2008 and the Collapse of the Emerging Church

Could it be that some of the Emergent Church folk are straying a bit too far from biblical truth?

Yes, we constantly need new wineskins, and we need to get the message across to new generations in a new way that suits them, but (as Leonard Sweet puts it) the message doesn’t change.

It never will…

I am not sure if I am going way off the point here, but maybe this is the main danger that the Emergent movement should watch out for.

That is the one thing that could be our downfall…

I think the emergent “popular project” will have a longer tail than most people predict. Sure, those on the cutting edge today (the writers) might be moving off into new territory, even trying to distance themselves from the E word(s), but the books are still there, and dammit, emergent is a movement (sorry – conversation) built on passing books around. Because books don’t stand up in church and rebuke the pastor. They get passed around the back row until the people reading them leave looking for the utopian church they’ve been reading about. (Then, they realize that church doesn’t exist – at least not within driving distance – and they decide that they were OK without “Church” anyway.)

I find Kester’s views hard to ignore here. There seems to be a tendency among people to want to “brand” things as a way to better understand them, and to the extent that “Emergent” has become a sort of “brand,” it gets stale in a hurry.

I think that we are still at a stage where people are searching for new ways to make the Gospel relevant to their culture and times, but the idea that there is one accepted way to do so was a bit off from the start.

And no, I don’t feel that the re-evaluation of our faith and heritage that goes with “emergent” thought represents straying from “biblical truth,” assuming that you could even begin to manufacture a dichotomy between biblical and other forms of “truth.” To me, it’s always been more about finding answers to the “so what?” question.

I posted on Kester’s blog..

The language is behind the actions. It seems to me that the real problem is that things ARE happening. People involved have changed and grown, and SOME of the language is no longer useful in describing what is actually happening. As with the media, our descriptors define where we were, not what is really happening or about to happen. So a term as fluid and transforming as emerging[ent] starts to strangle what is actually happening. The fact that it has become a swear word for a large number of folks in NA doesn’t help either.

In my experience, one of the great things about emerging Christians is that their talking and actions are much more balanced. Honestly there is a lot more talking, books, articles coming from entrenched and ‘figured it all out’ Christians than there is from the emerging questioners.

The desire to want things to happen is also a very different thing in the lives of Christians who most of the time just want things to stay comfortable and judge from a distance.

I’m sure at some point the term will fall into disuse, but i don’t think the Spirit is relenting. Things have only begun to happen.

the emerging church is not a rejection of scripture, not a commodity or brand name, it’s certainly an experiment – but are we all taking about the same experiment?

turn your world upside down. unlearn everything you know. rebuilt from the bottom up. anything scripted or top down down is a relic of the old form.

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

we’ve finally gotten to the point where we’ve fully deconstructed the reformation (taken it to its logical conclusion) – and fully claimed the priesthood of all believers. this experiment is far from over…

I’ve also posted on this subject this morning, offering some thoughts on “the big picture” of issues pertaining to “rises and falls” within certain sectors of the Body of Christ. I’m reminded of Rob Bell’s words on that larger issue: “She is a mystery, isn’t she? Still going after all this time. After the Crusades and the Inquisition and Christian cable television. Still going. And there continue to be people like me who believe she is one of the best ideas ever. In spite of all the ways she has veered off track. In spite of all the people who have actually turned away from God because of what they experienced in church…But she will live on. She’s indestructible. When she dies in one part of the world, she explodes in another. She’s global. She’s universal. She’s everywhere. And while she’s fragile, she’s going to endure. In every generation there will be those who see her beauty and give their lives to see her shine. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against her. That’s strong language. And its’ true. She will continue to roll across the ages, serving and giving and connecting people with God and each other. And people will abuse her and manipulate her and try to control her, but they’ll pass on. And she will keep going.”

To see the entire post, go to http://parablesofaprodigalworld.blogspot.com/2008/01/on-predictions-of-collapse-of-emerging.html

Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian

Sorry about the double comment (now triple, I guess).

I think he is saying in 2008, There Will Be Blood.

When working for a large software company in the late 90’s, e-business was all the rage. Every one wanted to position themselves as an ‘e-business’. A very savvy marketing type suggested that over time, the only businesses that survived would be ‘e-businesses’ and the label would then be redundant.
In the same way, as the number of churches deal with the change in approach, emergent will be redundant and it may just be ‘church’.

I don’t feel that people are tired of the emerging conversation, but rather the incessant attacks of its dissenters. The opposition cannot stand for an organic conversation without leaders—especially when they feel so threatened by it. They will continue to declare an “Emergent Church Movement” and blacklist whoever they discern to be a leading voice.

While that may leave some wanting to distance themselves, I feel that it is from the attacks and the baggage associated with some terminology—not from the conversation itself.

As I said in my post, I feel that there would be more success in intentionally unpacking the definitions within the conversation. I feel this would help people seeking understanding, while at the same time leaving those who wish to attack with less ammunition.

Don’t you think this already happened?

Atleast how he explained it. I don’t have time for being told I have “strayed” too far from biblical truth! I don’t have time for being told I am a heretic or that I am unorthodox, or I am whatever else the label “emerging” gets me labeled, so I have just moved forward.

I still think the same thoughts and practice things in new ways and do things in different ways and I don’t really care whether or not someone thinks I might or might not have a proper view of the truth?

I am tired/bored/over this and have moved beyond participating in that argument/debate. Why get labeled “emerging” when it means all the baggage? I can read all the books and engage all this stuff without dirtying my clothes. I have a church to pastor anyway.

First of all how convenient to make a silly prediction. Second, of course what matters is the actual practices of emerging churches. Most of the conversation hype revolves not around people and communities that are practicing it, but those who are outsiders looking in.

Perhaps we should get a new “label” and continue to be a moving target.

I suppose it’s just a discussion of the language employed to identify and understand this movement or conversation. It hardly means that the movement dies, but that those engaged in it or in the conversation about it will further try to clarify and challenge as the movement grows. I discovered it about 2 years ago, so have less trouble as of yet with the term, though I recognize the limitation of any labels as they naturally cannot capture the dynamism, complexity, and variability of this sort of thing. I think large cultural changes, not just within Protestant Christianity, are afoot that have reached enough of a critical mass to begin to occur. As an example I cite the nomination of Barack Obama by an overwhelming margin in which the size of the Democratic turnout increased from 120k in 2004 to roughly 220k yesterday.

Emerging Church? New ways to present the gospel? All these big new fangled words like “unpack” and “organic conversation”. Why don’t you all get on your faces and beg God to forgive you all, and forget about all these other books and start reading The Book. I don’t know how I stumbled on this thing. Does anyone on here know about The Holy Spirit? Oh and that God chooses who will be saved, not these characters like Rick Warren in Hawaiian shirts.

Thank you Deb you make me wonder if God knew what He was doing picking shepherds and astrologers over the people of the Book to herald HIS GLORIOUS APPEARING then I look at the throne and realise it is already occupied not by me not by you and I bow in awe before Him

I’m with you Deb. This seems to be part of the emergent mind-set – being a “person of the Book” apparently is not seen as a noble thing. That’s post-modernism for you – being uncertain, being vague and being in conversation on truth rather than convinced of it is the new humility, the new virtuousness. You stay on track, girl, the road is narrow and few will find it.

About the demise of whatever emergent is, like John MacArthur says, if it has nothing to do with scripture, nothing to do with God, it will not last. In this day of media mania, these fads burn out all the quicker.

I’m with you also, Deb. Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). I view that statement as good news. It is the end of confusion. It is the end of ambiguity. It is the end of wishy-washy postmodernist ideas. It is simply good news! When I became a Christian it was a relief and a joy to finally know the truth about God, to know who He is, to understand His nature, and to walk in His will thru His indwelling Spirit. The issue is that the leaders of the Emergent Movement are promoting notions of salvation by means other than by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. Jesus’ exclusive claim is, quite simply, a source of embarrassment their to universalist ideas.

I am new to this site and was becoming very alarmed…until I read Deb’s post and those that have supported her view since.

God always knows who is humble before Him, no matter what station they hold in this life and Doug hit the mark when he pointed out that salvation by any other means than the way simply put forth in the Word leads to destruction. It’s really not that complicated and there should be nothing left for us to build…we are just to stand on what Jesus has already built.

A reply to Deb, Shang, Layla, Doug and Kaye:

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

My heart is warmed by the words that you’ve written, and saddened by the tone in which you’ve written them. Yes, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life; yes, the Book is our source; and yes, salvation is by grace through faith alone. But it troubles me to sense the subtle tone of anger rising up through your words when your fellow brothers and sisters strive, by conversation, to struggle to grasp the fullness of those human phrases, driven by nothing more than the desire to know the fullness of the living God revealed in Jesus Christ. Should we not instead rejoice in the conversation, one that began some 2,000 years ago, a conversation that litters the pages of the Book we cherish? Do we not trust the Spirit to guide that conversation, to lead us to clearer and fuller understanding of He who is the Truth? Must we alsways shudder and fear and react with anger when we see conversation steering in wider directions, rather than engaging in it, in love, and by the Spirit doing our part to guide it back to where it must go? Yes, Jesus said He is the Truth, but he also strove to communicate that Truth through, among other things, conversation; conversation with those that were both near and far to that Truth, in love; not choking His listeners with Truth, but gently nudging them, through parables, through mysterious riddles to answer His baffling actions, TRUSTING that the seeds He sowed, though some would be quelched, would multiply, thirty-fold, sixty-fold, a hundred-fold. Please understand, my brothers and sisters, that our fellow brothers and sisters are not in essence talking about our Lord, but about the face and character of His church, His body, His people, and that conversation arose because they were greatly troubled with the direction that that body was taking, as was Paul, as was Luther. May the conversation never die, and may His disciples never fear it.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

Deb and friends: Please remember that the Scribes and Pharisee’s were “well versed” in the Word yet they refused to recognize or accept the Living Word because they were too vested in accepted interpretations and their power which was rooted in fear and insecurity. Deb and friends..What are you really afraid of that you feel threatened by a relationship with the person of God rather than the symbols for Him?

Jesus Christ as our Righteousness and Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone to the glory of God alone is mutually exclusive to all other religions on the planet. The emergence of the confluence of all religions bringing “the kingdom of God” into existence is a lie from the pit of hell. The common denominator of rejecting the Atonement as the means of our justification has always been the tell-tale sign of the evil inherent in the “emergent movement.”
Praise God that some Christian leaders are waking up to the delusion and are taking a stand for Christ and His righteousness alone as our salvation!

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

I do find it interesting that this topic brought out more comments than anything else. Sure seems to reveal at least some concern for the terms – whether positive or negative. Seems somewhat revealing.

Perhaps this stems from people being tired of getting labeled. I think churches would be better off to just be the church and not get so caught up in identifying themselves as emergent, non-emergent, etc. Does it really matter? Does the public really care? Does the public (especially those outside the emergent movement) even have any idea of what is meant by the term anyway?

If you read all of the fundamental evangelical apologetic sites they warn of the heresy that is emergent. They say that if you go to any of the emergent blogs you will see that they have no tolerance for evangelicals and don’t treat them kindly. It’s funny that I never see any negative things on any of the emergent blogs until all of the evangelicals ambush the blog with angry tirades!!! I get the sense that a lot of us who were/are in the evangelical camp have the attitude that “I know the truth…I accepted the truth…now I know I’m going to Heaven.” That’s good for you. But what about all the people who are still trying to work out their salvation while being trashed by supposed enlightened brothers and sisters who could and should be encouraging these people of the truth in love. I think Raffi’s post is right on the mark. I’m sick of the bickering and holier than thou attitudes(On both sides!!). I have been an evangelical my whole life and find certain aspects of the emerging church very refreshing. But it is a diverse group with wide views and opinions. Some I don’t have a problem with and some I do. But is there a major problem with having a dialog about it with out people getting bent? Somehow, I believe that this can be a good thing.

Movements don’t collapse; they stall. The life-cycle is well-known: 1)a man 2)a mission 3)a movement 4)a monument. I don’t believe that the Emerging Church will mineralize in 2008.

I appreciate all the comments that have been shared here. I think they’ve revealed the very polarizing nature that “emerging” and “Emergent” have taken on over the past year or so. Obviously some people are coming to the conversation with some very formed negative opinions of it (based on John MacArthur, etc.), and I’d just ask those who might be coming here with that bent to spend a little time looking around at some of the other blog posts/podcast/links/etc. to find out what this whole Emergent/emerging thing is really about.

As Raffi said earlier, it is grieving to my heart as well that some people can have such negative opinions about something as Spirit-led and life-giving as this conversation/movement has been for me in my experience (and many others I’ve come in contact with)—often without investigating it for themselves and only going off the opinions and (mis)understandings of others.

So, needless to say, the “emerging”/”Emergent” language still seems to be helpful for some of us, but for many it is just extra baggage (loaded with unhelpful/false meaning).

The language is extremely helpful for me. It’s all still very fresh; and inspiring. I’m thinking of Tim Keel’s book in particular.

I sense the Spirit in the movement. I’m upset by all of the dissonance; but not surprised. I understand where MacArthur is coming from. That doesn’t mean I agree with him—I do not—it simply means that I can appreciate his perspective. I “get” what he doesn’t get about the emerging church; and I’m quite certain he never will. I believe that this is because he is unable (not just unwilling) to see God at work in this particular situation.

Allow me to share a comment I received just yesterday from a well respected leader in a mainline denomination: “I have read almost everything Brian McLaren has written and I appreciate him deeply. I have to be careful to whom I confess this, but it is true. Most of the problems I have heard in relation to the emerging church, etc. have to do with ideological matters and not biblical or theological matters. I will also observe that even if the proponents of this “movement” are wrong about some things, and who isn’t wrong about some things, I resonate with the spirit with which they make their assertions (at least this is true of McLaren). Many of our people (this goes for the whole conservative evangelical movement in N.A.) could benefit spiritually from a careful noting of the manner and spirit he exhibits, especially when responding to sharp criticism, and then asking the Holy Spirit to help them reflect the Spirit of Jesus as well.”

The emerging church movement is alive and well; and gaining momentum. It has silent, prayerful support in unexpected places. Your grace under fire is a seen by many as a sign of authenticity.

Comming from Australia I find the North American obsession with being right and skirmishing over semantics as strange and saddening. How easily we are distracted from the journey of life, faith and mission. Is this just another variation of the medieval argument of How many angels fit on the head of a needle. Such a waste of passion, faith and journeying grace. Spare me from the ‘right-us’, and bless me with inquisitive heretics Lord. Some deep breaths Brian….Emerging is exactly that. If it morphs into localized names and missions, hurray. In fact i would argue that an emerging church is at risk if its defined by a name or faith journey that doesn’t have significant local community engagement. I would argue that emerging churches are not branch offices but uniquely local expresion of a universal desire for relevant kingdom practices and values emerging from the soup of the local community. The imposition of some universal Mc Truth devalues our journeying and the grace of God. I am excited and emboldened by the incubators of new expressions of mission in all their forms. Courage and grace folks, we are an impressionist project of God

The church, as a way of designating communities of Christ’s followers, is over. The reason new movements continue to sprout up then wither is they are operating on an archaic paradigm – i.e. churches. The Jerusalem believers attempted to carry on the Israel paradigm. Paul abandoned the concept of a redeemed Israel and built a Gentile church.

The Reformed church continued the notion of Christendom, but even Luther admitted he couldn’t find the people to populate a church genuinely devoted to imitating Christ. The Anabaptists dedicated themselves to following Christ’s example rather than creeds. They divorced the community of believers from the State.

What is currently playing out is various attempts to revive a dying paradigm, the church. What will take its place? I predict it will not be a new label!

Wow. This was certainly an interesting conversation, not only on the theme of the original post but on the sub-issues that were raised within the commentary. I’ve posted some summary thoughts on the entire discussion at my site this morning, for anyone who might be interested. Again, thanks to all who chimed in. I’ve certainly learned a lot.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi Shahinian
www.Parablesofaprodigalworld.com

Deb, Layla, Doug, Kaye and Michael,

Thank you for posting with boldness the truth, surely knowing that it would not be the popular belief on this blog.

Raffi Shahinian, I think you need to be a little less defensive. You accuse the Bible believing Christians above of being angry, because they know what they believe and state it with conviction.

Do you know what you believe? Can you state it in a few short sentences? Can you state it with conviction, or is it still “emerging”.

With all due respect, with some research I still can’t find what the “Emerging Church” believe. I read somewhere that you don’t have any set beliefs because it is still “emerging”. Is this true? Again, can someone explain what you believe in a few short sentences?

If this is some great emerging movement, why is the name dying, why does it have to keep renaming itself? To deflect criticism, to stay hidden under the radar? Sounds like many in the movement are ashamed of the label, perhaps the movement. You never need to be ashamed of the Gospel!

The Gospel of Christ is not hard to understand, it was/is the perfect plan to salvation and to a personal relationship with God. I am saved, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, His Holy Spirit lives within me – what else could I possibly need, or want?

Listen, I do believe that God still moves today, I believe He is getting ready to do something great and I want to be involved in it. I will also test any new thing against God’s Word (The Bible) and see if it lines up with His word. If it’s contrary to His word, I will reject it.

I sense too many contradictions in the emerging church compared to God’s word to accept it. I state “sense” because “emerging beliefs” seem to be all over the place, which is another reason to reject it (thank you Holy Spirit).

Please people, be careful. The Bible states there will be many deceivers in the last days.

Michael:

Perhaps its providential that you have the same name as my son, because I get the feeling that this may be the start of a beautiful friendship. There are so many issues you laid before me, I think we could have a long and edifying conversation.

But to get the ball rolling, and off the top of my head, no, I absolutely couldn’t condense what I believe to a few short sentences. I could, and those sentences would be true, but they would reduce the majesty of everything I believe. Those shorthand sentences serve a purpose for me, especially in a conversation with a true believer such as yourself, inasmuch as we can communicate beautifully huge concepts in shorthand terms, but I would never say that the shorthand terms themselves constitute the length and breadth of what I believe. I, too, am saved, have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and His Holy Spirit lives within me, but I can write a book about what those three truths mean in their rich fullness.

Anyway, like I said, I hope to keep up the conversation with you, of which this would just be the first exchange, I pray. And I think that’s kind of the whole point, here.

Peace be with you, my brother, and maybe we can keep this going over at my blog, www.parablesofaprodigalworld.blogspot.com (shameless plug, I know).

Raffi Shahinian

To enuring1; Paul did not build a gentile church. Jesus said ,... I will build MY church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matt 16:18. The church is both Jew & gentile, one Body. Eph 2:14; 3:6. (read all of Eph.

To Joyce – Thanks for your input. Eph does illustrate my point. While the Jerusalem believers viewed Jesus ministry as Messianic and aimed at Israel, Paul received the mystery, or revelation, that God was creating a new organization of his people which did not depend on Israel. This new organization became known by the greek word for church. However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, so he didn’t use this word in the quote from Matt. He may have used an Aramaic word for congregation or assembly, or something else. Whatever he said, his followers at the time believed it was consistent with the notion that he was here to redeem Israel. The Gentile Jewish ‘church’ was a surprise.

In the industrialized West, and perhaps the world, a new organization of people committed to God is taking place. My blog http://enuring1.wordpress.com/ chronicles this paradigm shift from church to network.

Two thoughts on Kester’s impending collapse of the emerging church movement. Lord, help me do this without any snarky adjectives.

1. Within the non-denom charismatic evangelical space, brand names have arisen, often based on a popular senior pastor or flagship church, which serve almost as de facto denominations (DFDs) within that space. Millions of dollars and the careers of some powerful religious professionals are riding on their continued success. What I expect to see from the DFDs before long is very focused websites with stunning graphics, engaging content and names that go viral almost the moment you hear them, all of which will essentially say “we’re not re-thinking anything, least of all the way we ‘do church’, but we have learned how to look hip and sound sensitive, and if you’ll stick with us we promise to make you feel as radical and revolutionary as those other guys.”

2. The various movements we call the ‘emerging church’ or ‘new monasticism’ or ‘missional’ or what-have-you may well be just different manifestations or expressions of the same stirrings that are going on in minds and hearts across the land. If I may riff on Gamaliel, if the movements we’re seeing are something cooked up by man, then they likely will fail and may well deserve to. But if God has created these stirrings in people’s minds and hearts, if God is doing something new in this generation that is all about putting the teachings of Jesus and the values of the Kingdom at the core of a new model of Christianity for our time, then I would no more predict its impending collapse than I would stand on the tracks when the Metro is coming.

“So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.” – I Corinthians 3:7

What amazes me most is that the emergent side is so proud of being the ‘new’ message of the ‘old’ way, as if it needed rephrasing.
What amazes me further is that the Evangelical side is not pointing out that the ‘Emergent Church’ is the current phase of the end-time world deception taught in your Bibles in Matthew 24.
It’s not a small, new view, but a darkly laid plan, fully Biblical, but alas, Luciferian.
By the way…the emerging bunch will clear out anyone by force who gets in their way…just as prophesied.
And the rest of you…do the research, Biblical, and Emergent.

What amazes me most is that the emergent side is so proud of supposedly being the ‘new’ packaging of the ‘old’ way, as if it needed rephrasing.

What amazes me further is that the Evangelical side is not pointing out that the ‘Emergent Church’ is the current phase of the end-time world deception taught in your Bibles in Matthew 24.

It’s not a small, new view, but a darkly laid plan, fully Biblical, but alas, Luciferian.

By the way…the emerging bunch will clear out anyone by force who gets in their way…just as prophesied.

Both Sides:Do the appropriate research, Biblical, and Emergent.

Here in Australia, the term Emergent is still in it’s novelty phase. My fear is that people will simply tag their church as ‘emergent,’ throw some candles and mood lighting around and then assume that they too are now part of the ‘conversation.’ Those who are genuinely wanting to promote the gospel in their communities may very well shun the emergent deal in order to create a widening gap between themselves and the new trend-based groups.

Just a thought really…

But then again – that being said. We’re starting a new church later this year and whilst I think I want to embrace the changing mediums that emergent promotes, I wouldn’t want to openly suggest ‘heck yes, we’re emergent!’ – the cynical in our community might pre-judge as a result.

When someone like Doug Pagitt says in his Solomon’s Porch church video that he doesn’t think Christians should be about distubing people who don’t want to be disturbed, he’s proving he has either lost his saltiness or never had it to begin with.

How can one be a light in darkness, or salt in the earth, unless that involves waking people up? The light may hurt their eyes at first, but only then will they see the way to God. I was attracted to the Emergent/Missional churches, as a new Christian, until I read God’s Word and saw that this present earth is passing away and will be burnt up, along with all it’s works (2 Peter 3;10-11). The Emergent movement is all about changing this present world and ushering in the Kingdom of God on the earth now, along with social justice. Jesus very clearly said that His Kingdom was NOT of this earth (John 18:16). We are not to love the world or the things of the world. The Emergent movement is not that picky. They want to serve two masters, but again, Christ says you can only pick one (Luke 16:13).

Theologue,

You say “I think I want to embrace the changing mediums that emergent promotes”, but you are afraid to do so lest someone should pre-judge you. If you were convinced that the Emergent message was truth, why would you be ashamed of it or worried about what anyone thought about it? This is exactly the error of the Emergents: they worry too much about being impotent by taking a stand for anything. The idea is to entice anyone and embrace everything marginal and unoffensive. Haven’t you Emergent types read the Bible? The gospel IS offensive and must needs be if it is to work (Romans 9:33). Oh, wait! You guys pick and choose what the Bible says….sorry to assume you may give God’s Word any real weight. McLaren certainly doesn’t have a clue what he believes. I mean, have you actually read his inconsistent messages and the inherent self-contradictions he espouses? Then again, you probably have, and are clueless as well.

Scott refers to the comments by those who disagree as “angry tirades”. How so? I am not angry and I didn’t get the impression that anyone commenting here was! The only thing being said against Emergent ideas was based on the Word of God. Give us some scriptural proof that what anyone said, who is counter-emergent, is un-scriptural.

Prodigal,

Please excuse my presumption, but as you go about the world giving clues to the clueless, please remember that Jesus never actually said His kingdom was not “of this world.” He said His kingdom was not “from” (or, more literally, that it did not “originate from”) this world. The original Greek word is “ek,” which does not mean “of,” but “from.”

Let those who have ears hear.

Prodigal,

I must say your passion is a joy. I too often wonder about the efficacy of the Emergent movement particularly in its reticence when speaking of the salvific work of Christ.

Although I must say that it is important to take careful stock of what we say and how we react especially when speaking about the words of our LORD. There are translation breakdowns of course, but to also be aware of how our own views and our own sinfulness interfere with a true understanding. I like what you say about being willing to disturb, but at the same time I don’t think the faith is meant to disturb others. I wonder if it is meant to disturb us. We are called to love our neighbor and to change our behavior. I wonder if we might be inadvertently going against the wishes for Christ, by not concerning ourselves with how we might disturb others. This is one of the great things about the emergent movement because they are so conscious of it.

At the end of the day the only concern that we need to be left with I think is how well did we love our LORD by loving our neighbor?

Raffi,
I will forgive your presumption; but, I will also ask you to consider that every word for word translation (that I’m aware of) translates John 18:36 as saying “My kingom is not of this world” and the only “thought for thought” translation that differs is the NiRV, so even though “ek” can mean “from”, that doesn’t disprove the point that Jesus was obviously making in the context. If you are not from Minnesota you are also not of Minnesota, etc.

Jon,
I rely on Christ’s Word to be true, so I take what He says literally.

As for the message being more about disturbing us than our neighbor, I agree we are not to make them miserable or harangue them. But, Christ was very plain in saying “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)and the banquet parable, which was about the Jews rejecting Christ, He says we are to compel people to come into the Kingdom.

The Kingdom is the Ark of the New Covenant which people must enter into to escape the wrath that is coming on this present world (Romans 2).

Your argument is vaguely scriptural, but remember that Christ made a definite point that we are to:
1. be the light of the world and not to hide it away
2. be salt on the earth (a preservative or a deterrent)
3. preach (or proclaim) the gospel to every creature and nation.

and that the gospel would be a stumbling block or folly to those who don’t believe it (1 Corinthians 1:23)

Can’t do or be any of those things if we stay quiet and try not to disturb anyone.

I’m not great at preaching or proclaiming, but I do try to be loving and kind in a way that will glorify God and shine a light into this darkened world and keep my words clean and considerate of others.

Words, eh? Who’d have ‘em?

What I didn’t put in my post was a prediction of the “impending collapse of the emerging church movement.” Nor did this post begin with a challenge for Em’s and Ev’s to get the knives out with each other.

I think the original spirit of what I’d meant in the prediction is closest to Theologue’s comment that “My fear is that people will simply tag their church as ‘emergent,’ throw some candles and mood lighting around and then assume that they too are now part of the ‘conversation.’”

And you know what, too many Ev’s are Ev’s by label only too. Not by Spirit. Every side suffers it. Jesus had a word for people who loved to gas on about things but missed the spirit of them. Pharisees was the most polite and accurate. Some of the others were less nice.

Kester,

Does your prediction consider the increased interest in the conversation generated by the more mainline denominations?

Michael and Unique Web Rev:
Well said.

To all: 2 Timothy 4: 3-4
Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the truth.