What's in a name?

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.

Where do you draw the line?

In this age of increasing deception and compromise, I am wondering where one should draw the line when it comes to fellowshipping with people who do not hold exactly the same views as me. I don't think I am alone in wondering this and so I want to explore the issue in this post, and am taking the unusual step of opening it for comments so that others can contribute to the discussion if they wish.

As I have already said, I am an Arminian Baptist. I have described Arminianism elsewhere on this blog and I believe in adult, or believer's, baptism, not the christening of infants. At the moment I attend a Presbyterian church which is Calvinist and practises infant baptism. So you would be right in deducing that I don't see these things as deal-breakers when it comes to christian fellowship. Maybe some people would. However, if my church were to start holding joint services of worship with Our Lady of Lourdes RC church round the corner I would be out of there like a shot. A line would have been crossed because I don't believe that we share the same gospel with the Roman Catholic church.

If a minister were to preach something contrary to the Word of God as expressed in Scripture, I would leave that church. It is dangerous to sit and listen to heresy - eventually you will start to believe it. If a church leader were to start advocating things which are extra-biblical, such as lectio divina, visions of angels, centering prayer, Toronto-blessing type manifestations, I would also leave. These things are not founded in the Bible and can lead one into deception. You'll notice I'm talking about what the minister or leader is doing. That is because they set the direction of the church. I would be concerned if a member of the congregation had unbiblical views but it would not be a leaving issue for me unless it infected the whole congregation.

What else would cause me to leave a church? The use of The Message as the primary version of the Bible. Participation in the Purpose Driven Church program. Promotion of extra-biblical revelation and experiential christianity. A female leader. A leadership which is above criticism. Attempts to unduly control and influence my life in areas where the church has no authority eg telling me what job to take, what house to live in, who to marry. (Those are the signs of a cult, not a church.) Undue pressure to give financially to the church. I'm sure I could think of a few more things given time and I'll maybe expand on some of the above in later posts, again given time!

One particularly pressing issue for many in Scotland at the moment is the fact that, while their church is fine and their minister is sound, the denomination to which they belong is going off the rails. That is a difficult one. Do you (or should you) belong to the local church or do you belong to the denomination? Should you leave a good church just because the denomination is bad? I don't know the answer to that and, I suspect, many others don't either. It needs to be a matter for much prayer and, ultimately, the conscience of the individual. I personally am not loyal to any particular denomination and so look for the best church locally.

Ultimately the issue is not whether I agree with the minister/church/denomination. It's whether they agree with the Word of God as set forth in the Bible. When Paul and his companions arrived in Berea with the gospel, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11b NIV) We need to be like that and not like the Corinthians who "put up with a different gospel" to the one Paul preached "easily enough". (2 Corinthians 11:4b NIV)

Angels - the new god?

I was browsing the religious section of my local library this afternoon and was amazed at the number of books on angels. Perhaps I shouldn't have been - there is plenty of evidence around that angels are the new god, from angel workshops to cute little statuettes of angels in people's homes. It seems there is an angel for every occasion - a bit like saints - and you can read about how to harness their power for your own benefit. Sadly even Christians are being taken in by all this - I personally have encountered Christians who pray to angels, invoke their help and have a special guardian angel whom they regard as a mascot. They obviously haven't read Hebrews recently, otherwise they would know that angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation, but that salvation comes through faith in Christ, who is far above the angels. (Hebrews 1)

Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us to pray to angels - quite the opposite. In Colossians 2:18 we are warned against those who worship angels and praying to angels instead of to God is, I believe, idolatry. It is God who commands the angels, not us (Psalm 91:11). We are commanded to pray to God, in the name of His Son and to make all our requests known to God, not to angels. If God decides to answer our prayers by sending an angel, that is his prerogative. Personally I'd rather he used other means, as encounters with angels in Scripture usually left the person concerned terrified! Angels are not cute, cuddly beings - they are awesome messengers and mighty warriors. They are also always male, not female, so the female angel which Todd Bentley claimed to have seen floating along was not Biblical.

It seems to me that people become interested in angels because they want to believe that someone is looking after them but they don't want to have to deal with a righteous God. They are not interested in repenting of their sin and worship of angels doesn't require them to. All is sweetness and light and love. It is a false gospel. Christians who have a wrong image of God as stern, harsh and unapproachable sometimes find that angels are much easier to believe in and pray to but the real answer is to gain a right understanding of God as a loving heavenly Father through reading His Word. Worship of angels will only lead one deeper into deception. Remember that Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14).

As Christians, we should be grateful for the ministry and protection of angels but we should not seek to contact them. Our relationship is with God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ our Saviour and the Holy Spirit is our comforter, who reveals Jesus to us (John 16:14) and helps us to pray as we ought (Rom 8:26).