Sadly I did not get the comments I was looking for after my first post, however I will still offer some of my thoughts in hope of others offering theirs. One thing is for certain. The Emerging church really has no true definition. Part of who they are is defined in their desire to not have a specific definition. However I have found common themes. The first is that they wish to be different then the Christian “church” cultures at which they live or grew up in become what the church is “supposed to be”. (I am in no way implying that this is a bad thing by using quotes. But I am saying that to try to become the way it is “supposed to be” is up to different interpretations and views.) The second is a desire to universally accept people and support them on their own spiritual journey, where ever that might lead. The third is to see the church take an active role in the lives of those they touch or are not directly touching through openness and advocating and living social justice.
Are any of these things wrong? Maybe not but I do fear the way in which it is being done, through leaving the current church and going out to start their own communities. I believe this is leading them down the same path for which they desire to move away from currently. Recognizing culture change is a very biblical thing to do to reach those around us with the message of Jesus, what worked 20 years ago may not work today and therefore it is valid to seek how to reach the cultural we are in. However in 20 years that cultural will change. Is it a good thing to see Christians have an exodus from the church every 20 years because people don’t believe in the current church any more? Or is it better to be unified, recognizing that Jesus said that the church is the hope of the world (that includes those that aren’t being culturally relevant) and work from within to bring about biblical changes. If there are changes to be made and problems to fix should we not use unity to strengthen, grow and change our communities instead of running and leaving those who love and worship the same God. The world sees how we act toward each other as much as they see the way we act toward them.
6 comments:
Good point b. weaver. So were all going to go talk to our local Catholic bishop tomorrow right? I will if you will. ; )
I am disappointed that your only response is an insulting comparison to Martin Luther. Martin Luther brought up issues to counter false teaching that were denying the power of Jesus’ payment for our sin (and others). His first intentions were for reform not for separation. It was a last choice for him. I read though his 95 Thesis and I fail to see a comparison between the reasons for the emerging church leaving that I listed and Martin Luther’s desire to counteract false teaching and bring about reform.
Here are just a few of his concerns. Somehow as I read though this I failed to see the comparison with what we are encountering in some churches in on part of the world and what Martin Luther was trying to do.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
So in all seriousness, this unity thing, the battle is long over. The EC is making a big splash, in part cause some are calling them heratics, but in reality it's not that big...yet. So what's a few more churches? I have a passion for 'functional' unity, working together for social justice, a reflection of the Gospel, but worshipping under the same roof or leadership...if were not "one holy catholic and appostalic church", which I'm kind of partial to, than who cares if its 3, 30, or 300.
That said, by all means, we need reformers within and without. The charasmatic thing is a good example. If there had never been any pentocostal churches, it's hard to see traditional fundamentalist transitioning away from a sesationist perspective and into a 'word and spirit' one. Yet for them to do so, obviously plenty of people had to stay in the conservative camps that 'got' the charamatic thing. Same thing with the EC, in the next 10-20 years you will see many of its elements adopted by more traditional churches of both a 'left' and 'right' nature.
That quip about joining the Catholic church, i'm only half kidding. I know three people here at fuller, two of whoem are good friends, that grew up evangelical, but have become Roman Catholic, in part because of the unity thing. It's hard to argue against. We left them, and ironically Vadican II brought them closer to us, so the ball is in our court. If ever there was real unity, it would have to be under the Roman Catholic flag...which I'm not about to join, so you won't find me complainging about unity.
Check href="http://blindbeggar.org/?p=153">this
Who wouldn't want to do it?
no, this, http://blindbeggar.org/?p=153
I checked out Blind Begger and had some good dialoge with him. He has good thoughts on this. It is a good post to check out.
http://blindbeggar.org/?p=153
Post a Comment