Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Education|Sat, Jan. 24 2009 09:38 AM EST

Emerging Church Movement Threatens Church Foundation, Says Pastor

By Eric Young|Christian Post Reporter

Correction appended

The Emerging Church movement is seeking to revitalize the faith but may infect an entire generation with a philosophy that kills it, according a Reformed Presbyterian pastor and theologian.

"If churches embracing the principle of Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone) fail to understand and address the concerns voiced in the Emerging Church conversation, we may lose an entire generation of professing believers,” says the Rev. Rutledge Etheridge, an adjunct professor of systematic theology at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary (RPTS) in Pittsburgh and pastor of Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church.

According to Etheridge, the Emerging Church movement – known for flexible methodology and efforts to be culturally relevant – seeks to glean the good from Christianity's past while painting a fresh picture of the faith today. Those familiar with the movement say its members seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a "postmodern" society, while its leaders are often critical of traditional evangelical churches and often place high value on good works or social activism.

Though Emerging leaders such as Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, contend that the movement is very broad, ranging from doctrinal Christians to Emergent liberals, the latter group makes up a large enough piece of the movement to lead many conservatives to question the entire movement.

Etheridge, whose arguments, like many, are directed against the Emerging Church in general and not specifically toward the Emergent branch, says its understanding of the nature and content of Scripture proves detrimental to the identity and mission of the church.

"If the Emerging Church eventually defines Christ's church, then the church as Christ defined it will be no more," the Reformed Presbyterian pastor contends.

Next weekend, Etheridge will deliver three seminar lectures, entitled "The Church's Identity Crisis: Sola Scriptura and The Emerging Church," which will address the Emerging Church movement's wide-reaching conversation about how to live the Christian life with authenticity.

"While we should applaud and apply much of its content, we must also confront that it is moved along by an old philosophical wind which ever threatens to wrest Christ's church from the foundation of her faith – the written Word of God," says Etheridge, whose lectures next Saturday at RPTS are sponsored by the Reformation Society of Pittsburgh.

In his first seminar, "The Mechanics and Mission of the Church – A New Old Conversation," Etheridge will examine key issues raised by the Emerging Church conversation and explain why these issues are so critical to the church's nature, purpose, and impact on the world.

In the second, "The Emerging Church – Reformation or Regression," the Pittsburgh pastor will demonstrate how the Emerging Church leaders' critique of the church is fueled by elements of the same philosophy they want it to reject. Their forward thinking call to the church is actually a call backward, Etheridge claims.

In the third seminar, "Sola Scriptura – Clarity Amidst the Confusion," Etheridge will call Christians to confidence in God's Word and the ability He gives them to truly know and live it. The call will be a response to the Emerging Church's details of a call to be humble in approaching Scripture, which Etheridge says amounts to an agnosticism contrary to the knowable claims of the Bible.

Correction: Saturday, January 24, 2009:

In a Jan. 24 story about concerns raised by one pastor against the Emerging Church movement, The Christian Post erroneously described Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, as an Emergent leader. Though Driscoll says he was initially connected to the Emergent “lane” within the larger Emerging Church movement, he describes himself today as part of the stream of “Emerging reformers” within the Emerging Church movement.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "'If the Emerging Church eventually defines Christ's church, then the church as Christ defined it will be no more,' the Reformed Presbyterian pastor contends." I imagine the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Coptic churches all felt that way about protestantism. But I am happy to know that Christ defined the church as Reformed Presbyterian. Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anabaptists etc. need to understand this or they may threaten the Reformed Presbyterians as well. Gosh, maybe groups tend to define the church according to the challenges of their time. Or does the pastor think that James, bishop of Jerusalem and Peter embraced the principal of sola scriptura? I hate to think those guys failed to correctly define the church.

  • Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I've been searching the scriptures and the Body for the best form of church, because I believe that the structures we are accustomed to are failing most of us.

    This has nothing to do with orthodoxy, but rather is about praxis: how we do church. Let alone the upcoming postmodern generation, which simply is not going to sit still for our rigid church constructs, even Boomers and Busters are poorly served by what we currently have. 80% of the Body sitting passively in pews is not going to meet the challenges of tomorrow in our culture.

    Some of the difficulty expressed here is due to a lack of discrimination between the terms emerging and emergent. Both orthodox and liberal elements are telescoping themselves into the movement, it's that simple.

    Therefore, the emerging church should be used for the purpose of unity only within orthodox parameters. And I believe it will be used that way, as has the Pentecostal movement.

    If you are committed to orthodoxy, but are looking to get back to the dynamic we see in the book of Acts, you might find some clues in the emerging church. I would suggest you give "Organic Church" by Neil Cole a read, for a moving description of what is possible when we leave behind stifling misconceptions of how church must be done.

  • Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    continued...

    and this is not true of the emerging church.

    Grace and peace,
    Jim

  • Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jehovahnissi,

    This site is laced with incorrect information. Just 3 paragraphs in one finds this sentence; "The Emerging Church movement consists of a diverse group of people who identify with Christianity, but who feel that reaching the postmodern world requires us to radically reshape the church’s beliefs and practices to conform to postmodernism" which is complete and utter falsehood. Since the author cannot get even this basic information correct, one should be very wary of the rest of his "information."

    I would find another source of information, one that is accurate and not misleading or blatantly false.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It is sad to see what people will and have done in His name. He was very funny as you said.

  • Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I loved Mike Warnke. I used to have all his tapes. He was hilarious. I even saw him live shortly before the truth came to light.

  • Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    part 2 here,

    The only reason I and many other emerging believers use the term (I certainly can't speak for all emergings anymore than you can speak for all of your denomination[if you belong to a denomination])in normal conversation is of the emergence of the next generation of Christ followers ARE different from the last generation in many ways. We are following the King in a post-modern and pluralistic world where we are trying to break from modernism (AKA the "enlightenment" or radical individualism) and live as we see Jesus did and expects us to do. Living the word in a pluralistic society is certainly different than doing so in a modernistic society that has the facade of Christianity. Maybe if more people such as yourself didn't lump us all together under the Emergent (mainly heretical) church we wouldn't need to constantly make the distinction.

    So, no, you need not my forgiveness. You need HIS forgiveness for your false accusations and calling me a heretic by lumping me in with the Emergents whom you have already labeled as heretics. YOU made the false accusations, not I. The proof is in your own words recorded on this site. If we want to use the modernistic, linear logic tact, you are stuck with your own words. But, I still forgive you.

    And lastly, your not knowing where and/or what "grace and peace" is from (Paul's letters)or means (His grace being given to you and His peace coming after that grace) causes me to wonder. How could any Christian question another brother wishing grace and peace onto his brother or sister?

    Grace and Peace,

    Jim

  • Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    prophet,

    yes, that was what I was quoting (maybe not exactly). It is a funny line with much truth to it but certainly not Scripture. The basic truth is there though.

    throughitall,

    No, you don't need my forgiveness, you need Yahweh's forgiveness. I am just practicing what my Lord commands me to do, forgive those who sin against you.

    You said this about me;

    "oldstudent, like many emergents, is assuming that everyone else is either ignorant, stupid, judgemental
    and unkind, not to mention, not with it or "cool".
    What an example of this mentatlity. "

    since YOU don't know me, you made false accusations.

    1. I am certainly not cool and don't think "everyone else" isn't cool.
    2. ditto for ignorant.
    3. ditto for stupid.
    4. ditto for judgmental.
    5. ditto for unkind
    6. I am not an Emergent by any stretch, I am an emergent if you desire to use a label that actually corresponds to reality.

    So that is a 6-part false accusation (or 6 false accusations all depending upon how you desire to count your sin of false accusation) of which you say things that aren't true about me personally and specifically.

    THEN you said that both Emergent and emerging are silly labels that are for us to feel superior over "conservative" Christians.

    If you are counting that is false accusation number 7 if we separate all your false assertions. Since I am a brother to "conservatives" and feel no superiority over "Conservatives" as you made in your blanket false statement, it is untrue.

    part 2 next,

  • Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    old student,

    Were you refering to Mike Warnke in that post? ""If you spend your time doing the dos, you don't have time to do the don'ts...."

  • Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    That particular act was a comedy act and was meant to make the opposite point for those who think Scripture is just a book of "don'ts." Comedy isn't straight doctrinal teaching just like poetry isn't narrative.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Bible is a book of do's and don'ts.

    Now there's a overly simplistic, childish, and erroneous view of the Bible.

  • Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If you spend your time doing the dos, you don't have time to do the don'ts...."

  • Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    MOM!!!

    Remember! The Bible is a book of do's not a book of don'ts!

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "all he could say was, "wow!" He could say it backwards..."wow!" "

    My 5 year old can say it up-side-down!!!

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    all he could say was, "wow!" He could say it backwards..."wow!"

    It is too bad Warnke ended up in the situations he put himself in...funny man.

    Jim

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Can't say as I do but I wouldn't have put it past him....

  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP, do you remember his shredded Tootsie Rolls in the Skoal can?

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I was thinking it might be the pastor with the perfect suit"

    Anyone remember Mike Warnke? He was once talking about a job he had as a youth pastor. He was summoned to the Pastors office. The Pastor wanted to speak to Mike about wearing blue jeans to work and about his hair getting long. He started telling him Mike needed to look and dress like a pastor. Mike asked exactly what that looked like and the Pastor gestured to his own appearance. Mike said, "Oh, 50 pounds over-weight and bald...."

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    Good one! I was thinking it might be the pastor with the perfect suit, Jimmy Johnson-immovable hair and polished nails.

    Believer,

    It is nice to see someone ask and seek to understand instead of throwing bombs on friendlies and foes alike.
    Prophet,

    If we were to point out the denominations with no heretical teaches or bad doctines it would end up being zero I'm afraid.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Big haired people. That's what my wife and I call them.

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 4:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "overcoiffed."

    Is that when someone from Brooklyn, NY has too much coffee?

  • Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    oldstudent, I either heard or read Driscoll's view and that really helped me to better understand the difference and I tend to agree with him on his analysis. But living and ministering in Southeast Kentucky, needless to say there is not much of a presence of either the emerging or emergent church so I am truly an outsider looking in on this one.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    oldstudent,
    Don't forget the RCC in that list of denominations that have accepted and teach falsehood.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer,

    Absolutely! Driscoll breaks it down into 4 lanes, not really sure if I agree completely with that but the idea is the same. Emergent is an official structure (although they try to say it is anti-hierarchical in nature) and those churches follow McClaren, Pagitt, Jones, Ward and the other non-believers. There is Emergent UK, Emergent, Emergent US, etc.

    The tough thing is to differentiate between Emergent and emerging quickly. In a short time period one will find out the differences but right off the bat, it isn't always so easy (sort of like differentiating the difference between a more mainline Lutheran and a Missouri Synod Lutheran). Some beliefs and some approaches overlap (there is an overall narrative to Scripture, being like Jesus is just as important for a believer as perfect doctrinal stances (some doctrines are absolute and central, others are not) because faith without works is dead (not real faith).

    In the end it takes some time to figure out the differences just like figuring out the differences between Lutherans, Baptists, etc. It isn't acceptable (nor is it true) that Anglicans are heretics and that they are a danger to the church and to make fun of them like a teenager. The Anglican church has lost its way and much of what is left of the church is dead but there are many great believers in the Anglican Communion and some of them are fantastic scholars like J I Packker and N T Wright. The same goes for emergings and emergents, one shouldn't throw poo and refuse to learn more and maybe find some brothers and sisters they didn't realize they had.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:22 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    oldstudent, do you differentiate between the emergent church and the emerging church? I tend to like Mark Driscoll for the most part but I have some real issues with Brian Mclaren, I see Driscoll as emerging and Mclaren as emergent.

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    You are correct about the vast majority of the Emergent church. But in all seriousness, how is this different from much of the traditional church today? We have Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, UMC, UCC where the majority of the organizations and congregations have accepted and teach falsehood.

    Grace and Peace,

    Jim

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    throughitall,

    here is your last post, let us see what it means;

    "The terms "emergent" and "emerging" are both
    silly terms. They both are being used to devide
    Christians and create a feeling of superiortiy over
    "conservative" believers. What is wrong with being
    born-again, followers of Christ, changing from glory
    to glory, forgiven, growing in Christ, desciples,
    washed in the blood of the Lamb, taking up your cross
    daily, not being entangled again with the yoke of bondage, etc? What is important is if our names are
    written in the Lambs Book of Life, not if you are emergent or emerging. Revelation 21:27
    I think I will "emerge" from this "conversation"
    sadder and wiser. I am glad this is finally being
    exposed for what it is, an excuse to devide and destroy."

    ""The terms "emergent" and "emerging" are both
    silly terms. They both are being used to devide
    Christians and create a feeling of superiortiy over
    "conservative" believers."

    This is no more true than saying that "conservative Christians [I thought labelling was bad???] do so to divide the body and feel superior over others in the body. In fact, if this is true then you can blame the "conservative" Christians for teaching their children to follow in their footsteps. Of course, this is false. We (just like our "conservative" brethren) do not use the terms in these manners (as you accuse) anymore than traditionalists do. Are there some who do? Of course and it is wrong. Don't throw rocks at our house when you live in a glass house my friend (denominationally and traditionally speaking, not directed at you personally).

    "What is wrong with being
    born-again, followers of Christ, changing from glory
    to glory, forgiven, growing in Christ, desciples,
    washed in the blood of the Lamb, taking up your cross
    daily, not being entangled again with the yoke of bondage, etc? What is important is if our names are
    written in the Lambs Book of Life, not if you are emergent or emerging. Revelation 21:27"

    We have agreement!!!!!!!! Now you must drop the "conservative" and other labels if you really believe this and want others to stop using labels. I have no problems with different labels in His church, He requires untiy not homogeny. So why don't you drop the labels Emergent and emerging and speak of your brothers in the one and the non-believers in the other? I would be all for it and I think it would fit with Christ's command to love one another (John 13).

    If you "emerge" from this conversation with the same attitude and without repenting for making false accusations and character swipes, you will emerge not in more light but in deeper darkness. More importantly than not learning anything about Emergent and emerging differences, He will look at your heart and words and deal with you. As for me, I forgive you for you false accusations and adolescent character attack.

    Exodus 20.16
    James 5.16
    James 3.6
    John 13.34-36
    Matthew 6.5-15

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    throughitall,

    If you are insulted by someone pointing out your ignorance in a matter, get informed. Ignorance isn't an insult unless one is pridefull. A true insult would have been to call you stupid or call you some apostate Lutheran when you are probably neither. You may know some of the Emergent and/or emerging but you understand not the differences and you seem to care not for what those differences are. You accuse me of being an Emergent (heretic) through this quote, "oldstudent, like many emergents, is assuming that everyone else is either ignorant, stupid, judgemental
    and unkind, not to mention, not with it or "cool".
    What an example of this mentatlity. " so please don't insult people's intelligence by saying I insulted you or accused you of anything false. When I said you are ignorant in this area it is either true or even worse, you write ignorance when you know better than what you write. I figured you were the not evil and a liar. You tell me which it is. You on the other hand made a direct and unequivocal false accusation about me so the one who is sinning against another here is you. You made false accusations and implied that I think all non-emergetns are uncool. Your writing betrays an adolescent attitude and tactic which is not discussion or debate but personal attacks and saying anything to "win" the argument. It fails everytime.

    Grace and Peace? You know, from 1 Thessalonians 1; 2 Peter 1; 2 Corinthians 1...This was a standard greeting from the early church members to one another. Here is a good article on the phrase (althouth not a complete study). Hopefully being greeted and having His grace and peace be ing on you isn't an insult or an accusation in your eyes. If it is, I am not sorry.

    http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2943

    Grace and Peace,

    Jim

  • Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I don't think throughitall really understands the false teachings behind the "emergant" church. I would agree with Sawnay in that "The 'emergent church' is simply a fancy and spiritual way of saying the apostate new age church that has rejected both God and Christ in favour of a feel good, all about me and my needs philosophy."

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ** DRJ,
    You use an incorrect term, "The Emerging Church" (you used CAPS) as the basis for an argument that doesn't exist, in truth. Emerging Christians are not a separate church, but are soundly within the universal Christian church. They are not the same as McLaren & Paggitt's Emergent movement. Using CAPS with the term does not make it correct, but shows you seem not to know emerging Christian thought & ideas well. Emerging Christians want to discuss, hence some use 'emerging discussion', but they aren't a separate church. I do not believe *they* use that term, but non-emerging people use it for them, and usually are the ones who don't differentiate between the emerging Christians, and (from a biblical definition), Emergent heretics.
    To throughitall, misinformed views like DRJ is why emerging Christians get upset.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ** aaron e, throughitall.
    One reason oldstudent/Jim speaks the way he does is because all too often, misinformed & 'underinformed' people broad swipe emerging Christians in with Emergent heretics (using a Bible-centered definition, McLaren, Pagitt, etc., are heretics, notwithstanding Willow Creek calling McLaren a "Christian" in their youth leaders conference Summer 2008 that McLaren spoke at). He has a valid reason to be upset at this. How many Christian writers of articles or books against Emergent have properly differentiated between the two?
    Aaron is the one who said,, "the emerging Church movement. Christ already predicted it. I am saddened though that some who do not know Christ will be misguided by this heresy". He is inaccurate & wrong. He makes the same mistake that many, if not most, make. Emerging isn't heresy. Emergent is. Please call and kindly ask Willow Creek Association why they called Brian McLaren a "Christian". I'd love to see a firm, sure and clear affirmation of the 'absolute truth' of the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, virgin birth, Jesus as the only way, "salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone", his physical, bodily resurrection, etc., from McLaren. Emerging Christians, like oldstudent/Jim, affirm those essentials of the Christian faith.
    Yes, when Christians or others do not differentiate between emerging Christians and Emergent heretics, they are, by definition, ignorant (Dictionary defined). They are slandering Christians who do not subscribe to the Emergent movement who partake in liberalism and give it a veneer of pseudo-'evangelicalism'.
    I wouldn't be all too happy if I were an emerging Christian & Christians kept calling me a heretic, not wanting me in their churches, etc., rejecting me as a non-Christian because they didn't know the difference between Emergent & emerging, and didn't even ask and /or study to know the difference.
    Christians should hope that non-Emerging Christians will learn the difference, and not cast Christians out as heretics.
    Oldstudent is my brother, BTW, and I am not emerging or Emergent.
    NOTE- Both Zondervan & Thomas Nelson have published McLaren's books. That is a shame (but since the former Christian owners let secular companies buy the former Christian book publishers, is it a Christian who allowed this? They both are now Christian, and 'Christian' division/imprint/sub-company (whichever term is correct) of secular companies.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    aaron e, throughitall, throughitall,
    One reason oldstudent/Jim speaks the way he does is because all too often, misinformed & 'underinformed' people broad swipe emerging Christians in with Emergent heretics (using a Bible-centered definition, McLaren, Pagitt, etc., are heretics, notwithstanding Willow Creek calling McLaren a "Christian" in their youth leaders conference Summer 2008 that McLaren spoke at). He has a valid reason to be upset at this. How many Christian writers of articles or books against Emergent have properly differentiated between the two?
    Aaron is the one who said,, "the emerging Church movement. Christ already predicted it. I am saddened though that some who do not know Christ will be misguided by this heresy". He is inaccurate & wrong. He makes the same mistake that many, if not most, make. Emerging isn't heresy. Emergent is. Please call and kindly ask Willow Creek Association why they called Brian McLaren a "Christian". I'd love to see a firm, sure and clear affirmation of the 'absolute truth' of the Trinity, virgin birth, Jesus as the only way, his physical, bodily resurrection, etc., from McLaren.
    Yes, when Christians or others do not differentiate between emerging Christians and Emergent heretics, they are by definition ignorant (Dictionary defined). They are slandering Christians who do not subscribe to the Emergent people who partake in liberalism and give it a veneer of pseudo-'evangelicalism'. Both Zondervan & Thomas Nelson have published McLaren's books. That is a shame (but since the former Christian owners let a secular company buy the former Christian book publishers, is it a Christian who allowed this? They both are now Christian, and 'Christian' division/imprint/sub-company (whichever term is correct) of secular companies.
    I wouldn't be all too happy if I were emerging Christian & Christians kept calling me a heretic, not wanted in churches, etc., rejecting me as a non-Christian because they didn't know the difference between Emergent & emerging, and didn't even ask to find out, study to know the difference.
    Let's hope non-Emerging Christians will learn the difference, and not cast them out like heretics.
    oldstudent is my brother, BTW, and I am not emerging or Emergent.

  • Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Does anyone have a link to the seminar talks that this article refers to? I've done a quick googling and not found anything.
    Grace and peace.
    Andy

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:29 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    Jesus is the foundation of the Church. It is not threatened. The only thing threatened are the churches who do not build their house on that foundation. They will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    aaron e, throughitall,

    you should study and find out what you are talking about before bearing false witness against others. Emergent and emerging are two different groups (with some limited overlapped just like Baptists and IFCA and other Protestant groups). Making ignorant, false or otherwise demeaning statements is wrong.

    throughitall,

    since I'm not emergent I am not offended by your silly and ignorant comment. I am uncool, your comment shows ignorance of the subject matter and a great "pious" way of looking like you are a true believer when you sin against a brother (or sister).

    Daniel Paul

    Good basic breakdown of differences between us and the Emergent. Good teaching tool. Glad to see the article was corrected somewhat although not enough.

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Not really, DRJ. It's in other faiths and cultures, too. Do you think "our crowd" invented loving God and loving your neighbor?

    Gee whiz....

  • DRJ »
    Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The Emerging Church...I'm not sure why we need another church to "emerge"...neither am I sure from whence it is emerging! There is ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, and ONE BAPTISM...therefore, ONE CHURCH! There are MANY interpretations of Scripture, and yet, only ONE that is true to the Lord. There are MANY who will say at Judgment, "Lord! Lord!..." to whom Jesus will say, "I never knew you." Hear the Word of the Lord: "enter by the narrow way..." Do not confuse mass acceptance as a formula for correct Biblical interpretation, nor mass popularity as a formula for righteous leadership. Rather, love the Lord God with All your heart, All your mind, ALL your soul and All your strength and love your neighbor as you love your self and you will be acceptable to the Lord. The only faithful and totally true resource for knowing HOW to love God and HOW to love your neighbor is the Bible.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oooops! I just remembered one word: "overcoiffed."

    I guess that WAS uncalled for. Sorry.... But that's how those ladies look. You know they do.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "... diatribes?"

    Really? I don't think I've ever given a diatribe on this site. (And besides that, I think if I chose to give one, you would know it for sure! I have not even tried.)

    Does anyone rememeber what my posts were that were flagged. I'm sure they were not diatribes.

    What little, old church lady is flagging things here. Most flagged comments are others', not mine. Somebody is not old enough to be here, I think (at least, emotionally). Not being a smart alec there: I really believe that some oversensitive person is flagging many posters. That's OK, I guess. We can all live by the rules, nut I have never flagged anybody.

    Anybody remember what I might have said? Anybody willing to tell me?

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:43 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    Chris...

    Anyway if I'm wrong, I'll end up in 'Purgatory' where you can just pray me out.

    If you're wrong, you may hear such words as "Depart from Me, I never knew you".

    Catholicism is a lazy man's religious system...not requiring much introspection, bible study and it even supplies an alternate middle ground to Hell in the form of an unbiblical...'purgatory'...if THAT's is not a man-made doctine, I don't know what is.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:15 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    msn chris;

    No one who studies the Scriptures under the influence of the Holy Spirit will ever want the Catholic Church where idols are worshipped, Scripture not followed and a man is declared infallable and his words not questioned.

    You point to this Emerging/Emergent movement as typical of Protestianism because you think it makes your case.

    I used to be a Catholic and found no life it...life is in Jesus Christ alone. To add an overblown, man inspired system of belief and tradition to the saving Grace of Christ is to undermine the Gospel of Christ.

    "if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
    For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
    But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
    For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    Last I looked, the pope was just a man and not THE representative of Christ on earth at all.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:06 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 0

    Msn,

    (When all of you tire of this, the Catholic Church will be the Rock of Apostolic Christian Belief that you may cling to because only this church are all of Christ's promises held)

    And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Revelation 18:4).

    You are asking us to return but the Lord is telling us to come out . . .

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:02 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Seasoned with salt could mean that spoken truth will sometimes get into in sinful wounds and causing much irritation even when it is done with grace."

    Exactly right, forsaltnlight. Using salt will sting the wounds of sin...it gets the attention of the sinner. This is not what mtgburrell does in his diatribes; he's not salt he's just offensive in the natural sense. (I see he's been 'flagged' a lot, just on this thread alone.)

    Jesus was not sweet and nice as the world defines and expects Christians to be.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    Oh dear ole Ethridge in this article. Doesn't Ethridge realize that the "Watering down of Christianity" began with Sola Scriptura! Every person interpreting for themselves individually, rather than the Church collectively making a decision as the bible clearly shows how decisions were made.

    Mark Driscol is just another Martin Luther, but just 500 years later. You ought to hear how Driscol beligerantly speaks about Mainline Protestants, your ears would hurt. They all break away from each other, to emphasize their interpretation of Scripture.

    No where in scripture does it say anyone has the power or authority to interpret by themselves. They may test the scriptures against beliefs, but this is done as a collective Church with the hierarchy having the final say just like in the Scriptures, but not as a renegade individual.

    Sola Scriptura has and will continue to realize its deficit as denomination after denomination continue to pick and choose what they believe differently from the denomination they just left and so on and so on until it is fully watered down to a Dr. Phil style show that has reduced Christianity to a mere philosophy.

    When all of you tire of this, the Catholic Church will be the Rock of Apostolic Christian Belief that you may cling to because only this church are all of Christ's promises held. This Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ, will never falter not because of anything we do but because of what Christ does through His Church and the promises He gave her through Peter.

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "According to Etheridge, the Emerging Church movement – known for flexible methodology and efforts to be culturally relevant – seeks to glean the good from Christianity's past while painting a fresh picture of the faith today".

    This is so funny, we would say the same about Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Smith, Knox, etc, etc.

    Mark Driscol's church is a joke! He denies that anyone is even ordained to ministry unlike almost all Evangelicals. He denies so much of traditional protestantism and he loves making it up as he goes or how HE INTERPRETS the Bible, so that his Church can be EXTREMELY SEEKER FRIENDLY! They are so "Seeker Friendly" that basically you get 20 minutes of outlandish style music in an auditorium with a guy who stands up and tells you what he thinks the bible means for another 40 minutes.

    The constant "Watering down of Christianity" so that soon it bares no resemblance to TRUE CHRISTIANITY is something all Protestants are responsible for. With every division among you, you leave some part of belief behind as your new denomination takes on the beliefs of that particular pastor and so on and so on.

    But don't worry my friends, we Catholics and the Orthodox too will still be here to offer what true Apostolic Christianity to those who thirst for Truth.

  • Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Charming....and loving, too....

  • Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mtgburrell Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:35 pm
    Thanks, DP. I'll look into those links (but I don't think I'll be showing up at the front door of an emergent chuch any time soon).

    --------------------------------------------------------

    Nah, you'd rather just stay in one that is known to be APOSTATE already!

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    If your 8:44 post is accurate about the emergent church, it strikes even me as a silly basis for a congregation. As it is said, if a man believes in nothing, he will fall for anything.

    Thanks, DP. I'll look into those links (but I don't think I'll be showing up at the front door of an emergent chuch any time soon).

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church

    Good luck making heads or tails of it....

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Emerging:

    1) the Bible is the Word of God and is to be believed as written.

    2) Jesus expects us to repent of our sinful ways, die to self an live the new life Jesus wants you to live. He accepts you as a sinner and gives you the grace to repent of it.

    3) The Bible shapes your understanding of life

    4) Our relationship with Christ needs to be shared with hopeless people in a hopeless world.


    Emergent:

    1) The Bible has errors so you can choose what you think is correct.

    2) Jesus gives you salvation and forgiveness with no need to repent or change. He accepts you as you are so there is no need to change.

    3) The Bible is a good book written by men to help you understand God. Still, your understanding is a personal thing between you an God. What may be God's truth for you may not be God's truth for me.

    4) Religion is a personal thing which isn't worth getting someone angry over. Better to just let people believe what they want.

    Basically it's humanism which uses the Bible to somehow justify itself. Quite frankly, it's an insult to both Christianity and humanism....

    Rev 3:16 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Listen to Sermons by  
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links