A great example of why I gravitate to this blog.

Now I’m part of church that is trying to replace the kookiness of barking like a dog with readings from a lectionary, replace mass media presentations and oil changes in the parking lot with communion. Our church is way too small to have gone anywhere near the above, but it’s what we see and don’t want any part of.

The thought I try to hold while riding the pendulum of reform and counter-reform is to not throw out too many babies in this batch of bathwater. I would like to have the experience of the awe inspiring, soul-stirring presence of the Holy Spirit (the “HOLY Ghost” to my southern Pentecostal friends) while rightly receiving the sacrament of communion. Hopefully this isn’t another form of syncretism (right word?), but a desire to know AND experience all of God.

Hopefully a little more on topic: identifying the babies we don’t want to throw out while trying to get rid of the crud we’re trying to wash off – that’s a toughie!

God has brought many people to himself through printed materials (see Bill Piper’s ROGMA ministries). God has also brought many people to himself through church marketing, advertisement, and technology – including podcasts).

There’s nothing inherently evil about making money. Especially if that money gets filtered into church missions.

Jesus drew huge crowds using miracles (the main attention grabber of that age).

Also have to say that I’m disappointed for the first time as a result of listening to or reading your stuff (esp. your reply to Henry (Rick) Frueh). Seemed really “bitting” or maybe you were just kidding (which if this is the case please forgive me).

My understanding of the origins of the EM is that it started with a growing dsicontenment with the modern evangelical church. To their dredit they usually eschew tghe “health and wealth” teaching, and our reisitant to the “mega-church” model as well including the church growth strategies.

They have moved into a “post-modern” cummunication style of teaching which means using words unfamiliar to historic Christianity to define and descibe doctrinal issues. Even the ones who are more orthodox (i.e. Kimball, Driscoll, McKnight, etc) embrace a wider parameter of religious practices and thoughts from places like the Roman Catholic Church which would normally be eschewed by others.

Within the movement they still allow for an almost non-descript view of Biblical doctrine, and the “conversation” seems to be the one lynchpin that hold it together. Again, it is mercurial and not well defined on purpose and those in the movement enjoy the nebulousness of their movement. Many of us would have been attracted to the movement if they had sought to break up the stagnation, materialism, and doctrinal pride of the broader western church.

However, along with their admirable journey to meet humantitarian needs came dcotrinal changes, some with very dangerous implications. There does seem to be an effervescence for the new and a repulsion for the old, unless the old is rebirthed as new. With respect for this blog I will just say the EM movement has many dangerous qualities that may eventually prove devastating to our understanding of God’s redemptive plan.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

urban otter:

My initial reaction to your question is simply that emerging church people are dissatisfied and dissillutioned by, I suppose, the evangelical church. I find myself in a lot of ways in that camp, although I think the proper way of conducting a Christian life is not new, but is barricaded by falsity of person. So perhaps that is where the emerging folks are coming from; they are trying to “restore” an authentic Christianity, but maybe they’re trying to hard? See, its hard to use terms like “they” because there is a lot of diversity within any group, so I don’t want to stereotype. Anyway, I was about to get more off topic, but I’ll shut up now.

Mr. Frueh,

Is there an accurate and authoritative website that can explain the theology of the Emerging Movement?

I have read McLaren’s Jesus Creed, found here:
http://www.brianmclaren.net/emc/archives/resources/the-jesus-creed.html

I don’t see anything new here other than substituting “have confidence in” for “believe in. The rather important part of Jesus being the second person of the Trinity, completely God and completely man, has been left out. Why?

I’ve read other McLaren’s posts and have yet to see any new theology. Perhaps it’s there and I haven’t run across it yet (but there’s only so much time in the day).

After reading Mr. Spencer’s article and the comments, I’m left with the impression that the emerging movement does not consider the fact that people have been thinking about Christianity for 2000 years now. The movement doesn’t consider the possibility that somebody, somewhere, might have already hit upon what the gospel means and the identity and purpose of the church. Is this impression accurate? If so, why does the emerging movement believe that everything that has come before is wrong? What criteria are they using to determine that they are on the right track?