I heard a sermon recently in which the preacher mentioned emergent and emerging churches. In his view, the former was bad, having gone off the rails theologically, but the latter was OK, being just churches looking for a way to be culturally relevant. Leaving aside, for the moment, the whole minefield of cultural relevance, making such a distinction between 'emergent' and 'emerging' is rather dangerous. A quick check of Wikipedia shows that there is no consensus about what those terms actually mean. Indeed, many commentators on today's churches use the terms interchangeably, including Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. It seems that the term 'emergent' started with Brian McLaren's Emergent Village and some still use it to refer to that, with 'emerging' referring to a wider, more diverse movement which would include the likes of Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, Doug Pagitt and Dan Kimball, however there is a considerable amount of overlap and confusion about the terms, making the assertion of the preacher, which I mentioned at the start, open to misinterpretation.
The attempt to be culturally relevant has led many churches off the straight and narrow path and onto the broad highway which leads to hell. Maybe not all emerging churches are on that road but a lot are, with their emphasis on conversation, inclusion, generous orthodoxy, interfaith dialogue and mysticism. The christian who wants to stay faithful to God's word would do well to avoid such churches, where experience is elevated over scripture. That is not to say that I am against all things modern - I read the NIV and I don't use King James English to pray. What the emerging church movement is doing goes well beyond simply updating the language they use to worship God and communicate the gospel to others. If your church is getting involved in any of the following, it may be time to leave:
(this list is not exhaustive)
Worship services that are more like a disco than a church service.
Promotion of contemplative prayer/lectio divina/teachings of the 'desert fathers'.
Use of labyrinths.
Use of The Message instead of a more reliable bible version eg NIV, NASB, KJV.
Elevation of experience over Scripture.
The Toronto blessing/soaking prayer.
Angelic manifestations.
Teaching and use of techniques for healing, rather than dependence on the Holy Spirit.
Ecumenical/interfaith services.
Vision casting/visualisation.
Over-emphasis on the demonic or prophetic.
Purpose driven/seeker friendly.
Ignoring hard teachings in order not to offend or scare away non-christians.
Monday 21 May 2012
Friday 18 May 2012
On running the race
Last night at Bible Study we looked at Hebrews 12. It starts with that wonderful verse 'Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.' Not the race that we have chosen - the one marked out for us. For one christian friend today that race is coping with the death of her husband in an accident just weeks before they were due to share retirement together. For another, it is struggling with secondary cancer when just months ago she had been given the all-clear. There are times when you just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other (metaphorically speaking). That's perseverance.
There is some debate as to who wrote the book of Hebrews but my money is on the Apostle Paul. He knew about both hardship and perseverance. He finished the race and kept the faith (2 Tim 3:7). He called himself the least of all the apostles and yet, in many ways, he was the greatest. He left us a wealth of instruction on how to live the christian life and was himself a shining example for us to follow. It therefore concerns me when people write him off as legalistic or his example as too difficult to follow. How could the writer of Galatians possibly be legalistic! Paul, were he alive today, would be the first to say that we should follow Jesus, not Paul, however if we ignore Paul we are missing something, because Paul's writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, point us to Jesus. That is why they are included in the Canon of Scripture and I am uncomfortable with the current trend among some christians to minimise or sideline Paul's epistles - an example being Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church, who is reported as saying in a BBC radio interview "My concern is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable going back to St.Paul." Why? The two (Paul and Jesus) are not incompatible. If we didn't have the gospels, we would still be able to understand the gospel and know Christ through Paul's writings.
It seems to me that those who want to go back to Jesus and who ignore Paul are really modern-day liberals who preach a gospel of love and grace while quietly ignoring the fact that grace is not a licence to sin. Paul was an observant Jew who had a supernatural encounter with the living Christ which changed his life from that moment on. He then became the apostle to the gentiles. That's you and me, unless you are a Jew. That's why we need to pay attention to his teachings. He had the background to understand the law and the prophets and he had the revelation of Christ as Messiah. He is also a wonderful example of perseverance in the face of persecution. The writer John Buchan understood this. In his book, Mr Standfast, one of the characters discourses on courage. 'It's easy to be brave if you're feeling well and have food inside you ... but the big courage is the cold-blooded kind, the kind that never lets go even when you're feeling empty inside, and your blood's thin, and there's no kind of fun or profit to be had, and the trouble's not over in an hour or two but lasts for months and years ... fortitude's the biggest thing a man can have - just to go on enduring when there's no guts or heart left in you ... the head man at the job (fortitude) was the Apostle Paul.' (Mr Standfast Chapter XI)
Now Paul is one of the great cloud of witnesses who surround us and I, for one, am glad of his example.
There is some debate as to who wrote the book of Hebrews but my money is on the Apostle Paul. He knew about both hardship and perseverance. He finished the race and kept the faith (2 Tim 3:7). He called himself the least of all the apostles and yet, in many ways, he was the greatest. He left us a wealth of instruction on how to live the christian life and was himself a shining example for us to follow. It therefore concerns me when people write him off as legalistic or his example as too difficult to follow. How could the writer of Galatians possibly be legalistic! Paul, were he alive today, would be the first to say that we should follow Jesus, not Paul, however if we ignore Paul we are missing something, because Paul's writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, point us to Jesus. That is why they are included in the Canon of Scripture and I am uncomfortable with the current trend among some christians to minimise or sideline Paul's epistles - an example being Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church, who is reported as saying in a BBC radio interview "My concern is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable going back to St.Paul." Why? The two (Paul and Jesus) are not incompatible. If we didn't have the gospels, we would still be able to understand the gospel and know Christ through Paul's writings.
It seems to me that those who want to go back to Jesus and who ignore Paul are really modern-day liberals who preach a gospel of love and grace while quietly ignoring the fact that grace is not a licence to sin. Paul was an observant Jew who had a supernatural encounter with the living Christ which changed his life from that moment on. He then became the apostle to the gentiles. That's you and me, unless you are a Jew. That's why we need to pay attention to his teachings. He had the background to understand the law and the prophets and he had the revelation of Christ as Messiah. He is also a wonderful example of perseverance in the face of persecution. The writer John Buchan understood this. In his book, Mr Standfast, one of the characters discourses on courage. 'It's easy to be brave if you're feeling well and have food inside you ... but the big courage is the cold-blooded kind, the kind that never lets go even when you're feeling empty inside, and your blood's thin, and there's no kind of fun or profit to be had, and the trouble's not over in an hour or two but lasts for months and years ... fortitude's the biggest thing a man can have - just to go on enduring when there's no guts or heart left in you ... the head man at the job (fortitude) was the Apostle Paul.' (Mr Standfast Chapter XI)
Now Paul is one of the great cloud of witnesses who surround us and I, for one, am glad of his example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)