early church art, liturgy, and creeds, but authenticity is now defined by these new priorities and values. With their affiliation based in their common experience of God and community, less value is placed on doctrinal essentials or distinctives. The Bible is relegated to conversational preaching and discussion study groups as one of many means to experience God.
Desiring a genuine walk with God is not new. A few years back a group of our students had grown tired of the constant emphasis on biblical knowledge and wanted to move beyond this to individually experience a greater walk with God. They decided to accentuate their times of worship and spend less time in Bible study. Eventually they simply stopped teaching the Bible because it interfered with their worship experience. There is great danger in endorsing individual experience at the expense of biblical wisdom. This is not the way to authentically walk with God,

In my opinion, I think the “Emerging Church Movement” has the potential to threaten the Gospel and in many ways, handles the Holy Scriptures in a haphazard fashion that leaves room for open interpretation and mysticism to enter into the church. I think that many of the churches that fall under the “Emerging Church Movement” have the best intent and perhaps have a true heart to spread the Gospel and share the “Good News” with friends, coworkers, and family in this post-modern culture. A close friend and I were recently discussing this movement, and we agreed that many of these churches feel the need to shift their method of evangelism and worship so that it fits the current culture. Thus, you have holistic forms of worship such as worshiping through the arts, contemporary music and dancing. You would also have sermons preached in a different manner than that of the expository method. I understand that leaders desire to be sincere in the approach, but I think that as leaders of the church you are held to a higher responsibility and judged accordingly (James 3:1). I think the key question to ask is, “Do you have a high regard for the Scripture? Do you believe the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant, and God-breathed?” I feel that if you believe in this then your view on ministry and how to be relevant in society is greatly affected because of the reliance one might have on the authority, power, and reliability of Scripture.

Simply put, the Emerging Church Movement (ECM) is based on the idea that the culture around us is changing, and if the Church wishes to remain relevant and applicable it must also change and become new (i.e. “emerge”). There does seem to be several positive features in the EMC that include: seeking to understand the culture in order to better minister to it; seeking to be “authentic” rather than cold or mechanical; and striving to bring the Gospel to a needy world.

Despite these positives, there are several very disturbing trends within the ECM. A desire for relevancy seems to allow the dismissal of any historical Christian custom that they deem “old-fashioned,” with no regard for the rightness of such a practice. There is also an emphasis on a variety of forms of expression (e.g. visual arts, times of silence, stories, candles, etc.) that are meant to help a post-modern person better connect with God. Unfortunately, this emphasis merely seems to have led the ECM right into the old trap of allowing experience to trump Scripture (although they would never admit to this). Finally, for many in the ECM, biblical doctrine seems to take second place to keeping pace with the culture. Because of these dangers, I feel that it would be foolish for the Church to follow the path blazed by this new movement. If we do, we may find ourselves “emerging” into Christianity without the Gospel.

I’m not very familiar with the “emerging church” so I did a quick search to get the nitty gritty on the movement. The emerging church seems to be reaching out to a post-modern world, using the same tactics. I think this is wrong, dead wrong. Some of the authors of books that support the movement are self-proclaimed post-modernists, such as Brian McLaren. McLaren, I know, does not believe in a biblical Christianity and has implied this belief in his books. If people like these are the proponents the emerging church, then I want nothing to do with it. It seems from my limited research that the movement uses cultural devices to entice people into their “church,” instead of relying on the power of the gospel. As far as God using these enticements, I do not see this as a valid argument. Does God use people “barking in the Spirit” to bring us to Himself; so would he necessarily need to use music, dance and art? These are worldly “hooks” and may likely be a sign of hollow theology or worse, blatant unorthodoxy. I see this movement as a way to detract from the true gospel of self-denial and sacrifice and fit the church into a world-shaped box.

This movement is inherently dangerous despite the appearances of furthering the Gospel. It is reportedly growing the church, but to what depth and for how long?
The problem lies in the superficial nature of the worship of God and the interjection of human wisdom as to what is necessary to draw individuals to Christ. This movement relies on a dramatically reduced if not eliminated role of expositional preaching from God’s Word and an increased emphasis on fulfilling perceived needs based on human understanding. This is evidenced by the reduced teaching times and the inclusion of other recreational forms of activity such as dance, art, theatre, etc. This results in a faith which is not founded on the truth of the Bible, but rather on meeting perceived needs or an emotionally driven response. This faith, when tested in the fires of life, is likely to quickly fail. I have seen this occur in the Young Life youth program. Young people are quickly drawn in by the allure of fellowship and activities, but with little to no Gospel content. When real life pressures of drugs, sex, and even suicide appear, there is no foundation to resist and tragedy most usually ensues. These individuals fall away from God because they do not have the depth of understanding to stand against their adversities. This is because only by grabbing hold of the truth of scripture can we endure and grow in the face of trials and adversities inherent in a sin cursed world.

The “Emerging Church Movement” is a modern example of what happens when Christians or pseudo Christians try to reach the world “with the Gospel” at any cost.
The Bible doesn’t promote a kind of ministry like theirs for almost three reasons.
First of all, Jesus didn’t follow their pattern. When Jesus, the living Word of God, was asked by the rich young ruler to explain him the way of salvation, Jesus’ strategy was (I) to put the standard of the holiness of God (the law) and (II) to highlight a specific sin in his life (love for money). Matthew 19:22 says that when the man refused to embrace the statement of the Lord, he went away grieving. But Jesus didn’t try to run after him seeking to convince him in some other way or using some other mean. Jesus expected him to accept His word and to trust Him.
Second, the Early Church didn’t follow their pattern too. Throughout the book of Acts it is clear that the strategy used by the Holy Spirit, fully followed by the Church was “just preaching the Word”. Luke underlines several times that what was growing and being multiplied was the word of God and the message of the Gospel without any addiction (Acts 2:41; 4:4, 29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; 8:4; 10:36; 12:24). I have the impression that the way in which the “Emerging Church Movement” is trying to win people to the Gospel demonstrates an emphasis on the people rather than on the message, which means a “men-centered message” rather than a “God-centered message”.
Third, the “Emerging Church Movement”, adding a kind of activities like dancing, paintings and contemporary music to their preaching, demonstrates that the principle that determines how they will function in their ministry is not based on a high view of the word of God. In doing so, they are declaring that the inspiration, inerrancy, authority, sufficiency and relevancy of the Word of God is not enough (Field Education Handbook for Church Ministries, The Master’s Seminary, Carey Hardy, pp 4,5.).
The sincerity and effectiveness of the “Emerging Church Movement’ ministry” can only be measured with the Bible. Considering their practice, I think there has been a serious compromise they have made with the word of God. To pleasing man rather then God.

Reaching the “Gen-X” and “Millenial” generations has been a fairly difficult task but the “Emerging Church” movement has clearly been able to reach people who otherwise viewed church as outdated, inhuman, impersonal and not relevant for our times. This movement has been able to think outside of the box to put a new face on church, making it more intimate, personal, and friendly. Many attendees constantly remarked at how much more welcome they felt, that church didn’t feel so sterile anymore, and that they were much more encouraged to seek a personal relationship with Christ. “Emerging churches” are focusing on community, especially in terms of having “Acts-like” home studies and taking church outside the walls of the church to impact more people.
While the movement attracts LARGE amounts of people and wins some of them to Christ in the process, the emphasis on being seeker-friendly commonly leads to Jesus being “all love,” fairly impotent and leads to the believer having problems that Jesus is truly the holy LORD of his life. The focus on personal worship and expression has led to a more self-centered view of worship instead of a corporate one evidenced by individualized communion, art/writing stations, sermons (Jesus is my homeboy), and music (I love you, you love me….). This is not to mention the consistent use of secular material and psychology in reaching out to unbelievers.
An amazing movement seeking to love and win people to Christ, but never should any ministry compromise His totality for winsomeness.

I first heard about the Emerging Church about nine months ago in a Youth Specialties magazine. Since then, I have learned that the Emerging Church is a reaction by “Gen Xers” of today against the seeker friendly movement. The fact is the Emerging Church is what’s “next” in the American Church. I don’t think it is worth a whole Faculty Lecture Series, however it is here and we must understand.

The good:
-Interested and actively going out to reach the post modern generation.
-Concern with being authentic

The bad:
-Relaxed mentality in worship and approach to God
-Image based worship
-A forsaking of truth (is there such thing in their context?) for the sake of unity
-Man centered worship services

As I look at the Emerging Church I see a movement involving biblically uneducated people who want to know and worship God in a mystical, post modern way. Some of their beliefs may be incorrect, however not all of their practices are evil. I do cringe at using candles in worship, however, candles are preferential. I must be careful that my own preferences in worship do not take the position as the God ordained “ONLY WAY” to do church.

Let us then worship in “spirit and truth” and let us “…correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction”, with matters of doctrine and let preferences in worship go.

The “Emerging Church Movement,” at first glance, appears to be an attractive God honoring movement. The emerging church is forming from a desire to be “real” in the Christian faith. However, its structure and development give the Christian reason to be concerned. “Vintage Faith,” an emerging church ministry, has expressed their frustration with modern Christianity and the church today. Dan Kimball and Josh Fox, the leaders of Vintage Faith, clam that they are seeking to model the church after the apostolic time and the first century church. In doing so they clam that they will be the movement that best fits our culture, because their genuine faith is what is needed to minister to unbelievers. One way this movement will attempt to impact the twenty-first century is through indulging themselves in the culture. How can they do this and still hold to Biblical separation from the world? Another plan this movement has is ecumenicalism. In an attempt to be “real” they put all absolutes aside, even for salvation. Their main goal is to restudy the history of the Church, Jesus’ life, and Scripture in an attempt to draw their own conclusions. Many things can be learned from the emerging church regarding our need to have a genuine faith. However, be cautious, in an attempt to become “real” they are casting out all the working of God, in the lives of Godly men, that has established the doctrine of the church today.

Over the past year I have had some exposure to the movement and some of its leaders. I recently finished skimming through one of Dan Kimball’s book’s and was quite surprised with what I read. On the surface it appeared that he was responding and indirectly criticizing the “seeker-sensitive” movement. After a little more research I have found that a number of the leaders of the movement have had experience in seeker sensitive churches and later became disgruntled. This is would seem to be one of the primary reasons for their stress on authenticity. They were tired of the shallowness they were experiencing in their “seeker-sensitive” churches.
While the ECM has many, many problems I did however, find a few encouraging points from Kimball’s writing. He strongly encouraged pastors to preach sermons that were more theocentric as opposed to anthropocentric, they should also be careful not to insult their hearers by “dumbing down” their sermons. There was also a stress on the novel idea that the Christian life should extend beyond the Sunday service. I commend Kimball for these assertions. They are clearly taught throughout the pages of the New Testament and the church, as a whole, would be well served to heed such instruction. And, if in fact these are tenants of the movement as a whole I believe we should commend that. Unfortunately I do not believe that to be the case.
There is one glaring problem with this movement that I can not move beyond. IF they are truly reacting to the seeker-sensitive model of ministry, and from all accounts it appears they are, they are replacing it with another man-made model. They are taking a model of ministry, which they claim to be “extinct” because of the shift from modernism to postmodernism, and are replacing it with much of the same. The ECM will also become extinct as our culture shifts again. My problem with this trend is that, to the secular world, they see a model of Christian ministry which becomes irrelevant and they assume Christianity and the gospel is the same. When this happens my heart breaks. The gospel is the most relevant and necessary message of all time and will be until our Lord returns. Every sinner needs a savior.

It’s easy for us to condemn everything about the “Emergent Church Movement” because they have some concerning issues. Mainly, their issues are focused on gathering more people into their groups and, because of that, they tend to take literal biblical teaching, discipleship, and relying on God’s grace lightly. It may be, and is, true for some groups, but not all of them share same philosophy, theology, and the method. Thus, it would be fair to check each group according to the biblical standard, not as a whole.
I believe following verses should be the purpose and the method which all Christians should follow. The purpose should be to share the gospel to the lost, and to train them to observe all that He commanded us (Matthew 28:18-20). These two purposes should be kept evenly balanced as two engines thrusting side by side. According to the Acts 19:8, when Paul was ‘reasoning’ (διαλεγομενος: Passive) and ‘persuading’ (πειθων: Active), he was totally relying on God’s grace to open the spiritual eyes of the person but with a burning passion to communicate the message of the Good News.
It is important to make things right. That’s why we should understand why these kinds of movements are growing. May be, just may be, these movements are growing because many church are losing balance on above standard. Furthermore, if there is something that we should learn from these movements, instead of just condemning them, we should humbly adapt things that we are lack of.

The emerging church deemphasizes the importance of scripture. Instead of centering the worship on the preaching of the word, much of the attention is brought to superfluous “worship” activities such as dancing and painting. The truth of the gospel is sufficient to draw in the people, convict men of their sins, and covert them from death to life. No matter how well intentioned the leaders of the “Emerging Church Movement” are, I believe their approach to worship does not honor God because they concern themselves too much in pleasing men rather than Him. It’s funny, I’ve been learning in my Historical Theology class, that some of the heresies that rose up in the early church were led by men who seemed sincere and well intentioned.

A natural consequence that arises from taking scripture away from the center of worship is a weak Christian life. Without understanding and loving the scripture, a man cannot come to know God – His holiness, wrath, righteousness, compassion, mercy, and love. There is a great danger that the Christians of the emerging church will fall in love with the “worship” activities, instead of falling in love with our beautiful Lord.

I think you will see how my answer applies to you question, although it may not directly stem from the same perspective as you asked. First, since God seems to be using this movement, Should we support it? Does that give it God’s stamp of approval? Well, God has used a talking donkey, but that doesn’t mean we have God’s stamp of approval to build our services around a message from a donkey. It sounds silly, doesn’t it? The reason is that we understand that the teachings of the Bible should shape our ideas and practices in church.

I can point out a couple of emphases of Scripture concerning these Emerging Church issues that you brought up, although I haven’t heard about the movement directly. I’m glad there is preaching, because the Bible instructs the whole church family to “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another…” (Col 3.16) and specifically pastors to “Preach the word: be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Tim 4.1-2).

Additionally, the emphasis of singing scripture and spiritual songs can be seen in the instructions to sing “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col 3.16), and well as to address “one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord in your heart” (Eph 5.18-19).

To sum it all up, we need to be careful to emphasize what the Bible actually teaches.

I have attempted a simple answer to this question multiple times now but I have no simple answer. The ECM is confusing. One of the best sermons I have ever heard was given by Rob Bell, an Emergent Church leader, on Leviticus 15 and I agreed wholeheartedly with his interpretation and application. Yet the same man a few years later has women teachers in the church.

Some of the criticisms by Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, and Brian McLaren upon the Christian culture are insightful and we would do well to consider some of the ECM’s arguments, particularly those regarding style in church gatherings, and corporate evangelism, yet some of their comments are clearly unorthodox.

Some say that the ECM denies the infallibility and sufficiency of scripture, and perhaps that charge is accurate against some members of their community, but it seems as if many to do believe in an infallible and sufficient scripture but apply a different hermeneutic. With an emphasis on the typological interpretation and a willingness to reconsider the traditions of the church before the reformation they often come to different (and often I believe wrong) interpretations of the text, yet on occasion they will make profound statements upon passages that challenge our traditional understandings.

The ECM is complex and almost paradoxical. There are many things which I find myself in wholehearted agreement and some things at which I cringe. Yet for all their flaws I believe there is much that we can and should learn from them.

The emerging church is the rebellious son of the seeker sensitive movement. Both cry, “imagine a church that feels nothing like a church.” Both desire to redefine traditional worship and attract the lost, but any half-baked statement of faith one could find at Warren’s church will be lost among the smoke, amplification, art and mysticism of the Emerging church. Free expression and ancient liturgy, people can raise their hands, everybody can talk to God at the same time, and Theresa of Avila is on the reading list. Preaching is replaced by talking; exposition has no home there because it doesn’t fit in a long list of antonyms. EC loves to describe itself with vocabulary lists; orthodox but generous, Roman Catholic but reformed, lost but looking, stately yet rather impish. Their postmodernism not only makes doctrine impossible, but is really hard on the English language. The acceptance of the postmodern ethos leads to the abandonment of doctrine. Embracing contradictions by abandoning definitions and propositions is neither safe nor wise. One such truth that ought not to be redefined is, “Jesus is Lord.” But in the realm of postmodernity no proposition is safe. The novelty of couches in church will soon give way to show that the foundation is a mirage, too weak to stand, too murky to provide vision and so absent from a true apostolic doctrine of the centrality and sufficiency of scripture that there is no meat in their meditations.

I don’t know too much about the “Emerging Church Movement.” From what I’ve heard these churches are seeker-sensitive in their style of worship and as well as their teaching of the Word. These leaders tend to give shallow messages to draw people back again. Hence, the leaders of these churches have the mentality of meeting people’s needs rather than putting God first as their sole purpose of worship. If I am right, then this has a devastating affect on people’s idea of the New Testament church. Furthermore, to talk about this important issue, we need to understand what the New Testament church is to be. What was the church like in the time of Paul? How did the church function during the post-Reformation era? Most importantly, what does scripture say what the church is to be? If you put a bunch of conservative evangelicals together, most likely they’re going to differ in church polity. Just like Presbyterians differ in their worship than Baptists and so forth. Some will say we want contemporary styles of music, while others will want hymns. I believe there is a right perspective on the church and it doesn’t really involve so much about styles of worship, dancing, etc… It was not long ago that John MacArthur preached a sermon on “How to find a true church.” In that message, he listed seven important aspects on how to find a “true” church. Leaders of Protestant church should first get the gospel right and let everything follow.

Another name for this movement is postmodern church. The key element of it, if I understand it correctly, is to present a gospel in a modern way (whatever meaning they apply to Gospel). According to a fraise of one of the leaders, Mac Laren, which being posted by Baptist press, “Christians have to present Christianity through loving attitudes rather then logical arguments “. Well, it is seems to me very bold statement. Let me put it this way it is not important what you say, if you act right. It may be an overstatement, but I believe that this position will lead you to this. We can not act right, unless there is a clear massage from God. If we look back at church history, we will se how important that our faith stands on doctrines, every statement, every word makes a difference. I am not against “sweet fellowship on the couch” or sing contemporary songs, there is nothing wrong with it, but do not neglect Bible over it. We have to preach the Word, so we can live by it. Of course, when we present the Word of God it should be done in modern language. By this I understand not changing it, so it may feet the culture, but rather explain what it means.

The “Emerging Church Movement” is certainly an interesting topic of conversation in church circles these days. I’m not so sure that it is a “movement” per se as much as it is simply the next church growth fad. Over the past three or four decades, evangelicalism has seen no shortage of trendy changes in the way worship services are structured. Those that follow these fads tend to think that traditional church methodology is obsolete and in need of updating (kind of like the homeowner that decides to paint over his vintage wallpaper so that his home will be more likely to sell). In my estimation, the Emerging Church “Movement” is nothing more than a “same song, second verse” church growth plan. Its promoters believe that the church must evolve or change to reflect the modern cultural milieu. Modern music styles and venues of artistic expression are touted as the best means of reaching the lost with the gospel. This methodology should concern anyone that holds to the biblical mandate of cross-centered preaching as the God-ordained means of conversion. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-24, the apostle Paul clearly asserts that Scripture is the means through which the Holy Spirit works to produce true conversion. Therefore, one must be wary of any method that promotes entertainment over expositional preaching. So keep reading, brother, but be sure to filter all that you read through the grid of Scripture. Remember, God’s word is the only inerrant guide for our minds and methods.

The “Emergent Church” is quite broad in its definition and can even be confusing to those who are within the movement. Much of this confusion stems from the fact that it is characterized by moving away from the sole authority of Scripture to, in their minds, the equally valid objective truth from our minds and experiences.
Though many of the desires of this movement are commendable, that can not justify the means in which it goes about answering these problems. To begin questioning whether the Bible really speaks to homosexuality as sin or the relevance of baptism is to completely undermine the authority of Scripture. These are only two examples of error in the Emergent Church, but many more exist.
Attacking areas of Scripture and challenging other passages relevance can only lead down a slippery slope where the gospel begins to be tainted, and many are deceived into walking down the wide path that appears to be so narrow. How can we be sure of what truly saves our souls if we can’t trust in the Bible entirely? D.A. Carson believes the gospel has already been compromised, “I have to say as kindly and forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, that both McLaren and Chalke, have largely abandoned the gospel.” Understanding and ministering to the cultural can only being valuable if we as Christians do not compromise the Truth of Jesus Christ!

The emerging church may be the greatest modern threat to evangelicalism since “Catholics and Evangelicals Together.” To call it a "movement" is a misnomer, as the emerging church could be more properly defined by its desired reality: a dissolved church, in which lies a new ecumenism to reach the unchurched masses for Christ. Enter the main problem: this constant clamoring to fill the pews is bringing the influence of the world into the church because they are being presented with a “Jesus loves you” gospel. Instantly you have a common bond presented between saint and heathen. When you start presenting the true gospel regarding repentance, sin, and turning in faith to Christ alone for salvation, you promote division and make the poor pagans feel judged and unloved. Result: the unchurched are churched instead of the unsaved saved; and the church is contaminated. I have attended these services on multiple occasions and they lend credence to the diagnosis Martin Lloyd-Jones’ gave regarding church-goers decades ago: that we are politely bored with God. And we show God this courtesy by adopting a sanctimonious symbolic ritualism, such as candle-burning, placing crosses at every corner, and performing the Eucharist. Christian comedians replace preaching; even having artists paint on stage as the "sermon" is being given. Is this necessary to enhance our “experience” of God? Can we give our attention to the preacher alone instead of making him share the stage with an artist? Perhaps it’s a good thing to keep the person from listening to the feel-good non-sense propagated from God’s sacred pulpit, which has already been stripped of its authority. Indeed, leaders backing this movement may be sincere, but the road to hell is as much sincerity as it is good intentions.

The Emerging Church

Many churches have become bored with the motivational talks and structures of the ‘seeker sensitive’ approach to church life. The movement seems to have run out of steam and has resulted in The Emerging Church (EC).

Jesus taught that worship should be in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Worship in the EC is however quite different. There is a strong focus on experience and the imagination through mediation with the help of art, symbols, images, ‘myths’ and metaphors. This is more Eastern mysticism (conducted in an environment of a social club), than it is biblical worship. In the Psalms, the use of the Word of God is central in meditation. I believe that God is to be found in seeking Him through His Word and not through mystical experiences.

In the EC, the desire is to have the unbeliever form an integral part in worship, with the hope that they will be lured into Christianity. In the New Testament, spiritual gifts are given to the regenerate for the edification of the church. How can the unregenerate form an active part in this?

I have no problem with having church meetings in a living room, or even ‘smells and bells’ if you really want them, but what truly concerns me is what is lacking! Where is the proper biblical leadership in some of these groups? What about the sound doctrine and teaching that is emphasized in Scripture?

The EC is not easy to define, but it seems to include a mixture of High Church rituals and icons, Charismatic influences, New Age philosophies and some skeletal remains of evangelical belief.

The Emerging Church Movement claims that a “new church” is emerging due to the cultural changes of today’s culture. The movement further asserts that churches must adapt to this “new church” or they will be ineffective witnesses for Christ in the twenty-first century.

The idea of a “new church” emerging bothers me. Does this imply that the “old church” is somehow insufficient or no longer relevant? The God-glorifying church has always been built upon the firm foundation of Jesus Christ and submits Him as the head of the body. To change the foundational elements of Christ’s church would be erroneous. The EC Movement is so loosely defined that it seems to be better understood by how it is not defined instead. Their lack of a biblical philosophy of ministry and their haphazard approach of “seeing how it will evolve” is downright scary.

The EC Movement focuses on holistic forms of worship rather than the preaching of the Word. The influence of postmodernism literally cripples the Word of God. Postmodernism claims that absolute and propositional truths do not exist. It is ironic that this line of thinking contradicts itself on its fundamental premise. The ECM’s view of Scripture essentially turns the Sword of the Spirit into a rubber stick. They do not view God’s Word to be absolute, inspired, inerrant, authoritative, or sufficient.

The fact that these people seem to be sincere does not automatically make everything that they believe or do acceptable. You can be very sincere but sincerely wrong.

One source helped me understand why the term “emergent” is being used for this so-called movement. It states that the word “emergent” is usually defined as something coming into view, occurring unexpectedly that requires immediate action. It can also mean crossing a boundary, such as between water and air. The tagline to this particular section of my reading was that all of these meaning “resonate with the spirit and vision of emergent.”

I have to admit that before this assignment I hadn’t really heard or read much about this new phenomenon. But as far as I can tell the Emergent Church seems to be some kind of ecumenical conglomeration of diverse religious leaders coming together under the common goal of being “Missional.” At first glance, it appears as though everything they are saying is perfectly acceptable, such as following in the way of Jesus, seeing the world with the hope that God is at work, and that the Church should be like a close family. But this is the issue at hand, what exactly are they saying? This isn’t a theological movement; it is just a different and “new” way that these people want to do church, for lack of a better why of saying it. It’s not a new denomination or movement, just a bunch of churches that want to “fit in” with an existential and ecumenical contemporary culture.

The Emerging Church movement began with the observation that the church is missing out on vast numbers of the population by not addressing people within the context of their cultural situation. American culture has changed drastically over the last 50+ years, and it seems that the American evangelical church, generally speaking, was either not aware of this or simply refused to acknowledge it and adapt. Therefore, this movement believed it was time to redefine the way that the church goes about “doing church.”
In many ways, the “church culture” of our time is a hold-over from the secular culture of early 20th century. For example, long after many major corporations have switched to “business casual” attire, many churches still see a suit & tie as lending legitimacy to one’s message. But the church picked this up from secular culture and not vice-versa. If the culture that birthed such a mindset has moved past it, why should the church retain it? I think the Emerging Church movement has been very accurate in pointing out the American church’s tendency to confuse church tradition with previous cultural norms.
In reality, Scripture is not explicit about how the church is to “do” church. There is no divinely-inspired order of service, and the local church is inescapably situated within a local culture. Thus, a church is sub-Saharan Africa should look different from a church in rural Connecticut. They are bound by the Word of God; but where the Word of God is silent there must be freedom to communicate the gospel accurately and clearly to the people of a particular region.
Looking at the great cathedrals in Europe, it seems artwork was once welcomed and sought out as a part of the church’s worship. If artistic expression has fallen out of vogue in contemporary church culture, is this because it is wrong, or because it is a reflection of the pragmatic Americanism of the last 200 years? I also see no reason that the contemporary church should not use contemporary music. Keep in mind that every song in our hymnals was once “contemporary” too.

While the idea of an emerging church movement appeals to many people and is increasing in popularity, this movement may not be a movement of the true church at all. The very label "emerging church" raises some red flags. This post-modern concept is nowhere to be found in Scripture. The church was founded upon Christ and as He is immutable, we know that the Gospel and basic premises of the church will not drift with the varying philosophies of man.

The fundamental flaw with the emerging church is that it emphasizes such things as "discourse", "sensitivity", and "creative expression" rather than tenets of the Christian faith. In fact, its leaders seem to be more concerned with cultural trends than with the truth of the Gospel. When asked about whether belief in the Gospel is necessary for salvation, Brian McLaren, one of the leaders of the movement replied, "I wouldn't say that having that understanding is all that it means to be a Christian."

In doing so, McLaren did not strictly deny that such a faith can save, but dodged the question by giving an indirect response. McLaren and the movement's other leaders appear to be more concerned with growing in number than in upholding the truth of the Word of God. In seeking to become all things to all people, they have watered down the Gospel to the point where it ceases to be a true Gospel which leads to salvation.

I apologize for being a few minutes past noon.

I believe the emergent church movement is leading people away from the centrality of scripture. I recently read "A New Kind of Christian" by Brian McLaren. I was uneasy at the conclusions he comes to.

The reason for my uneasiness concerns Brian’s view of scripture. Brian describes the Bible as being a good thing for people who desire to be more spiritual. He continues by expounding on the point that there are many other things which can be beneficial to know and understand. He wants us to see the Bible as one anchor point of a spider web and other sources of spiritual information as the other anchor points. The Bible is not central to Brian’s theology. It is not the one and only foundation. In fact, he boldly challenges individuals to show him one scripture or passage which claims the Bible to be a foundation.

The emergent church movement is a post-modern approach to Christianity. Rather then shedding the title of “Christian” and becoming a post-modern, there is a new “option” of being a Christian with a post-modern approach to Christianity. No longer is there need for doctrines, or reasons for disagreements, everything works as long as it leads to a knowledge and trust in Jesus Christ. This approach undermines scripture and takes away from its authority. To be involved in this church is to leave the centrality of scripture. There is only impending danger in that route.

Sorry about my paper being late. Hopefully you wull excuse it on account of me not knowing the assighnment untill today.

I have never actually learned anything about the emerging church. However, all of the things you mentioned about it seem perfectly biblical to me. We all know that David danced before the Lord, and I havent read anything from Jesus stating that the dancing dispinsation is over. What is worship but to worship in Spirit and in truth? If my heart is fore the Lord and i honor him through my dancing, or contemperary music, or painting what is to say that this is breaking either of the above two commands. I tend to agree that traditional hymn readings and robotic body positioning can become dull to certain believers. I , for instance, am unable to worship the Lord with all my heart and all my strength and all my mind and all my heart, if I am stuck doing traditional forms of worship. I understand that this may be some peoples choice of worship, but for me this cannot be. I can appreciate this style once and a while, but not all the time. Certainly the consept of worshiping God in truth is the only place of debate in this issue, otherwise those who reject this emerging church idea are appealing to subjective results. And we should be carefull to distinguish the diference beetween results, and doctrine. Seeing that the worshiping in truth concept is the only non falacious argument that can be think of in this topic I would challenge those who appose contemperary music, and worship through dancing and painting to provide some scriptual arguments. I do not believe there are any.

your servant;

Nathan Adams

I believe the term “worship” is the means to which we connect with God through reverent love or affection. Now through time, that has become to mean different things for different people. As for me, if I was a god, I would want people to love me for who “I am”, to use a play on words. I don’t want people to come and worship and make a big deal when they made a mistaken identity. To put it in an illustration, what if I was to throw a party for a dear friend, let’s say a congratulation party for some achievement and I set parameters because I know the guy really well, and then a random person shows up thinking it was a costume party, ready to drink the night away. It turns out this guys doesn’t know the host nor the guest of honor but wants to party anyway. Maybe a poor illustration, but I believe for us to worship in the manner pleasing Him as the bible tells us, we need to do that with accuracy. Now I know God has created all the gifts, such as art and music as forms of expression of His glory but in the “traditional” sense of worship, I believe the priority is set in the proclamation of His word and the emphasis is placed upon the accuracy of understanding His word such as when Ezra preached to God’s people at the fountain in the Nehemiah so that we will know Him.

I believe that the emerging church movement is really nothing new. I think that it is, in fact, an old theory just re-invented. The "church" has been thinking ever since there has been the "church" how it can "better reach the world." This is very fascinating to me because I find that this is so self-seeking in so many different ways.
Those who are the headleaders of this movement claim that they are trying to make the church more solid and, in so doing, they are leaving the old, traditional, foundational, Biblical principles and are seeking to form wholly to the new "postmodern" culture. Because after all, the culture that we live in today is very postmodern, and if we want to reach these people for the Gospel, we must seek to bring the Gospel to them, that is, where they are in their lives today in society.
This sort of thinking is hard for me to swallow because after all, where do the Scriptures say that we must "conform" the Bible to the people, much less, to our culture today? The Bible instead says, "Preach the Word...be faithful in season and out of season." Are we truly preaching the Word if we are more concerned about making the Gospel, making the appearance attractive and seeking to lure people in by not making them feel uncomfortable by bringing their Bibles to church? This is no gospel at all. This is surely no Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We must be careful what our intentions are in church ministry. Yes we want to have a nice appearance in the church. Yes we want to have a nice nursery for the children and a good, fun youth center for the jr. and sr. high, but is that really the main intention in church? Is the church really about making people feel at home?
No, but rather the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is about making people feel uncomfortable with their own wretched sinfulness and thus exposing their own sinfulness and dire need for a Savior and then providing hope in the life of Jesus Christ and in the death of their own selves.
So this whole idea of trying to impact the church in a "new and profound way" for Jesus Christ is really a sham. This is no true Gospel, Biblically. We must be bold for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is our first and foremost responsibility as the church.

I would tend to agree with your last statement. The Emergent Church movement is definitely not for me but, if done right, I don’t really find anything intrinsically wrong with the movement. I have heard of all the things you mentioned here and have even heard about journaling corners for people during the worship service, candles for lighting and things of that nature. On the whole, it seems that the goal of the movement is to make the worship service as multi-sensory as possible. While this seems nice, especially for those people who do not really like traditional church, there are some concerns that come along with the movement. Firstly, some of the activities seem to promote exclusivity in church. Traditionally, Sunday morning has been a time of corporate worship; a time for the body of believers to come together and worship God in unity. Many of the activities involved in the Emergent Church Movement seem to take away from the corporate worship aspect of Sunday morning. Secondly, and most importantly, my experience with the Emergent Church Movement has seen it greatly diminish the role of the sermon in the Sunday morning service. This certainly relates to the individuality of some of the new aspects of the service (journaling, painting, etc) and helps keep everything both multi-sensory as well as non-traditional. However, it seems both foolish as well as unbiblical to have a service that deemphasizes preaching. While many of the other aspects could be left to personal preference, it is vital that the exposition of the Bible remain an integral part of Sunday morning.

The Emerging Church movement is becoming increasingly popular and does bear evidence of being used by God. The issue, however, should not be the popularity of the movement, but rather the extent to which the movement is biblical. The Emergent Church leaders certainly seem to have pure motives, but Paul prefers gospel accuracy to purity of motive (cf. Philippians 1:15-18). Motivation is important, but it does not excuse false doctrine or unbiblical approaches to ministry. Many of the practices of the Emergent Church are admirable (e.g. painting as an act of worship and a means of meditating on one’s relationship with Christ), but sadly, the leaders of the Emergent Church tend to advocate these forms of worship to the exclusion of biblically mandated principles. Paul’s command to preach the word is minimized in the interest of “relevance.” When there is a preacher, he will sit among the congregation to avoid the appearance of didactic teaching. Since the pastor is no better than the congregation, he should not presume to preach to them. This is unbiblical, however, in that it ignores the spiritual gifts of teaching and preaching and the concept of gifted men whom God equips to edify the body of Christ. In summary, although many of the methods employed by the Emergent Church may be helpful in cultivating a freshness in one’s relationship with Christ, these methods should be analyzed biblically and used in conjunction with, and not to the exclusion of, biblically mandated principles of ministry.

I am emerging from the Emerging Church Movement. The church that I left to come to TMS was an eclectic mix of Lutheranism, 3rd Wave Charismatic, Purpose Driven Church, and ECM. We shunned the liturgy, doctrine, and stiffness of the traditional Lutheran church. Every criticism my fellow students posted was present in my church, so I won't beat a dead horse. My personal experience with this movement was that it was actually inhibiting my relationship with God even though the movement claims to bring people closer to God by releasing people from the shackles of doctrine.

The "un-church" concept seemed great at the outset, but as we grew in numbers the model became impractical. I was on the elder board and it became obvious that we needed some rules and structure. However, we had built our church on the premise that rules and doctrine inhibit true worship. I remember asking myself, "If you could really have a church with no doctrine, don't you think people would have been doing it that way a long time ago?" In the end, we were just a bunch of sinners looking for an excuse to not submit to the authority of Scripture. Yes, we were sincere worshippers, but it's easy to be sincere when you are following a god created in your own image.

From what I have read, the emerging church seems to be the offspring of the seeker sensitive movement. But the one major shift (although in the same direction) is that they are culturally adapting the epistemology of the Gospel message, not just the style of the worship service.

While seeker friendly ministers would claim that they preach a sound biblical gospel similar to what would be heard in conservative evangelical churches, Emergents openly say that they don't, and don't want to preach the same gospel (at least not in the same way).

Two of the emerging church movement's leaders were interviewed in a Christianity Today article from November 2004, titled "The Emergent Mystique". One of them, Rob Bell, made reference of his perceived need to alter the Gospel to be culturally relevant to a postmodern world. He says in the article, "“This is not just the same old message with new methods,” Rob says. “We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life. Legal metaphors for faith don’t deliver a way of life."
"Not just the same old message" implies two things. First, that the old message is boring, useless, and insignificant. What message does he mean? It seems clear from the context of the article that he means the Gospel as presented in evangelical churches over at least, the last, forty years.
Also, the statement "Legal metaphors don't deliver a way of life" is disconcerting especially since the Gospel, and Christian theology in general is rooted in legal concepts, employing terms such as "advocate" and "law". In fact I would go so far as to say that the clearest, inspired, doctrinal discourse on salvation, as given by the apostle Paul in the book of Romans, has at its core the doctrine of JUSTIFICATION by faith - "justification" being a legal term.

Bell goes on later in the article to clarify that the shift is in the Gospel by saying, "People don't get it, they think it's about style. But the real question is: What is the Gospel?"

Brian McLaren was the second Emergent leader interviewed in the article. He says, "I don't think we've got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be 'saved'? When I read the Bible, I don't see it meaning, ' I'm going to heaven after I die.'

At its core, this is what is essentially problematic about the Emergent movement. The New Testament doesn't put much emphasis on what to wear to church, where to meet, what style of music to worship to, or how to do your hair. For gentiles such as twenty first century American Christians, there is freedom in Christ to be Gentiles. But the New Testament is entirely concerned with truth, especially the Gospel, it is something to be held forth and contended for. (Galatians 1:8-9)

I believe that the emerging church movement is just the next in a long series of fads to capture the attention of immature believers and unbelievers who like to attend church. I think it will be here today and gone tomorrow. A movement that is primarily geared to reach a specific culture is going to be out in the cold when that culture changes. The concept of the emerging church is relatively new to me, so I had to look at a couple of websites in order to even form an opinion. While I was browsing, I did see several things that concerned me. One website mentioned that they had a flexible doctrinal statement that was open to differing beliefs with in reason. Secondly, it seemed to me that the emerging church has many similarities to the church growth movement, and both see themselves as a "reformation" from the old dry religion of "your parents." This is very concerning. I believe that an attitude like this one could possibly lead many errors. Overall, I am not surprised by anything that I read on the emerging church movement, and I think that it is just sad to see so many believers enticed into thinking that this is "it." When it is really only the next in a long line of Christian fads and church movements geared to capture the attention of our culture. It will be here today and gone tomorrow.