Ministry and the Emergent Church

Over the last few years there has been a great deal talk about the Emergent Church and recently I was directed to a video on the issue as I visited another site I enjoy reading:

10 Signs You May Have Entered the Emergent Church Zone

Now the fact remains that the Emergent church is a reaction to traditional church. The belief that we have entered a new era where ministry in the post modern world. My article here is to engage this video in relationship to effective ministry. I simply ask the question is the video accurate and does the Emergent Church have a point.

1. Doctrinal Statements are a good thing but I myself have seen doctrinal statements get completely out of hand. When you are defining what being a Christian is and you leave no room for variance of opinion at all you have gone to far. There is a central core of Christian doctrine that all churches subscribe too but it is often the extras that break Christian fellowship and in that regard the Emergent Church is right on. The Emergent Church is funny this way, I admit: they do have statements on how not to make doctrine to big a deal but they still define their views on the Bible, the trinity, etc. But may that is their point -- "In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things charity.

2. Polemics refers to an aggressive attack on the opinions of another group or person. I hate to say it that the Emergent church has a point on this one -- I have seen Christian Brother divide against one another because of this problem -- when we get so involved in in being Right that we forget to love one another and allow for differences of opinion we are not really following Christ anymore. I have no problem with engaging other people's ideas to test them to see if they are right (See my Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs series), I do have a great deal of problem with Spirit it is usually done in. At the end of the day, I still want to go out and sit with my Christian brother or sister and have dinner and friendship.

3. Like the third comment -- commercialism is often attacked but it is amazing how many churches do so and then advertise their church in the paper. That however is not simply a Emergent Church problem, it hits a lot of others as well.

4. The fourth point the video makes is a good one. The Emergent Church's problem is that irrelevancy often is more important to them than anything -- including the plain statements made by Scripture. Evangelism in such churches is often watered down to what God does for me, instead of what God asks of me.

5. I am not sure the guy on this point is right. 'Living incarnationally' means to live like Christ. It is a reaction to the character of many Christians who know their faith but don't live it in their daily lives. It means to not only know how Christ lives, but model it in your own lives. Sorry the guy is overgeneralizing on this one.

6. Not sure in this one, the point he is making is confusing. He should define his terms a little better.

7. Good point, but not all Emergent Churches do this, another overgeneralizing point.

8. I do not see this as a problem. The fact is theology without relationships is dry and dead (See Revelation 2:1-7) but relationship without theology is nothing but feel good nonsense. If a church argues theologically for relationship and can do so with the Scriptures how are they wrong? This question has been around long before the Emergent Church.

9. I like this one, but I have not really met an emergent church person who does this in truth. It seems to be an attack by their critics but I have yet to see and example of it myself.

10. I think the emergent churches point on propositional understanding of Scripture is actually more of a point involving how this is only one facet of interpretation. I propositional understand Scripture but i don't stop there. I also ask the question how it applies to my relationship to God. The fact is not all truth is prepositionally attained or understood. I don't reject this as a method, but it also has its limits -- kind of like logic.

All this said I like the video and enjoyed some of its points. I just think at times it over generalizes. When you present the views of someone you are arguing against you should be more accurate with what they actually say and do.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 1 -- The First Line May Tell All.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; ..."

There is something about the actual written title of a book that usually tells something about its contents. There is something too this in this book called Revelation

1. This book is ultimately, first and foremost, designed to reveal Jesus Christ. The future is a secondary and simply the place in which Jesus will reveal himself, but it is the revelation of Christ itself that the book says is central to its contents.

2. This book was given to anyone who calls himself a bond-servant of Christ. This makes it have a universal application to anyone who wants Christ revealed to them in the now.

3. Jesus promises to reveal himself in the future and it is in this revelation that Christ will show more of himself.

What is not stated here is that the contents of the book are a revealing of seven year time period called by evangelicals the Tribulation or the Millennium that follows. What it does say is about what 'things which must soon take place'. 'Soon' is a very relative word. 'Soon' to who? The book already looks at time in a relative way right out the gate. What's to make us think the whole time frame of the book is not also relative. Some thing taking place quickly and then huge gaps of time between other events. It also opens up the possibility that some of the contents may be very symbolic with nothing to do with time at all. They may just reveal a greater understanding about Jesus Christ.

Next: The Blessing of Understanding

Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter Two

This week I really want to make headway on Bart Ehrman's God's Problem so prepare yourself for six posts in a row.

I do have many agreements with chapter 2 -- Sinner's in the Hands of an Angry God

1. I agree that some suffering is caused by God -- not all mind you but there is an indication that God causes disaster and the suffering and death that may be associated with it. Some Christians have a dualism that says God only good things and the devil bad -- this is not what the Bible says.

2. I agree that most Christians do not understand or respect the fact that prophets in the old testament were speaking primarily to their own times. Many people, particularly my evangelical brethren, like to see "US" in the prophets and that in probably in many cases not truth. The fact is much interpretation of prophetic Scriptures by current Christians is in deed egotistical. That is, it is me and my generation centered. I think it stems from a very poor and western understanding of prophecy as a kind of long term crystal ball -- problem -- these interpretations are often very wrong.

3. There is a large school of thought in Scripture that suffering is a result of God's punishment. Sin and you will be punished and judgment will fall.

Next: Disagreements with chapter 2

Why I Am An Evangelical.

Evangelical -- "Emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual"

One could probably throw in the drive to fulfill the Great commission with this as well.

I have been an evangelical all my life, but that is not why I have remained one all this time. It is a question of passion. I am an evangelical because I firmly believe that the gospel is the cure to mankind's sin, not just a a cover up or just helping people cope with the sin they have, but THE cure.

The basic thing about evangelicalism is passion to present this cure to whoever will listen because it fulfills the Great Commission.

Now a lot of things a have been added to the idea of being an evangelical that might be about being right politically or having a certain morality, but at its heart it is about preaching the gospel and that is Biblical and more needed than ever given the state of our society.

The problem I have with most so called evangelicals is it seems to be more about being an evangelical in morality and politics. I often wonder if evangelicals would spend more time preaching the gospel and less time in political an moral action we might not NEED to spend as much time in political and moral action because then we would be affecting the cure to sin rather than just covering up the symptoms.

I am not against Christian's being involved politically -- I am, but when that takes precedence over being concern over people's eternity I think the focus is wrong.

Next: Why I Am a Pentecostal
Previous: Why I Am a Conservative Christian