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)

Free Church abandoning the Westminster Confession?

As an Arminian Baptist, I do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the subordinate standard of most Presbyterian churches, including the Free Church of Scotland, because of its Calvinist standpoint and emphasis on infant baptism. I do, however, agree with its stance on Christ being the head of the church, not the Pope, and its repudiation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. It is therefore worrying to see that some Free Church ministers are now abandoning the Westminster Confession (and, it seems, their ordination vows) in favour of ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic Church. Rev James Maciver, last year's Free Church moderator, joined in an ecumenical watchnight service with the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Stornoway in December and was praised for it by Rev Professor Donald Macleod, recently retired Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Church College in Edinburgh, in his Footnotes article for the West Highland Free Press of 30-12-11. In addition, Rev David Robertson went on air on Radio Scotland in 2010 and welcomed the Pope to Scotland as a 'fellow-christian' which is definitely not how the Pope is described in Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession.

It seems to me that the Free Church needs to either discipline these men (who are very influential within the denomination) or else come clean and admit that they no longer regard the Westminster Confession of Faith as their confessional document. Then at least we would all know where we stand. Personally I think it is very sad that these ministers should have been so deceived as to forget what the Reformation was about and accept Roman Catholicism as a christian faith. Without the restraining influence of those who left to form the Free Church (Continuing) in 2000 it seems that the Free Church of Scotland is now beginning to go down the same path as the Church of Scotland, albeit 40 years behind. They'll be appointing women elders next.